Inside Facebook

On Tuesday we published the results of a study indicating that Pages that sync or auto-post their content to Facebook from Twitter or blogs using tools like HootSuite, Twitter, and NetworkedBlogs receive significantly fewer Likes and comments per posts than those that post manually using Facebook’s web and mobile interfaces.

This is partly because Facebook consolidates into a folded thread all posts from across Pages and friends in a user’s news feed that were published through the same tool, displaying a “Show x more posts from [publisher app] link”.

We’ve now learned that Facebook maintains a secret whitelist of companies that are exempt from having content posted through their publishers consolidated across different Pages and clients. This protects them from a reduction in news feed impressions. The whitelist includes some top enterprise Page management tools from the Preferred Developer Consultant program including Buddy Media, Vitrue, Involver, Context Optional and Syncapse. Facebook has forbidden those included from discussing the existence of the whitelist. Facebook has confirmed with us that “trusted partners” are having their posts treated differently.

Since consolidation negatively impacts Page post engagement and other key performance indicators, brands have to consider using whitelisted publishing tools. If they aren’t already, they should out of necessity either ask their Page management solution provider about gaining admission to the whitelist, or switch to a tool protected from consolidation. Overall, the surfacing of the consolidation whitelist may anger developers not on it, and push Facebook to change its policy on whose posts are consolidated.

Here’s some more context on what’s happening. In order to gain the maximum exposure, clicks, and other key performance metrics from publishing to the news feed, Facebook Pages need to optimize their EdgeRank, or prominence in the news feed. To do so, they need to consistently publish compelling and widely seen updates to draw Likes and comment that improve their EdgeRank.

However, Facebook has an automated system in place originally designed to collapse flurries of posts published by users playing spammy social games. That system causes any posts present in a user’s news feed that were published by an API publishing tool with a same App ID, whether from one or many Pages or users, to be consolidated into threads that show one post but require users to click to unfold and view the rest of the posts. Since users don’t always unfold the threads, consolidation reduces the impressions of posts, giving them fewer opportunities to score feedback that helps their EdgeRank.

The study by EdgeRank Checker and another by Momentus Media show reductions in post engagement rates by as much as 70% for Pages using third-party publishing tools that have posts consolidated across Pages. This engagement reduction cannot be entirely attributed to consolidation, as differences in the content of scheduled or syndicated posts, Page size, and the types of companies that pay for third-party tools all impact engagement as well. Still, post consolidation does negatively impact impression rates, and therefore publishing apps that cause posts to be consolidated should not be used by brands.

To insulate some of the world’s biggest brands who are also heavy advertisers on Facebook, as well as some of the biggest third-party Page management companies from its Preferred Developer Consultant program, Facebook quietly offered admission to a post consolidation whitelist to a few Page management developers. Tools whose App IDs are whitelisted do not have their posts consolidated across Pages (though, in some cases, a single client’s Page may have its own posts consolidated together if it posts multiple times in rapid succession).

Brands using tools on the whitelist have an advantage over their competitors, as they can attain more news feed exposure for their posts. Page management companies can use the higher engagement rates afforded them by the whitelist to attract clients. Page management companies left off this whitelist may feel the double standard is unfair, especially if brands using Twitter, HootSuite, TweetDeck, or NetworkedBlogs ditch them for whitelisted tools.

Executives of Page management companies tell us they don’t believe Facebook was intending to penalize any publishing tool developers with the consolidation system, and rather it was a holdover from a spam prevention effort that Facebook has since handled by limiting how much game content appears in the news feed.

[Update: Facebook has responded to our inquiry about the existence of the whitelist saying "We're focused on ensuring that users see the highest quality stories in News Feed. As part of this, related stories are typically aggregated so users can see a consolidated view of stories from one app. In some cases, we work closely with trusted partners, such as Preferred Developer Consultants, to test new ways of surfacing stories, and gather feedback to improve the Platform experience."

Though Facebook calls this a "test", the exemption of certain tools from post consolidation has been going on for many months. The whitelist could therefore be interpreted as favoritism rather than just an attempt to gather data to improve the user experience.]

Exempting trusted publishers from post consolidation may have intended as a temporary solution until a more sophisticated way to keep individual publishers from overrunning the news feed could be developed. But in the meantime, the whitelist has created an uneven playing field where certain publishers and the brands that use them receive much less visibility in the news feed than others.

If Facebook wants to keep the long-tail of third-party developers happy and working on its Platform, it will need to provide more transparency around how the post consolidation system currently works. It will also need to quickly fix it so no publishing tools and their brand clients are penalized for legitimate promotion in an effort to control game spam.

[Thanks to Momentus Media for data that informed this post]

Facebook has confirmed that it is testing a new feedback option for the ads shown on its site, that allows users to block specific advertisers from reaching them. The “Hide all from [advertiser]” option is appearing to some users when they ‘x’ out an unwanted ad, in addition to the existing option to select why they they clicked to remove the ad.

When apps and Pages have their posts hidden from the news feed, Facebook’s quality ranking system decreases the prominence of that entity’s posts to all users. If Facebook applies the same quality ranking algorithm to ads, being hidden through the new feedback option could decrease the prominence of an all of an advertisers’ ads. This could encourage them to use more responsible, less spammy ad creative to avoid being hidden.

Alternatively, if Facebook doesn’t apply the quality ranking system, being hidden might actually improve an advertiser’s click through rates because those who otherwise wouldn’t click can exempt themselves from impressions. Either way, if rolled out the ad feedback option could improve the Facebook experience for those sensitive to the content of the ads they see.

Facebook has long allowed users to provide feedback on ads, providing users with choices such as “uninteresting”, “misleading”, “sexually explicit”, or “repetitive” when they ‘x’ out an unwanted ad. This data helps Facebook refine its ad targeting algorithm, identifying if certain types of ads are relevant to a user, or are being shown too frequently.

We also assume that advertisers receiving negative marks about the content of their ad creatives are subject to reprimand or throttling of the placement of their ads. This would keep advertisers from using aggressive or spammy tactics to boost CTR at the expense of the user experience.

Now when some users ‘x’ out add, they see the option to either “Hide this ad” or “Hide all from [advertiser]“, in the case of our example “Hide all from Buy South Africa Online”. If a user chooses the latter, they’ll see the message “Ads hidden. We’ll try not to show you ads from [advertiser]“. The term ‘try’ is likely used because advertisers could reach users that have hidden them by creating new ad accounts under different names.

Users then have the options to select why they hid the ad, or unhide the advertiser. Facebook recently disabled a number of apps that were receiving high volumes of negative feedback on their news feed and wall posts. This led to an outcry about a lack of transparency around enforcement, so Facebook launched feedback analytics and benchmarks for apps, so developers could determine when they were being too spammy.

Facebook explained that apps receiving negative feedback would see negative impacts on their EdgeRank, or the prominence of their posts in the news feed. It’s believed that a similar system punishes spammy Pages.

That same quality ranking system could apply to advertisers as well, and the “Hide all from [advertiser]” option would give users a way to explicitly fight back against those showing them objectionable ads. Advertisers receiving high volumes of negative feedback could possibly have their ads shown in lower positions in the ad stacks that appear in Facebook’s right sidebar.

By increasing the repercussions for aggressive or spammy advertisers, Facebook may be able to provide a more appealing browsing experience, and attract high quality brands to market on its platform

The following is an excerpt from our Facebook Marketing Bible. The full version contains detailed strategies for dealing with each type of disruptive commenter and three more key tactics for making your Page an inviting community.

A well-managed Facebook Page allows businesses of all sizes to build a large and engaged community of fans, many of which can and will become loyal customers and advocates of the brand if nurtured correctly and consistently.

As your Page grows in popularity and starts to attract hundreds and thousands of Likes it will also begin to see unwelcome attention from the less-savory members of larger online communities – critics, trolls and spammers. While this is a largely unavoidable side effect of popularity, Page administrators can take steps to ensure that these kinds of members are controlled and removed.

Know Your Enemy

Critics - Critics are commenters that hurt a brand’s image by filling its Page wall with negative assessments of the brand’s identity, products, or services. They can be difficult to identify and manage, as they can veer between being your biggest fan to most outspoken naysayer from one moment to the next.

Trolls - A troll is someone who consistently posts inflammatory, negative and disruptive messages to your Facebook Page, with the sole intent of provoking an emotional reaction amongst the other members of your community. Trolls differ from critics in that they usually have no actual interest in the brand’s products and services, but are simply there to cause problems.

Spammers - The rate of spam that is posted on any given Facebook Page is exponentially linked to the number of Likes that it has. While Facebook’s spam filters will do their best to identify and move spam to your Wall’s hidden wall tab, this is at best a hit-and-miss affair and some spam will get through

Admins can employ the following tactics to ensure that their Page is optimized to recognize and manage problem users.

1. Create a Customized Page Rules Tab

One of the smartest things all Facebook Page Admins can and should do as soon as possible is implement a customized Page rules tab that clearly lists the behavioral expectations of members of the community.

Coca Cola’s House Rules is one example of how this can be done.

This tab will give you something to point to if users ask why they or someone else was banned. The tab is also likely to make all community members who see it more civil.

2. Take It To Email

Facebook Pages do not provide any kind of private messaging system, but sometimes a customer needs to be engaged on a one-to-one basis, and the best way to do this is to recommend directly to them that they contact you via email. This has numerous benefits – the customer can speak more freely, you can provide a more personal level of support and if the matter gets heated it doesn’t have to be a public affair.

If you feel that a customer has a legitimate enquiry but that public correspondence might become disruptive to the Facebook Page or even damage the reputation of the brand, it’s good advice to move things to email as soon as possible. Reply to their comment with your customer support email address or another email address they can reach you at and kindly ask them to follow up with you via email.

If you have made the decision to have a brand presence on Facebook then the business of moderating your Page needs to be taken seriously, with the correct level of resources made available to meet the expectations of your fans as the Page grows in size and stature.

The rest of our strategies for handling disruptive commenters and improving the civility of conversation on your Facebook Page can be found in the Facebook Marketing Bible, Inside Network’s comprehensive guide to marketing and advertising through Facebook.

Developers don’t have to explicitly violate Facebook’s policy to feel the wrath of the site’s enforcement team, as we’re reminded in a dramatic case today.

Last month we covered how social quiz app Badoo had gained 2 million daily active users in a few weeks using aggressive viral tactics such as placing roadblock in the user experience for users who weren’t sharing their quiz answers to the walls of friends. Then suddenly, the app lost 75% of its DAU. It’s now been revealed that Facebook requested the developer make significant changes to the app, triggering the decline.

The situation is an example of the subtlety of Facebook’s enforcement strategy. If a developer pollutes the site’s user experience even without violating a specific policy, Facebook won’t hesitate to threaten it with an audit and potential removal if it doesn’t comply with requests for changes. While this enforcement method is subjective and coercive, preserving trust in the Platform by coming down on abusive apps is in the best interest of the developer and user communities.

Badoo‘s social dating and friend finding site boasts 112 million registered users, which it monetizes through the freemium model where users pay for increased visibility and the ability to message strangers. To feed the top of the funnel it needs to draw in as many new users as possible. Its Facebook app was designed to do just that. Rather that focus on content, Badoo recently stripped away much of the functionality for new users except for its viral mechanics.

Users answer questions written in large font about their friends, but might not notice the tiny pre-checked box indicating their answers will be posted to that friend’s wall. If users uncheck this box, they see a pop-up roadblock with suggestive language asking whether they want to “Let friends know!” or “Keep them ignorant”. These two tricks combined to drive explosive growth of the app, which drew our eye, and Facebook’s ire.

Between April 13th and 15th, Badoo dropped from 4.1 million to 1.2 million DAU. Lloyd Price, director of marketing for London-based Badoo told the Financial Times that “After working with Facebook last week, we made requested changes to our application which has resulted in an initial drop in daily active users.” The app is now beginning to stabilize at just under 2 million DAU.

The app made the required notice about publishing to a friend’s wall quite inconspicuous, and added friction to the experience of refusing publication, but neither of these tactics are against the rules. Badoo didn’t have to make the changes, but it did instead of risking closer scrutiny of its compliance, which could have lead to an outright shut down. Facebook has disabled spammy quiz apps in the past, such as when it temporarily shut down Phrases worldwide, leading to swift 3 million DAU drop after it was reinstated outside the US. Badoo must have reasoned that going dark for a few days would have hurt it worse than the changes.

Facebook is sending the message to developers, “This is our Platform. Innovate and experiment, but don’t mess with the users.” Some developers previously told us they felt that Badoo was breaking policies, although Facebook told us at the time that it wasn’t. This new enforcement might confuse developers, but it might also encourage some to focus more on following the spirit of the platform rather than the letter of its policies.

When Facebook Page admins click the Like count beneath their Page’s profile picture, they’ll now see the option to sort those who Like their brand into people, Pages, admins and banned users. From this interface, admins can remove Pages they don’t want to be affiliated with, and unban users who they want to return wall posting privileges to.

As part of the February 2011 Facebook Page redesign, Facebook began allowing Pages to Like other Pages. The new sort ability makes it easy for Pages to see which other Pages Like them, opening opportunities for alliances where Pages link to each other.

However, the ability for Pages to Like other Pages opened an avenue for abuse. Malicious Pages hosting objectionable content could Like innocent Pages and display them in their Featured Likes section, thereby defaming those innocent Page by purporting a connection between the two. Smaller innocent Pages wouldn’t have a problem finding the objectionable Page in the list of those who Like it, but larger Pages would have to manually sift through thousands or even millions of Likes to find the offensive Page and remove it.

Now, admins of larger Pages can sort out all users and just see the Pages that Like them, making it easier to discover and remove offensive Pages.

The ability to sort for banned users gives Page admins the ability to give those who posted objectionable content to their walls a second chance. It appears that previously there was no way to unban users, effectively making all bans permanent. Now, if a user posted something they thought was legitimate but one of a Page’s admins took offense and banned them, another admin could undo this. Another example would be if a user’s account was hijacked and used to spread spam, a Page admin could unban them after they regained control of their account.

By giving Page admins more flexibility as to how they handle moderation, Facebook is becoming a safer place for brands to set up shop and purchase ads.

For strategies on how to fight spam on your Facebook Page’s wall, gain more fans, and publish compelling updates, visit the Facebook Marketing Bible, Inside Network’s complete guide to marketing and advertising on Facebook.

Facebook recently launched a “Use Facebook as Page” feature for Page administrators that allows them to assume the identity of their Page so they can Like, post, and comment around the site. However, this has enabled a new spamming technique, whereby Pages can Like the posts or comments of other users and Pages to create links back to themselves.

Since there is no option to remove Likes or ban those who Like any Facebook feed item, a victim can’t delete the links, and their only option is to report the Page as spam and wait for Facebook to address the issue. Like spam has not become a significant issue yet, but holds an opportunity for malicious parties until Facebook creates a solution.

Facebook has introduced several new wall post and comment  spam prevention systems lately, automatically hiding posts containing suspicious links and turning suspicious comments gray to alert admins. Like-spam via Pages, though, only recently became possible, and therefore Facebook may not have recognized the risk.

Until the launch of Use Facebook as Page as part of the February 2011 Page redesign, only users could post and comment on the walls of other Pages, and they could be removed and banned from Pages. There is no option for an admin of a Page to ban another Page for Like-spam. The ban option only becomes available if the malicious Page posts or comments.

We’ve heard a few reports of Like spam, particularly by Pages whose name hocks a service, such as “We Fix Slow Computers”, even though this form of Like-spam has only been available for two months. Facebook needs to provide Page admins a way to ban other Pages from Liking content on their wall before it becomes a more popular method of driving traffic to spammy Pages.

[Thanks to Bryan Person for the tip]

To learn about tools your can Page can use to fight spam, visit the Facebook Marketing Bible’s Service Provider Directory, a guide to the companies offering marketing and technical services to brands and organizations of all sizes on Facebook.

This week Facebook redesigned the email notifications users receive when they’re sent a friend request. These emails now show stats about the request sender, including their friend, photo, wall post, and Group count, helping users identify spammers since they usually have few friends and little content. The emails also now include a link to “See All Requests” for batch request management.

Previously, requests only showed the name, profile picture, and mutual friend count of a friend request sender. If users answered requests via email and didn’t visit the sender’s profile, it would be difficult to tell if the person was a real acquaintance or a spammer looking to publish scams to their news feed.

Facebook has made several other moves this year to reduce friend request spam. In September it began preventing users from sending suspicious friend requests to people they are far removed from on the social graph. In January, it introduced a “Mark you don’t know him/her” response option to friend requests. Facebook limited the amount of friend requests that could be sent by those receiving too many of these marks.

Facebook’s Chief Technology Officer Bret Taylor said at our Inside Social Apps conference in January that Facebook had reduced spam by 95% in the last year, partly in thanks to these spam prevention features. However, Facebook has to be careful not produce false positives and accidentally block legitimate friend requests between two people that met in real life, even though they’re distant on the graph or one user has sent some unsolicited requests before.

These new email notifications bring a summary of what a user might manually check a profile for to determine if a friend request was spam. This should help reduce the number of spam friend requests that are accepted, and therefore keep the site cleaner and safer to use.