6261
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: And now, the moment we've all been waiting for...
« on: July 20, 2014, 07:54:37 PM »
In addition to Tausami's link to the rules, we have the manifesto, which regulates how we execute the rules.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
6262
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: On the notion of FES reunification
« on: July 20, 2014, 06:03:44 PM »
Hi Daniel 
6263
Technology & Information / Re: Facebook fraud
« on: July 20, 2014, 05:43:52 PM »You must engage.And we have been. Again, you're probably not seeing the full picture, but you're eager to assume.
6264
Technology & Information / Re: Facebook fraud
« on: July 20, 2014, 05:34:35 PM »both forums are ignoring G+.Incorrect.
6265
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: On the notion of FES reunification
« on: July 20, 2014, 01:31:29 AM »
I think Tom's argument could be diluted and made more appealing to the other side without removing much substance from it. How about something along these lines:
Daniel can be our leader, there's no problem with that. He can lead projects when he's around (hopefully often) and drive the society forward. What's important is that we have a structure to continue driving the society when he's not around. This could (should?) be periodically elected to try and minimise standstills.
I feel that this covers all bases. Daniel isn't just a figurehead, unless he's gone, in which case he is being deputised by a group of dedicated volunteers. His absence would not stand in our way, but he could still do everything he currently does. From my point of view (except for technical issues), when Daniel is around, he's doing a good job. It strikes me as reasonable that he should continue doing this job. It's just that when he disappears, the Society shouldn't suddenly come to a stop - and that's where direct member involvement could go a very long way.
Daniel can be our leader, there's no problem with that. He can lead projects when he's around (hopefully often) and drive the society forward. What's important is that we have a structure to continue driving the society when he's not around. This could (should?) be periodically elected to try and minimise standstills.
I feel that this covers all bases. Daniel isn't just a figurehead, unless he's gone, in which case he is being deputised by a group of dedicated volunteers. His absence would not stand in our way, but he could still do everything he currently does. From my point of view (except for technical issues), when Daniel is around, he's doing a good job. It strikes me as reasonable that he should continue doing this job. It's just that when he disappears, the Society shouldn't suddenly come to a stop - and that's where direct member involvement could go a very long way.
6266
Technology & Information / Re: Facebook fraud
« on: July 20, 2014, 01:23:53 AM »Maybe posts are hidden or something.You won't be able to see most social interactions. In our case, they will usually happen on people's walls, and those are often private.
pizaa, why don't you move shitposting threads to designated shitposting areas?This might be a shitty argument, but it's a solidly technical one. It belongs here imho.
6267
Technology & Information / Re: Facebook fraud
« on: July 20, 2014, 01:19:43 AM »All 21 social interactions.You bore me.
I don't know where you get your numbers from, but you have yet to get one right.
6268
Technology & Information / Re: Facebook fraud
« on: July 20, 2014, 01:15:06 AM »What the fuck are you talking about?The very claims you make, sadly. It's not my fault you're contradicting yourself so much.
I brought up SEO because the fact that it is easier to find the old site makes it seem less likely that your site is more popular than the old one.It is, however, easier to find our Facebook page, and most of our acquisition comes from social interaction started by people who already liked the site.
6269
Technology & Information / Re: Facebook fraud
« on: July 20, 2014, 01:10:52 AM »Looks like click farm stats to me.
To reiterate:
Yes, some of our likes from Nigeria are probably not useful. Even if you slash 715 likes from us, we're at 2.2k, just about to double the other site's likes. If you decide you don't like Mexico too, we're still ahead, albeit not by much. That is assuming that all our likes from the top 2 countries are completely fabricated (n.b. they're not, we get a fair amount of shares from Mexico and we've had an ok amount of comments from Nigeria), and that all of the old site's likes are 100% genuine (which they likely are not).
By the way I know that their domain reputation is higher than yours. That was precisely my point.So your point was "precisely" that they're an older site, and therefore your Facebook argument has nothing to do with this? Congratulations, you knew why you were wrong and you still driveled about it.
6270
Technology & Information / Re: Facebook fraud
« on: July 20, 2014, 01:05:42 AM »Oh so now you think Lagos is the only place that has like farms?No, I'm addressing your claim that most of our insights (sic) come from Lagos, Nigeria. Here, have a quote:
I did look at the page and it seems that most of your insights come from Lagos, Nigeria. Boy that sounds genuine.
They don't. We have 243 likes from Lagos. That is less than 10%.
I can only imagine what the rest of those analytics look like. Maybe you could end this by just taking a screenshot. Show all those likes that cone from countries that actually use the internet.k:
Yes, some of our likes from Nigeria are probably not useful. Even if you slash 715 likes from us, we're at 2.2k, just about to double the other site's likes. If you decide you don't like Mexico too, we're still ahead, albeit not by much. That is assuming that all our likes from the top 2 countries are completely fabricated (n.b. they're not, we get a fair amount of shares from Mexico and we've had an ok amount of comments from Nigeria), and that all of the old site's likes are 100% genuine (which they likely are not).
when you do an incognito search on google the old site is firstLearn some SEO. Their domain reputation is pretty high, given that they've been around for 9 years. We've been consistently (and very slowly) climbing up in Google results.
6271
Technology & Information / Re: Facebook fraud
« on: July 20, 2014, 12:55:14 AM »Turns out it is 21.Nope.
You're also missing the part where by "most" you meant "10%".
6272
Technology & Information / Re: Facebook fraud
« on: July 20, 2014, 12:52:12 AM »
Look, this is just like that time when you said it's impossible to spoof an e-mail. Go do your 20 minutes of research and save us all some time.
6273
Technology & Information / Re: Facebook fraud
« on: July 20, 2014, 12:51:16 AM »Also, importantly, when you say "most", you mean "less than 10%".
6274
Technology & Information / Re: Facebook fraud
« on: July 20, 2014, 12:50:55 AM »There is what, 6 comments total?No.
6275
Technology & Information / Re: Facebook fraud
« on: July 20, 2014, 12:47:50 AM »Ah so you didn't learn how you can tell from the video.I did. As the cool dude from the pop science channel said, what matters is engagement. That's why I'm comparing engagement. I'm not going to click on 3000 profiles (or 300 profiles, to get a meaningful sample) and check if they like random crap. I don't need to do that, because I don't care about the percentage as a number. I care about proportions.
Also, you may enjoy this: http://www.jonloomer.com/2014/02/11/facebook-fraud-response/
I did look at the page and it seems that most of your insights come from Lagos, Nigeria. Boy that sounds genuine.Considering that we get comments from those people, yes, it does.
Also, importantly, when you say "most", you mean "less than 10%".
6276
Technology & Information / Re: Facebook fraud
« on: July 20, 2014, 12:39:16 AM »Wow. So how do you know that your likes are genuine again?Let's try this once again. Since the ratio of likes to approximate engagement for each page is similar, it stands to reason that the percentage of "genuine" likes on each page is similar. In other words, we are as affected or unaffected as one another.
6277
Technology & Information / Re: Facebook fraud
« on: July 20, 2014, 12:36:56 AM »Because I asked you how you know and you didn't have a response that sounded like you know.Congratulations.
You also edited your initial response.Welcome to 2009. I edit most of my posts shortly after posting them. If that's your best comeback, consider not having a comeback.
I'm harping on as usual?Yes.
I'm bringing to light the fact that Daniel has no reason at all to concede to what anyone is proposing and you somehow think you do because of some Facebook likes?No.
6278
Technology & Information / Re: Facebook fraud
« on: July 20, 2014, 12:31:07 AM »Huh? First of all why did you move this? You touted Facebook likes and then I pointed out that they might not be genuine.Because you were turning a side comment into the subject of an ongoing serious discussion. Do not derail S&C threads. If you think others (in this case, arguably myself) have derailed an S&C thread, do not derail S&C threads anyway.
Then you said they are and you don't even know how to tell if they are genuine or not even though the video shows you how.How do you know what I do or do not know? As I said, the engagement of each page is largely proportional to the amount of likes, ergo it speaks to reason that we are equally affected (or not affected) by the issue. You are harping about a non-factor, as usual.
6279
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: On the Notion of Wikipedia
« on: July 20, 2014, 12:26:34 AM »
I think it could be quite reassuring to see a post from him, even if it doesn't weigh in at all; it's just nice to have something tangible for everyone to see, even if it's just a "hi".
6280