This is what "growth hacking" really looks like today...
1. Manipulate a non-perfect signal-to-noise ratio ranking scheme with the most traffic (PageRank/EdgeRank)
2. Gain massive popularity
3. Sell your business to a greater fool
4. Ranking scheme changes rendering your model worthless
Demand Media, Zynga, Socialcam, etc. etc. ....and now BuzzFeed. The list goes on and on. The winners are the investors and the ones creating the ranking themselves, no one else.
Buzzfeed made hay as a bottom-feeder. They're now continuing the bottom feeding, with an occasional nugget thrown in.
I don't care to encourage what they've done, nor do I care to go through the crap to find the gold.
They've got negative brand equity. I reject them with extreme prejudice.
tl;dr Original content is the new aggregation growth-hack but can't replace a lack of ethics.
It's simply time away from Facebook, since that's what they can measure.
What in the world do the other 20% want?
If you build that plugin, I'd use it (if it's for Firefox).
And that's why I don't use facebook.
One way is to look at how long people spend reading an
article away from Facebook. If people click on an article
and spend time reading it, it suggests they clicked
through to something valuable. If they click through to a
link and then come straight back to Facebook, it suggests
that they didn’t find something that they wanted. With
this update we will start taking into account whether
people tend to spend time away from Facebook after
clicking a link, or whether they tend to come straight
back to News Feed when we rank stories with links in them.
The same metric could be used for the web app too, in lieu of other sophisticated tracking code. Someone in the other thread mentioned that this would miss users who clicked through an article (or click-into-new-tab) and read it later, but I'd have to imagine that this is a very, very slim use-case.
The race to the bottom among aggregators, which started quite some time back with HuffPo (nearly a decade old now) has become quite maddening. I've long since resorted to flagging such content as spam, where possible (curious that comments here suggest FB has an "I don't want to see this" option, G+ most certainly doesn't), and increasingly have resorted to unfollowing or blocking those who post such crud.
Much as xkcd suggested a format for getting bots to contribute usefully to online forums, it would be quite slick if search and social engines would reward actually good and quality content.
Search comprehensiveness and speed, the ease of interaction with the Notifications pane, and a few interesting people. That's its upside.
Streams, circles, lack of filtering, overall layout, client bloat, privacy invasion, crap and noise, annoyances across other Google properties: the downsides.
Though I'm seriously wondering where the hell the smart people are these days.
As I said before, fixing big companies is one of my favorite topics. As another example, I have said here that Vic Gundotra probably needed to be fired a while before they did.
Ahem. Sorry :)
It "spoils" clickbaity links. I'm not entirely sure whether it's actually useful or time-saving, but I really do like the idea.
Google Panda: Demand Media
FB Feed Change: Buzzfeed
Of course, my thesis predicated upon the supposition that Buzzfeed is nothing more than a clickbait farm. There are a significant minority who feel otherwise, but I am not one of them.
I think Upworthy is the site that should be concerned: they have far less original content and AFAIK the entire premise is based on social (facebook) sharing.
and given the valuations quality journalism companies trade at these days, maybe that's not something they want to devote serious efforts to.
Facebook has 1B+ people. Do you know how trivial it is for them to run surveys? 100K population surveys, if they want? Many hundreds of them, simultaneously?
I have no insight into how facebook manages its surveys, but I'd be surprised if they didn't have some sort of generalized surveying platform built in to facebook that allows product teams to independently survey more or less anything they want.
Why do you guess that? Facebook could get a very accurate assessment of user opinion by surveying 10000 users. If Facebook has over a billion users and surveys 10000 of them, then the probability that I personally get surveyed is tiny, and even the probability that anyone I know gets surveyed is pretty small. So the fact that Facebook didn't survey you or me is not a good reason to think they haven't been surveying their users.
You have no knowledge of the surveying process, it is presumptuous to assume that they carried it out incorrectly simply because you were not surveyed.