Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How To Be Popular On Facebook, Quantified

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the logically-the-yankees-suck dept.

Facebook 97

Hugh Pickens writes "Network World reports that Facebook has just released an analysis of the word usage for about one million status updates from its US English speakers with the words in updates organized into 68 different word categories based on the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC)--a text analysis software program that calculates the degree to which people use different categories of words across a wide array of texts. The results? To be popular on Facebook all you have to do is write longer status updates, talk about music and sports, don't be overly emotional, don't talk about your family, don't refer to time and use the word 'you' a lot. Facebook's study also confirms something that bloggers and Fox News have known for years: negative comments produce more online activity. Sure, Facebook users might click the like button more often on updates expressing positive emotion. But Facebook found you can't beat negativity for user engagement, as dismal status updates garnered more comments than positive ones."

cancel ×

97 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

You can't win (2)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669270)

I think I'll die now.

Re:You can win (5, Insightful)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669674)

The only way to win facebook is NOT TO PLAY.

Re:You can win (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34669838)

... Professor Falken.

Re:You can win (1)

kaizokuace (1082079) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669846)

assuming that it is even a game...

Re:You can win (1)

monkyyy (1901940) | more than 3 years ago | (#34671056)

it is; its like a drinking game while diving and first one to od or crash* wins(or if everyone gives up/ arrested the person with highest blood alcohol wins)

*crash defined as 2 cars getting totaled or a death

Re:You can win (1)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 3 years ago | (#34671140)

Being the most popular person on Facebook is an honour reserved for the very stupid.

Re:You can win (1)

Pompz1 (1940858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34679800)

If you hang out with the right kind of people, everything is a game.

Re:You can win (2)

djscoumoune (1731422) | more than 3 years ago | (#34670228)

The only winning move is to play, perfectly, waiting for your opponent to make a mistake.

Re:You can win (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 3 years ago | (#34670416)

Win Facebook, still be a geek LOSER. I think of all the stories I've read on /. this one has to be the one with the least amount of interest for me.

Re:You can win (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34673490)

And yet you still commented...

Re:You can win (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34676970)

But we thank you for your time, and your thoughtful reply.

Re:You can win (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 3 years ago | (#34680158)

Win Facebook, still be a geek LOSER. I think of all the stories I've read on /. this one has to be the one with the least amount of interest for me.

And yet you still felt the need to comment on it.

How's it feel like being a geek LOSER, loser?

Re:You can win (1)

arisvega (1414195) | more than 3 years ago | (#34673924)

The only way to win facebook is NOT TO PLAY.

My sig applies

Re:You can win (1)

wmanoble (1959458) | more than 3 years ago | (#34674278)

With a game, fair play....

Re:You can't win (1)

Dabido (802599) | more than 3 years ago | (#34673676)

You can't win, you can't break even and you're not allowed to quit the game.

Every major -ism believes you can break one of these rules.

Capitalism believes you can win, communism believes you can break even and religion believes you can quit the game. :-)

Re:You can't win (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34674844)

You can win as long as someone else loses.

Face mook (1)

jack2000 (1178961) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669274)

Sneer sneer, jeer.

Look out... (4, Funny)

sdnoob (917382) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669284)

Here come the "Facebook optimization" services ("FBO") charging $999 for more friends, guaranteed !!

Yes, absolutely (5, Insightful)

CoccoBill (1569533) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669286)

Doing those things will make you popular. The fact that people who are open, not selfish and overly dramatic may have more friends probably has nothing to do with this.

Re:Yes, absolutely (2)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669338)

If you have any evidence of a positive correlation between friends and "Facebook friends", now is the time to present your paper.

Re:Yes, absolutely (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669384)

Thats a good point. My sister has 400 facebook friends. I don't know how she keeps up with them all.

Re:Yes, absolutely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34669702)

Simple, she doesn't...

Re:Yes, absolutely (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34669458)

If you have any evidence of a positive correlation between friends and "Facebook friends", now is the time to present your paper.

I know it is popular to sneer at Facebook on Slashdot (which is kind of ironic given the similarities between two community internet sites people spend time posting stuff on hoping it is of interest to others, but mostly not), but this "they are not real friends" argument really baffles me. As there can be only one kind of relationships, that was defined face to face in a cave at the dawn of time and can never change. Social structures change, the way people relate and communicate change. People I have on Facebook are there because I know them (they are still in the hundreds), they sometime share and/or discuss something interesting or funny, and it is sometimes ok to catch up this way, quite a few live in other countries. If they spam with uninteresting stuff I'll just remove their updates from the news feed, done.

Re:Yes, absolutely (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669544)

Damn, already posted on this thread. +1 Insightful.
I admit I never looked at things this way. I always sneered at all those "so-called" facebook friends. I still don't think I will jump on the FB bandwagon anytime soon, but at least I will understand/accept it a bit more.

Re:Yes, absolutely (1)

devxo (1963088) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669774)

I moved to live in Thailand around 6 months ago. This was the first time I noticed the true power of Facebook. Everything was there - people I met, places I visited, lots of pictures of the new city I would be living at and most importantly, I discovered lots of interesting new things, like a couple that bakes bread and other stuff we eat only back home and I could order from them. You didn't even really need to know so much specifics, because everything was interconnected when just knowing a few people. Getting to know the new people and places was amazingly easy, and at the same time I get to keep up with my old friends and family members. Otherwise you would have to be active to talk to all those people often, which would be a lot of work. Now I can quite passively still keep up, they can keep up with me and the relationship still remains. But when moving to a new place, it is amazingly easy to get to know everybody that way.

Re:Yes, absolutely (1)

Sanat (702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34670056)

Where in Thailand are you... if you are allowed to say?

In the military (60's) I had orders for "Bomb disposal" in Udorn, Thailand which was very near Laos and a stones throw from North Vietnam. Lots of "Special Ops" and other stuff occurring there. That is all a distant memory anymore.

Thanks for sharing your insights.

Re:Yes, absolutely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34671580)

dont you see you are slave? even to the social standards that define us... there is no freedom in these four walls that the devil owns, giving up so much precious time for nothing just to say hi.

Re:Yes, absolutely (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672110)

I admit I never looked at things this way. I always sneered at all those "so-called" facebook friends.

Despite the GPs post that facebook "friends" have their apropriate niche and how he's neatly integrated facebook into his life in a healthy and reasonable way. And despite the handful of inevitable me-too posts, the reality is that most people haven't looked at it that way and approached it that way... Including most facebook users.

Re:Yes, absolutely (4, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669878)

Slashdot isn't a social networking site. I'd hazard that only a small portion of the people here actually use the journal, and those that do use it as a way of submitting a short article.

Slashdot is essentially a blog with user submitted articles that people comment on. The only reason why there's a karma sytsem at all is to help filter out the known trolls and crap posters, and it does an alright job of that.

Or in other words, apart from a very superficial, community of people posting on a subject there isn't really a whole lot of similarity.

Re:Yes, absolutely (2)

Randle_Revar (229304) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669992)

There was an attempt at a real community here, but it ultimately failed, with many members migrating en mass to other sites, due largely to /. having really poor tools for social stuff. I think /. would be better off if it did embrace the community aspect a bit more, at least providing the tools needed to those that are interested.

Re:Yes, absolutely (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34670622)

Slashdot is like democracy. It sucks major ass, but at least it's better than anything else we've ever tried. The comments here are very very enlightening much more so than any other website I've seen, but the stories suck, editors suck, and the comments themselves quixotically suck. (every good comment has like 50 comments so bad, the universe weeps)

Re:Yes, absolutely (1)

Randle_Revar (229304) | more than 3 years ago | (#34694010)

Yeah, the comments here are better, even better than Ars, Anandtech, etc, which always surprises me, given how much better the articles at those places are. That's the moderation system at work though - if I use a flat view, with all comments visible, my opinion of the comments here suddenly drops like a rock.

Re:Yes, absolutely (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34670348)

Anyone who refuses to worship RM$ and is critical in any way of Linux is filtered out, too.

Re:Yes, absolutely (1)

Gamer_2k4 (1030634) | more than 3 years ago | (#34670488)

I know it is popular to sneer at Facebook on Slashdot (which is kind of ironic given the similarities between two community internet sites people spend time posting stuff on hoping it is of interest to others, but mostly not), but this "they are not real friends" argument really baffles me.

It shouldn't baffle you if you've spent any time at all in the real world. On the internet, someone is just a face and a name, and any deeper relationship is delusion. There are no expressions, no gestures, and no intonation, and most importantly, no physical aspect, so talking and interacting are only a shadow of what they are in the real world. I would argue that the depth of friendship is dependent on the depth of interaction, and using the internet as a medium necessarily restricts that.

Social structures change, the way people relate and communicate change. People I have on Facebook are there because I know them (they are still in the hundreds), they sometime share and/or discuss something interesting or funny, and it is sometimes ok to catch up this way, quite a few live in other countries.

"Sometimes sharing or discussing something funny" is NOT a qualification for friendship. Websites do that. TV shows do that. Neither of those entities are friends, and neither are the actors, characters, or writers related to them. I agree that social structures change, but that's exactly why we can draw a distinction between a Facebook friend and a real friend. Having a hundred Facebook friends is the equivalent of a celebrity having a hundred fans. Are they people that say they like you? Sure. Might you like them back? Yeah, it's possible. Could you get something valuable out of the relationship? Sure, why not. But at the end of the day, these are names you know, or rather, names that know you. The relationship is shallow, much more shallow than a true friendship.

"There is no greater love than this, that one lays down his life for his friend." THAT'S a real friend. How many of your Facebook "friends" would do the same? How many of them could EVER conceivably do the same?

Re:Yes, absolutely (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34671872)

I know it is popular to sneer at Facebook on Slashdot (which is kind of ironic given the similarities between two community internet sites people spend time posting stuff on hoping it is of interest to others, but mostly not), but this "they are not real friends" argument really baffles me.

It shouldn't baffle you if you've spent any time at all in the real world.

I clearly haven't spent any time in your world.

On the internet, someone is just a face and a name, and any deeper relationship is delusion.

Who said I only know them on the Internet? It's just one of several ways to interact.

There are no expressions, no gestures, and no intonation, and most importantly, no physical aspect, so talking and interacting are only a shadow of what they are in the real world. I would argue that the depth of friendship is dependent on the depth of interaction, and using the internet as a medium necessarily restricts that.

And, tell me, how do you keep up this intense face to face contact, which seems the only thing that counts, with friends living on the other side of the world?

Social structures change, the way people relate and communicate change. People I have on Facebook are there because I know them (they are still in the hundreds), they sometime share and/or discuss something interesting or funny, and it is sometimes ok to catch up this way, quite a few live in other countries.

"Sometimes sharing or discussing something funny" is NOT a qualification for friendship.

Jesus man, lighten up. I said it was one aspect. What do you do with friends at a pub?

Websites do that. TV shows do that. Neither of those entities are friends, and neither are the actors, characters, or writers related to them. I agree that social structures change, but that's exactly why we can draw a distinction between a Facebook friend and a real friend. Having a hundred Facebook friends is the equivalent of a celebrity having a hundred fans. Are they people that say they like you? Sure. Might you like them back? Yeah, it's possible. Could you get something valuable out of the relationship? Sure, why not. But at the end of the day, these are names you know, or rather, names that know you. The relationship is shallow, much more shallow than a true friendship.

Thanks for putting me, my life and my friends in your place.

"There is no greater love than this, that one lays down his life for his friend." THAT'S a real friend. How many of your Facebook "friends" would do the same? How many of them could EVER conceivably do the same?

You're very black and white categorical about being either a "real" friend or a Facebook friend. And only people willing do die for you are real friends. I see more variations on the theme of human interactions.

Re:Yes, absolutely (1)

hairyfish (1653411) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675292)

Mod++ The problem seems to stem from the Facebook use of the word 'friend'. If they called it 'acquaintance', or 'connection' there probably wouldn't be such a big deal. But using the word 'friend' seems to strike a nerve with so many people, I wonder why that is? I've never heard anyone give anyone stick for having lots of Linked-in 'friends'.

Re:Yes, absolutely (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34669462)

If you have any evidence of a negative correlation between friends and "Facebook friends", now is the time to present your paper.

Re:Yes, absolutely (4, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669898)

No evidence required. It was a response to the GGP's assertion that there was a positive correlation between number of facebook friends and number of real world friends. There is no reasonable basis for the assumption that there was a connection.

It's rather clever of you to turn it into a false dilemma, given that there could be a positive correlation, a negative correlation or no correlation at all. Rather deft of you to ignore that last one.

Re:Yes, absolutely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34673568)

And poof - God disapears in a puff of logic
Along with the smoking gun.

Re:Yes, absolutely (1)

TitusC3v5 (608284) | more than 3 years ago | (#34670094)

An easier route is just to be young, attractive, and female. Instant friends*, guaranteed.

* Stalkers and creepers inclusive.

Re:Yes, absolutely (1)

joebagodonuts (561066) | more than 3 years ago | (#34670194)

Don't forget to account for the increase in # of unwanted female enemies generated by being "young, attractive, and female". "She is such a slut!"

Seems to come with the territory.

This just in (4, Informative)

Titoxd (1116095) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669308)

Trolling people encourages replies in online fora.

News at 11

Re:This just in (4, Insightful)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669446)

I don't understand it, how come someone tells us that the news is at 11 and he is modded insightful? Let me try it also: Simpsons at 8! Jay Leno at 10!

P.S.
If you are going to reply with a Whoosh, then I Whoosh you back, be warned :).

Re:This just in3 628 800 (5, Funny)

ThePangolino (1756190) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669524)

I am sorry but I couldn't find The Simpsons at 40 320 nor Jay Leno at 3 628 600.

Re:This just in3 628 800 (1)

Nialin (570647) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669556)

How has the parent not been modded up? I'm losing faith in the nerd community.

Re:This just in3 628 800 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34670262)

Readability error for me, I didn't see any commas.

Re:This just in3 628 800 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34670498)

He got it right in the title and that's close enough.

Re:This just in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34669766)

-1 silly

Re:This just in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34673640)

It's because the trend the past few years on Slashdot has been to mod +5 insightful one liner comments that don't contribute any actual content or argument that adds to the discussion in any meaningful way.

Re:This just in (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#34673942)

The great thing is that I was modded insightful too... and I was going for funny. Well, QED.

Re:This just in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34674862)

Sometimes I take the fish out of the tank to watch them flop around trying to breathe.

Damn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34669334)

Most of this is doable, except the "music and sports" part...

new mod... (4, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669342)

"+1, negative"

So does tihs mean... (2)

xscarecrowx (118632) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669350)

we are finally going to get a dislike button?

just wondering...

Re:So does tihs mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34669388)

we are finally going to get a dislike button?

just wondering...

Not until you learn to spell "this". You put "tihs", which, of course, spelled backwards is...

Re:So does tihs mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34670414)

Tihs or GTFO

None of the correlations seem particularly high (4, Insightful)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669400)

From the charts, they range from -0.04 to +0.10 for the classifications given. Now I'm no statistician, but those ranges of values don't seem to be much more than a slight tendency. They certainly don't seem to me to be "dead cert" formulae for getting more comments or likes.

Re:None of the correlations seem particularly high (2)

holamundo (1914310) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669624)

Quoting from the "official" reply on the wall

The measure for correlations used is r. We would actually expect the correlation coefficients to be low, since there are so much more to status updates not captured by the word counts. The correlations coloured are statistically significant, though.

...so your observation is correct.

On the other hand, from my own experience, the decisive factors in determining the "popularity" of a status update are
1) real-life popularity of that person (you don't add only virtual "friends", do you?) and
2) that person's tendency to "like" and repeatedly comment on his own status updates
Now I'm no statistician as well and I have no studies to back me up. Duh.

Re:None of the correlations seem particularly high (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669912)

Online popularity is not the same as real life popularity. Online I can have a hot chixxor avatar and become popular quickly without having to really work for it. Occasionally, I can post hot pictures of women and talk about things that appeal to everybody.

Do that for a while and word of mouth grows. As opposed to in real life where I'd be expected to meet most of those people, or at least notice that they exist.

Doing that is almost certain to guarantee a huge number of "friends" but really once the number of friends hits about 5 or so, some of those relationships are going to suffer if they're genuine friendships.

Re:None of the correlations seem particularly high (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34670666)

The author (Lisa Zhang of Facebook) reports a great many correlations of 0, and almost all approach 0. In these cases, there is no predictive relationship to report. That is, as age, popularity, and other factors rise, the frequency of terms in most of these categories rises, falls, or stays the same. The author would have done well to omit correlations around 0 altogether. They tell us nothing except that their use is unrelated to the supposed predictors (age, popularity, etc.).

News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters (3, Insightful)

GF678 (1453005) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669404)

This story is about as far from Slashdot's slogan as you can get.

Re:News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters (1, Insightful)

knotprawn (1935752) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669414)

Total agreement.

Re:News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters (4, Funny)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669428)

This story is about as far from Slashdot's slogan as you can get.

True. Facebook requires friends.

Re:News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters (5, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669724)

> Facebook requires friends.

No. Facebook requires "friends".

Re:News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34670104)

At least "friends" don't tell you to take out the trash.

Re:News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters (1)

whereiswaldo (459052) | more than 3 years ago | (#34674718)

I think the word "friend" as it is used on Facebook should really be something else. Maybe "associate" or "interesting person" would fit the bill. If instead of "friending" someone you "linked" to them, or "subscribed" to their updates, I could see the dynamics changing. Same functionality, different mindset and expectations. Perhaps even less stress and offence taken when "unfriending" - these would become "unsubscribe", "unlink" - something less personal. I'm sure someone could whip up a browser addon that changes Facebook's terminology fairly easily.

On the topic of Facebook, I'd like to see ways to group friends better, like have a "closeness" rating that I can set when I friend someone.. or just one or more tags that I could filter by when publishing to my wall. eg. "show this link to all friends I've tagged as techies".

Re:News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters (1)

Phurge (1112105) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681786)

you can do this already - use the "friend lists" feature within facebook

meanwhile, on Slashdot.. (5, Funny)

orange47 (1519059) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669454)

to be popular you need to be fast enough to firstpost, talk about what happens in Soviet Russia, praise the laser-equipped sharks as new overlords.. etc

Re:meanwhile, on Slashdot.. (1)

alexhs (877055) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677638)

The problem being that "Funny" points don't give you any karma... Early copy-pasting parts of TFA seems more efficient. Or "correlation != causation" negative posts.

Facebook? Who is interested in that? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34669476)

Not me. There are enough ways to invest precious life-time without utterly wasting it.

Uh, what's the point?!? (4, Insightful)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669528)

"...all you have to do is write longer status updates, talk about music and sports, don't be overly emotional, don't talk about your family, don't refer to time and use the word 'you' a lot.

Uh, don't talk about family? Don't refer to time? What's next, we shouldn't talk about friends either? Seems to me they're kind of missing the whole point of Facebook. I don't think it was meant to be a sports and music site.

And what kills me is since when did Facebook need to become a popularity contest? There's no "winner" for who has the most "friends". It's an extended address book to stay connected with friends and family when you really break it down. YOUR friends and family, not friends of friends of friends families (kind of starts sounding like the old jokes that start with "my cousins best friends sisters roommates dog groomer"). And all the other bullshit on there (games, polls, puzzles) are all just revenue streams for Facebook, which don't really change the whole point of the site.

And as far as people who run entire businesses off Facebook and nothing else, do yourself a favor now and stop being cheap and just get your own domain and host your own site. Because when the popularity of Facebook dies, so will your company.

Re:Uh, what's the point?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34670134)

This. People use Facebook in different ways. Some people treat it as a game to be won by having the highest number in the friends field. Other people use it to actually key up with and in touch with a small closer knit group of individuals. If someone wants to have 1,000 friends and they're happy with that then who cares? Likewise if someone else has 3 friends, who are all just their immediate family and has locked every privacy setting as far down as possible to limit anyone else seeing anything and they are happy with that than more power to them.

It's nice that Facebook is flexible enough to be used in these diverse roles.

Re:Uh, what's the point?!? (1)

sinclair44 (728189) | more than 3 years ago | (#34670286)

Likewise if someone else has 3 friends, who are all just their immediate family and has locked every privacy setting as far down as possible to limit anyone else seeing anything and they are happy with that than more power to them.

I'm not sure if that was just hypothetical, but I do actually know people who do that. Indeed, more power to them.

Re:Uh, what's the point?!? -- flawed "study" (1)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 3 years ago | (#34670672)

They never even define "popular". I would assume popular means the number of friends you have or some other metric. There are people on FB that have a good number of friends that are really obnoxious (at least to me) to have as friends on FB.

A friend of mine on FB who has over 4,000 friends is a nationally known guitar player/singer in a band.

Re:Uh, what's the point?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34670810)

Uh, don't talk about family? Don't refer to time? What's next, we shouldn't talk about friends either? Seems to me they're kind of missing the whole point of Facebook. I don't think it was meant to be a sports and music site.

It depends on what you want out of Facebook. Replace "Facebook" with "blog", and I suspect the same rules would apply: Only your friends and family are going to be particularly interested (or willing to feign interest) if you post about having a bagel for lunch or how little Montgomery has learned to crawl. But start addressing content that interests a wider crowd, whether it's sports, music, humor, technology, or what Lady Gaga had for breakfast, and more people pay attention.

Re:Uh, what's the point?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34671018)

And what kills me is since when did High School need to become a popularity contest? There's no "winner" for who has the most "friends". It's a place to learn when you really break it down.

Lemme guess, you've said these words before. ;)

Remarkable the behavioral similarities though, no?

I can't see anything on Facebook (0)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669552)

I do not see anything on Facebook. I don't even see many of the icons people use on their pages. But that is perhaps because I have the folowing in my hosts file:
0.0.0.0 www.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 facebook.com
0.0.0.0 static.ak.fbcdn.net
0.0.0.0 www.static.ak.fbcdn.net
0.0.0.0 login.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 www.login.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 fbcdn.net
0.0.0.0 www.fbcdn.net
0.0.0.0 fbcdn.com
0.0.0.0 www.fbcdn.com
0.0.0.0 static.ak.connect.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 www.static.ak.connect.facebook.com

Re:I can't see anything on Facebook (3, Funny)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669610)

Congrats: you are the newest iteration of that guy [theonion.com]

Re:I can't see anything on Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34670020)

"I don't care who ya are, that's funny right there." -- Larry the Cable Guy

"Larry who? Am I supposed to have heard of him? I'm sorry, but I haven't." -- That Guy

34 known infectors on facebook list (w/ source) (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34670128)

FROM -> http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ [someonewhocares.org]

0.0.0.0 2006mindfreaklike.blogspot.com
0.0.0.0 allhqpics.com
0.0.0.0 brunga.at
0.0.0.0 changduk26.com
0.0.0.0 chelick.net
0.0.0.0 en.likefever.org
0.0.0.0 fu.golikeus.net
0.0.0.0 girlownedbypolicelike.blogspot.com
0.0.0.0 hatrecord.ru
0.0.0.0 konflow.com
0.0.0.0 likeportal.com
0.0.0.0 likespike.com
0.0.0.0 likethis.mbosoft.com
0.0.0.0 likethislist.biz
0.0.0.0 mylike.co.uk
0.0.0.0 proflashdata.com
0.0.0.0 tattooshaha.info
0.0.0.0 thedatesafe.com
0.0.0.0 www.allhqpics.com
0.0.0.0 www.chelick.net
0.0.0.0 www.likeportal.com
0.0.0.0 www.likespike.com
0.0.0.0 www.likethis.mbosoft.com
0.0.0.0 www.likethislist.biz
0.0.0.0 www.lomalindasda.org
0.0.0.0 www.mylike.co.uk
0.0.0.0 www.proflashdata.com
0.0.0.0 www.tattooshaha.info
0.0.0.0 www.thedatesafe.com
0.0.0.0 www.upi6.pillsstore-c.com
0.0.0.0 kirgo.at
0.0.0.0 proflashdata.com

APK

P.S.=> That's a reputable & reliable (+ regularly updated) site for HOSTS file data, & you MAY be "better served" by blocking THOSE out, rather than facebook in its entirety... IF you intend to use facebook, that is!

I don't use facebook myself though, & the ONLY reason why is because of malware makers using it to "bushwhack" folks - as shown above as just some KNOWN examples of it happening!

The actual payloads are contained on those links above though, NOT facebook itself - facebook's just a "snagging point" (subway/trainstation/busstation/crowded street) for the malware makers in facebook is all...

(Malware makers' are JUST LIKE PICKPOCKETS - they don't go where there's only 1-2 people to victimize... the malware making crowd goes to the "train stations/subways" online, where there are MILLIONS of potential victims to ensnare w/ malwares they create - millions of people like facebook, & there you are: The REASON it's being used by malware makers as shown here!)... apk

Re:I can't see anything on Facebook (1)

Christopher Fritz (1550669) | more than 3 years ago | (#34670544)

It doesn't even take that much to see nothing on Facebook. I don't give Facebook Javascript access, and I found their new profiles don't load without Javascript. Then soon after, nothing else on the site loads without Javascript. I get essentially a blank page (with a few static layout items).

Doesn't matter to me as I only have a Facebook account so people can find me (recently reconnected with a childhood school friend, for example). I mostly just find it interesting that there is no Facebook for me with my no-Javascript setting.

I said same on 04-08-2010 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34670814)

" don't give Facebook Javascript access, and I found their new profiles don't load without Javascript." - by Christopher Fritz (1550669) on Sunday December 26, @12:16PM (#34670544)

That's good, I agree - javascript's a vector in & of itself (noscript's good, opera's got site by site control built in for this also), & I do the same myself wherever possible, as noted here ->

"It's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock, &/or NoScript (especially this one, as it covers what HOSTS files can't in javascript which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security" APK http://forums.tweaktown.com/windows/25596-how-secure-windows-2000-xp-server-2003-vista-fully-per-cis-tool-scoring-7.html 04-08-2010 12:15 AM

APK

P.S.=> ... &, there you are... between blocking out KNOWN infectors on facebook (like your DNA does vs. actual viruses), & noscript? Hey... so as to your reply? Yes, "great minds think alike" - & "the sincerest form of flattery? IMITATION!", lol... apk

And Slashdot? (1)

n0rr1s (768407) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669596)

Facebook's study also confirms something that bloggers and Fox News have known for years: negative comments produce more online activity.

I would say the slashdot editors know it too. (And if you disagree with this post, I'll know you're only doing it for the karma).

When did popularity on Facebook become all that? (2)

LABarr (14341) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669622)

Seriously?! I thought Facebook was a means of staying connected with one's own friends?

--
If you've got more than a couple of hundred "friends" of Facebook then it's not Facebook that you need, it's your own wikileaks...

Re:When did popularity on Facebook become all that (0)

SnowHog (1944314) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669638)

When people realized that they could use Facebook as an electronic smoke screen to obscure the reality of their pathetic lives.

Wrong on the Internet... (0)

kennymeyer (1913256) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669800)

I thought Facebook was about staying in touch with family and friends, and not crawling into others' asses and pretending to be someone else to have a certain number of "friends" -- see MySpace. Maybe there are just too many people wrong in the Internet. http://xkcd.com/386/ [xkcd.com]

Popularity contests... (3, Interesting)

pongo000 (97357) | more than 3 years ago | (#34670000)

...are so grade school. Why are people so incredibly self-centered, self-absorbed, and egotistical? Those are exactly the type of people I wouldn't want to have as "friends".

Re:Popularity contests... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34671622)

...are so public school.

FTFY

Re:Popularity contests... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34674786)

because of the sickening celebrity adoration culture

Re: (1)

clint999 (1277046) | more than 3 years ago | (#34670154)

From the charts, they range from -0.04 to +0.10 for the classifications given. Now I'm no statistician, but those ranges of values don't seem to be much more than a slight tendency. They certainly don't seem to me to be "dead cert" formulae for getting more comments or likes.

Keywords (1)

UDChris (242204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34670448)

What I'm seeing is that using certain keywords will attract people to your site. What a discovery! If only someone had figured this out a decade ago we could have, I don't know, some sort of "engines" to help us with our searches for stuff that interest us.

I wonder what else FB is analyzing and sharing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34670612)

Interesting analysis in the website article.

It goes without saying that if they're busy analyzing these trends that FB most definitely performs other complex analysis and likely shares that with other entities. They are in the business of information analysis, just like Google.

Re:I wonder what else FB is analyzing and sharing. (1)

UDChris (242204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34670888)

...FB most definitely performs other complex analysis and likely shares that with other entities.

You mean entites like those that provide the targeted ads in the right column? Again, not new, and really not news...

...Fox News... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34672470)

When are you pussies going to stop whining and crying about Fox News? "Waa waa it's negative." ALL news is negative you sissy fucking tools. But when your party is an even bigger joke than the party of the "rich white man", you have to attack your Fox News boogie man.

Don't talk about Time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34674360)

crap, there goes my dissertation *sigh*

Is FB the Antichrist? (1)

UBfusion (1303959) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675120)

"don't talk about your family": subconscious rule to suppress the guilt both FB posters and readers might experience due to the fact that spending time on FB is by definition cheating (== stealing time from your family). Somehow I sense a similarity of this rule with the Mickey Mouse universe, where parents don't exist (only uncles, aunts, nieces and cousins).

"don't refer to time": subconscious rule strongly related to the previous one (spare time should be spent with the family) and also used to suppress the guilt caused by procrastination (instead of working or taking care of pressing errands, they got stuck in FB).

Mine is a psychoanalytic approach. My guess is that eventually somebody will come up with a religious interpretation of the results, demonstrating that these FB commandments are the inverse of the biblical Ten Commandments and therefore FB is the Antichrist.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>