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!

Facebook Tests 'Want' Button To Hoard User Data, Save Its Stock Price

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the do-not-want dept.

Facebook 98

colinneagle writes with news that Facebook is beginning to roll out tests of "want" and "collect" buttons in an attempt to bring users and retailers closer together. "The company is working with Victoria's Secret, Pottery Barn, Michael Kors, Wayfair, Neiman Marcus, Fab.com and Smith Optics. The difference between 'liking' and 'wanting' would be like discovering the holy grail of datamining. Inside Facebook said that although the 'Want' button is different than the Want plugin that developer Tom Waddington noticed in June, the company may eventually offer it as a plugin. Unsurprisingly, Facebook wants to keep people on the site as opposed to leaving to visit Pinterest. Collections will offer retailers a Pinterest-like option to engage buyers, offer users a way to collect images, while also collecting even more data about users. For example, Facebook asks, 'Why are you collecting this?' Regardless of a user's answer, the wants and collects will surely be used to deliver targeted ads. Eventually, the Collections feature could help Facebook generate more revenue."

cancel ×

98 comments

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

FUCK YOU (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602657)

Give me a fucking 'dislike' button already, you shitheads!

Re:FUCK YOU (4, Funny)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#41602681)

So, you should "want" images of your "dislike" button!

2 birds, one stone!

Re:FUCK YOU (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602715)

Ralph: My dislike knob tastes funny!
Facebook: Please refrain from tasting the knob.

Re:FUCK YOU (0)

gweihir (88907) | about 2 years ago | (#41603177)

I have a "FarceBook sucks"-button right here. Never needed it, as I never started to waste time on that stupid thing.

Re:FUCK YOU (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41605075)

Good for you! Please, take a few moments and reward yourself with that feeling of smug self-satisfaction.

Re:FUCK YOU (1)

lightknight (213164) | about 2 years ago | (#41603267)

I believe the button you are looking for is 'Hate.'

Re:FUCK YOU (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41603395)

Are you kidding?! The Free Market is just a theory, like evolution; get over it.

Facebook isn't there to make itself valuable to you. It's reason for being is to provide value to the overlords of capital. The ones who made Mark Zuckerburg a billionaire because he provided access to your every Facebookified little preference, network of friends and database of online behavior.

Muahahahaha!!!

B-)

Re:FUCK YOU (1, Interesting)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about 2 years ago | (#41604569)

Are you kidding?! The Free Market is just a theory, like evolution; get over it.

No, evolution is a theory. "Free market" is not even a hypothesis. It's pure fantasy.

Re:FUCK YOU (3, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | about 2 years ago | (#41603529)

They never will, it'd cause way to much embarrassment. Oh, that company page you put up has 2 million dislikes? Oops, looks like a Facebook page was a bad idea. Yeah no, Facebook wouldn't do that to their bottom line. Interesting as it would be to see if you could "Dislike" Facebook itself...

I don't understand why they wouldn't.. (1)

intellitech (1912116) | about 2 years ago | (#41603931)

If that was the case, they would put dislike buttons on everything and charge page owners $$$ to remove them.

Re:FUCK YOU (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41604317)

Bottom line? Heh heh - just keep watching it go down...it was *never* worth $38/share. $5 or $6, maybe.

Re:FUCK YOU (2)

xSander (1227106) | about 2 years ago | (#41605483)

They don't have to enable dislikes by default... make it optional. Sometimes a "dislike" option is much more appropriate than a "like" button, like when you post bad news. That at least makes it more social.

Re:FUCK YOU (1)

houghi (78078) | about 2 years ago | (#41610105)

...if you could "Dislike" Facebook itself...

But you can. Vote with your wallet, or in their case, your date. Do not give it to them.

I have all of facebook in my DNS server pointed towards oblivion (You could use your hosts file as well). I don't have an account with them. The one I had was not my real name.
So unless people host the linking image on their own server, I don't even see them.

Re:FUCK YOU (4, Funny)

Yvanhoe (564877) | about 2 years ago | (#41603581)

A designer I know handles strips of "dislike" stickers, to put on advertisements in the street. I have a roll in my bag...

Re:FUCK YOU (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | about 2 years ago | (#41608845)

I should get some so I can put them on flyers for Indie bands who post their stuff on street lights or other places, causing clutter and litter.

Re:FUCK YOU (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about 2 years ago | (#41609663)

They're not interested in people having an opinion. They want good little consumer whores.

Yay! (1, Funny)

ukpyr (53793) | about 2 years ago | (#41602721)

I, for one, welcome our new (?) datamining overlords.

Come on, this is making it too easy for dataming as a profession. This isn't even mining, this is being handed little golden chunks, the only thing left for facebook to do is to raise it up and gleefully say "Look what I have!"

I know a lot people are really concerned about corporations connecting your consumer/personal dots and figuring out some Deep Secrets, but go look at what google thinks you are interested in (without signing into your google account) and then sign into your google account and look again. It's not all that different - in my case anyway.

Google: I am not into reality shows, when you get around to mining this. xoxox, brian

Re:Yay! (4, Insightful)

bored (40072) | about 2 years ago | (#41602749)

Clear your cookies and try from a different IP or browser. Google definitely appears to be doing "guilty by association" type functions where people sharing IP's get similar results.

Re:Yay! (1)

ukpyr (53793) | about 2 years ago | (#41602815)

Honestly I feel a bit jilted by Google. Don't they want to get to know the real me? ; )
You can generally get a fair idea about where a person is by IP, but really, does it tell you very much that I'm in northern Illinois? That's a pretty big demographic. I'd have to ask their engineers "why bother?"

Re:Yay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41603487)

Nah, Google knows more about you than you do, they are merely being smarter in not appearing too "creepy" about it.

  Even if you clear your cookies on a regular basis, but after you stop wardriving and randomizing your MAC addresses, Youtube will know that you liked that video you watched 2 weeks ago, without you logging in -- they're just smart enough to base their access data off of the IP address, which most users are too lazy to fake, and they will place their recommended video for you sixth in the recommended line instead of first, so as not to arouse paranoia, and they know you'll click it because It's a good starter. Rotate IPs and MAC addresses, don't watch the same shit you always watch.

Also, Google and Facebook getting CIA/NSA/DHS money to collect dossiers on you all idiots. Eat it up like flies on shit.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:Yay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41604531)

And you try to tell the young people of today that, they won't believe you. They'll just call you paranoid and keep on giving their details to anyone who bothers to collect them.

Re:Yay! (1)

Fast Thick Pants (1081517) | about 2 years ago | (#41603447)

Google knows I like hookers (that's all I ever use Google Voice for) but I never get ads for hookers. You can't explain that.

slashdot tests inflammatory headlines (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602757)

Oh wait, they've been doing that for years. Doesn't seem to have improved the stock price, either.

awesome (3, Funny)

Osgeld (1900440) | about 2 years ago | (#41602759)

When this hits I am totally going to log in to a fake account and click want on dilldo's and refried beans, nothing else

Re:awesome (2)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#41602777)

Be sure to "want" penis enlargement *and* breast augmentation clinics as well.

Throw in some prophalactic medication manufacturers for good measure.

Re:awesome (3, Funny)

game kid (805301) | about 2 years ago | (#41602937)

Oh I think you are on to something. If I join you and a bunch of others in Operation Dildo Want, we can finally convince Nintendo to make a WarioWare ShoveItUpYourAssGame [youtube.com] for the WiiU (now that the old Wii's sun will soon set). Then, when Platinum Games gets wind of this, their horrified management will cancel their Bayonetta 2 exclusivity plan there [joystiq.com] , and they'll move it and the original to, say, Steam where I can buy 'em for the PC!

...what!? I can dream! About the games...and her butt [flickr.com] ...and they've been kinda talking about it too... [theverge.com]

Niche retailers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602801)

I guess it has a better chance of working at those niche retailers who mainly specialize in impulse things you don't really need.

Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602807)

DO NOT WANT!

Captcha: "repress"

Been using the fuck off button for a while now (4, Interesting)

siddesu (698447) | about 2 years ago | (#41602837)

It shows up on the blind spot of your retina when you install three plugins, noscript, ghostery and adblock. I see hardly any facebook anymore. Makes it very easy to avoid other crap sites, too.

Re:Been using the fuck off button for a while now (1)

gweihir (88907) | about 2 years ago | (#41603197)

Hehehe, nice!

What's in it for me? (3, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 2 years ago | (#41602841)

I don't mind trading some personal information for some services, but I don't see how helping FaceBook out on this by telling them what I want to buy helps me. If they can give me discounts, then perhaps, but I don't see that mentioned.

Re:What's in it for me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602971)

I don't see how helping FaceBook out on this by telling them what I want to buy helps me.

It will bring you the user "closer" to the retailers... whatever that means. Probably a discounted colonoscopy?

Re:What's in it for me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41603199)

You need a sugar daddy.

Re:What's in it for me? (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 2 years ago | (#41604145)

I don't mind trading some personal information for some services

The "some services" you receive are the monitored interactions with your friends and family. The data from said interactions may be sold to marketing research people. This is all a benefit to you, though you may not yet understand just how much you will benefit from this wholesale usage of your data.

Re:What's in it for me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41604385)

because you are an idiot... why can't it be permitted to look at a price without being profiled... why do prices have to be directed by the fact that you looked at it... e.g. when buying an airline ticket... never close your browser. What happens when you do? Visit the same site, same time/destination again... Suddenly the price jumps even if you are the only person on the flight. Corruption at it's finest levels. And you think it's OK. You think they have your best interest at heart, grow the fuck up. What? So long as they give you some food? What a slave mentality.

Re:What's in it for me? (3, Insightful)

Sqr(twg) (2126054) | about 2 years ago | (#41604691)

You didn't get paid to write that, and you did it anyway, just because you like to tell other people what you think.

While /. comments are for people who like to tell others their opinions about nerd stuff, facebook posts are for people who like to tell others what they like, or what they had for breakfast. It's not that different really.

I think the "want" buton might work well with fb's target demographic, but I'd still not buy any of their stock until it has dropped at least another 99.7 %.

Re:What's in it for me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41605095)

While /. comments are for people who like to tell others their opinions about nerd stuff

Strange, I thought the /. comments were for trolling, defending your favorite company regardless of its actions, accusing anyone with a diverging viewpoint of astroturfing and shilling, hating and mistrusting anything that has to do with government, and recycling the same tired memes over and over.

Re:What's in it for me? (1)

sh3rp4 (73755) | about 2 years ago | (#41606245)

Are you fucking kidding me? what do you get? YOU GET FACEBOOK!!!!

It is a free fucking service.

OMG I am so sick of people bitching about datamining on facebook. IT IS WHAT THEY DO. IT IS HOW THEY PAY THE BILLS. If you don't like it.... don't join. They owe you nothing.

Jeez.

Save its stock price? (3, Insightful)

game kid (805301) | about 2 years ago | (#41602847)

Save its stock price? Nah, I'm pretty sure that machinery served its purpose. Now Zuckerberg just needs to sell it off to Dewey Cheatam & Howe Capital LP, reap that private equity money from the middle- and lower-tier firings, and enjoy his *clears throat* well-earned retirement.

This Want stuff is just to wring out a few remaining Dumb Fucks(tm), that their data may fund the Not-Yet-Fired for a little while more.

Re:Save its stock price? (1, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | about 2 years ago | (#41603211)

Indeed. How the Facebook IPO was different from a somewhat camouflaged and utterly immoral Ponzi-scheme escapes me.

I think impounding of all ill-gotten gains and life in prison would be the right appreciation for it.

the potential for hilarity is enormous (3, Funny)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#41602863)

Imagine for a moment, the profoundly funny and silly trends that could run from clicking "want" on simple, stark statements, like:

Privacy

Responsibility in Industry and Politics

Or even just silly stuff, "celebrities eating hotdogs"

Re:the potential for hilarity is enormous (2)

ukpyr (53793) | about 2 years ago | (#41602931)

You rule!

Lets assume they don't just blindly process wants somehow though. This is well beyond their abilities I'm sure, but you could try and figure out what is in a picture automatically. I would HOPE someone has some logic to weigh where the image came from, like a shopping site is a good clue it's useful whereas lolcats is not as useful.

So to solve for that, go to amazon, find a unicorn mask and want it. Now make a shopping site that ties into amazon.com and want all the lowest margin items, or all the speciality items that no mass retailer regularly has in inventory. Tell your friends / bots! Now, my friend, you have a party.

That's economic terrorism for great yucks, because it's all based around them sucking in the data voluntarily.

Want Humble Pay-what-you-want Prime Rib Buffets. (1)

leftie (667677) | about 2 years ago | (#41603073)

There is much potential for awesomeness here.

Re:Want Humble Pay-what-you-want Prime Rib Buffets (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#41603175)

Me? I like to dabble in cookery, and had a hypothetical conversation with my sister concerning weed.

What I would place as a series of fake products for people to "want"?

"Stoner Joe's Finger Lickin' Cickin!"

Featuring a an "herb roasted" rotissery chicken, slathered in premium pot resin, and speckled with crushed thyme, rosemary, and lemon pepper.

And "Mary Jane's olde fashioned honey", a 50-50 mix of cannabis resin and pure honey, from bees exclusively fed on marijuana flowers. (100% organic, pesticide free!)

That kind of thing.

Put a disclaimer on the bottom saying that due to current and regressive legislation and practices by the united states of america, these fine products are currently unavailable, but please "want" them anyway, to get the word out.

LOL

Re:the potential for hilarity is enormous (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 2 years ago | (#41603527)

This could be even bigger than when we elected Hank the angry drunken dwarf as the most beautiful man to People Magazine's first internet voting contest.

THIS! might just get me to finally sign up for a FB account - just to screw with them....... Let's make this happen Slashdotters!

Herp-A-Derp! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602875)

I don't even has da Facebook... I don't want da facebook111!!! I'm a neckbeard and a turd burglar!!!!onehundredeleven!!!

And Then There's World Hunger (4, Interesting)

rueger (210566) | about 2 years ago | (#41602915)

Why anyone would care about the many ways that Facebook mistreats their data sources - ah, users - is beyond me. Unlike Google they never even bothered to pretend to be anything but money-grubbing capitalists with no problem whatsoever with Doing Evil.

From day one their modus operandi has been to push things to the point where even their most loyal users rebel, then back off just enough to quell the noise. And then to repeat, moving the bar even lower with each step.

Yeah I use Facebook, but I also am pretty picky about what information I leave on their servers. Judging by the utterly bizarre collection of ads that show up, I must be doing something right. Today they're promoting: Lord of the Rings Online; Fast and EZ Debt Reduction; Diamond Jewellery; Fitness Membership; Joint Pain Relief; and allegedly "luxury" Real estate, none of which are even remotely interesting to me. Google at least manages to place ads that I might click on.

Re:And Then There's World Hunger (3, Funny)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 2 years ago | (#41603035)

i used to get similar results but that is because i marked all of the ads as "sexually explicit". for a while i didn't have any ads now i don't because of adblock and noscript

Re:And Then There's World Hunger (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 2 years ago | (#41603071)

I get a lot of ads on Facebook for military gear, military dating, and degree programs for soldiers. I have a Master's degree, have a girlfriend, and have never served in the military(although I have several Facebook friends that have, in different services)

Re:And Then There's World Hunger (1)

houghi (78078) | about 2 years ago | (#41610495)

Yeah I use Facebook, but [...]

And that is your problem right there.
I have NO idea what has been promoted and even if it were ALL ads that I would not only was willing to buy, but was actually looking for. Even if it would be 100% what I was looking for, I would still not use them. I do not value a company for their marketing results.

Also I know they are not interested in individual users. Every marketing company knows they will NEVER have 100% targeted results.

With direct marketing we were happy if we had 1% correct. That means we did not mind having it wrong 99% of the time.

Re:And Then There's World Hunger (1)

jaklumen (1964992) | about 2 years ago | (#41611601)

Why anyone would care about the many ways that Facebook mistreats their data sources - ah, users - is beyond me. Unlike Google they never even bothered to pretend to be anything but money-grubbing capitalists with no problem whatsoever with Doing Evil. From day one their modus operandi has been to push things to the point where even their most loyal users rebel, then back off just enough to quell the noise. And then to repeat, moving the bar even lower with each step.

This should absolutely be NO surprise whatsoever based on what Mark Zuckerberg has said about Facebook's privacy on and off-record. Off-record, he said he didn't believe in privacy (according to an employee). On-record, he talked about "granular control", and said other things to the effect that he would erode privacy as much as he can get away with. In my mind, he's absolutely admitted that he is enthralled to the advertisers-- who should rightly be understood to be THE primary Facebook customers, NOT users. Admittedly I'm being sloppy here and not linking to sources, but it's really not hard to do the research, and it's been discussed for quite a while.

A strange game... (4, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 2 years ago | (#41602975)

The only winning move is not to play.

Is Facebook relevant anymore? It is starting to have that Myspace-like stink about it.

Re:A strange game... (1)

Longjmp (632577) | about 2 years ago | (#41603017)

Has it ever been?
FB always reminded me of geocities (for those who remember):
"Hello, my name is Jenny, I'm 13 and this is my cat, and I'm interested in dancing."

Re:A strange game... (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#41603081)

Geoshities was useful for storing images, back when the net was young.

I used to use it in the same way I use photobucket today, up until they started acting like babies about hotlinked images.

Re:A strange game... (1, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | about 2 years ago | (#41603273)

It never was relevant. Zuckerberg and accomplices inflated it with what was basically a modified Ponzi-scheme until they could cash in big.

It serves one purposes though: Separate the stupid and the gullible (with FarceBook account in actual use or, worse, stocks) and the smarter ones. Yes, not playing is the right move.

Re:A strange game... (3)

hsmith (818216) | about 2 years ago | (#41604021)

It never was relevant

Maybe not to you, but this is a blatantly stupid statement. It has a massive user base, of addicted people.

I personally no longer use it, but it is stupid to say it is "irrelevant"

Re:A strange game... (0)

cyn1c77 (928549) | about 2 years ago | (#41604477)

It never was relevant

Maybe not to you, but this is a blatantly stupid statement. It has a massive user base, of addicted people.

So does heroin. Is that relevant to you?

Re:A strange game... (1, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | about 2 years ago | (#41604889)

It never was relevant

Maybe not to you, but this is a blatantly stupid statement. It has a massive user base, of addicted people.

So does heroin. Is that relevant to you?

My point exactly.

Re:A strange game... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41604503)

Joshua?!? Get back to work!

Prof. Falken

Re:A strange game... (1)

jaklumen (1964992) | about 2 years ago | (#41611691)

The only winning move is not to play.

Is Facebook relevant anymore? It is starting to have that Myspace-like stink about it.

The funny thing is Myspace is getting a reboot to where it at least looks clean and far from the HTML-cut-n-paste abomination it was. I agree with a publisher friend that Justin Timberlake is shrewder than many give him credit for [jackyan.com] ; Myspace might actually bounce back. Meanwhile (after I left, thankfully) Facebook started Timelines, which looks almost equally horrid from a web design perspective. I mean, really, I do recall when users touted Facebook over MySpace (yes, the capital S was intentional there) for a clean interface. I don't think the same folks can say so now.

Desire (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41603053)

Buddha rolling in his grave

No chance, FarceBook is doomed (2)

gweihir (88907) | about 2 years ago | (#41603103)

Zuckerberg and accomplices have known this for some time. The IPO timing and modalities were no accident at all. Now that their Ponzi-scheme is collapsing, they have some motive to slow down the collapse to be not too obvious, but that is it. This thing has no future at all as it lacks a viable business model.

Re:No chance, FarceBook is doomed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41603287)

Just once I'd like one of you "facebook is doomed!" types to be right. But you aren't, and won't be.

Facebook is building addictive habits (5, Interesting)

macwhizkid (864124) | about 2 years ago | (#41603125)

This probably is not well-known to people except those working in neuroscience/behavioral psych research, but "wanting" and "liking" are part of a drug addiction theory called incentive salience [wikipedia.org] . The basic notion is that "liking" something is a momentary, pleasurable feeling of hedonism. It passes quickly, but it's powerful reinforcement that drives you to want that hedonic feeling. The "wanting" is where motivation and incentive comes into play to drive the craving for reward (be it drugs, food, whatever).

Think about it: what's the last time you ate a cheeseburger? Do you have a vivid memory of it? Probably not.

But do you want a cheeseburger? Especially one with cheese, bacon, medium rare, fries on the side... mmm...

Anyway, the theory explains why addiction persists and drug abusers fall back into old habits, even when they've been clean for years. Salient cues are too much to ignore (a needle, a bus stop they used to meet their dealer, etc). The theory works with rats getting drugs, food, sex... No reason it can't be applied to website visitors too.

Re:Facebook is building addictive habits (1)

gweihir (88907) | about 2 years ago | (#41603341)

Very interesting point! Makes a lot of sense to me.

I suspect equally immoral techniques were used to make it as big as it is to allow the big cash-out. (Never had an FB account, I just cannot seem to care.) I hope this is just a last-ditch effort to delay the coming FB stock-price crash, but given how little people have rational control over their desires...

Side note: Cheeseburger??? Urgh!

Re:Facebook is building addictive habits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41604025)

Very interesting. Maybe I have that with my old time games. I want to play them, but if I play them I'm disappointed (mostly because of the awkward controls or the old graphic). I often spend much more time to search where to buy, to install them and to make them run, then on the game itself.

That's why I mostly enjoy to watch videos of old games. It saves me from the disappointment to actually play them.

Re:Facebook is building addictive habits (1)

CodeBuster (516420) | about 2 years ago | (#41604403)

But do you want a cheeseburger? Especially one with cheese, bacon, medium rare, fries on the side... mmm...

I liked the part where the women could remember, "two all beef patties with lettuce, cheese and special sauce on a sesame seed bun" while standing in front of the White House, but not the Pledge of Allegiance.

Re:Facebook is building addictive habits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41606309)

Beaten by Buddhists for at least a couple thousand years. Wanting/craving/desire is the root of suffering. Nothing wrong with liking an experience or thing, but the desire will eat you from inside.

Re:Facebook is building addictive habits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41606449)

Anyway, the theory explains why addiction persists and drug abusers fall back into old habits

People fall back into additions because of the effect of that specific drug on their body. I like cheeseburgers and fries but that is not the same as the overwhelming desire for nicotine, alchohol, or cocaine.

Seems straightforward enough. (1)

preflex (1840068) | about 2 years ago | (#41603141)

1. User wants friends.
2. User collects likes.
3. User likes collections.
4. ???
5. Profit!

What I "want"... (2)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about 2 years ago | (#41603327)

What I "want" is a powerful database that can search for specialty products *in stock* at local brick and mortars. I want a pair of brown leather closed toe, closed heel sandals, brown leather, size 11.5. Who has them in stock in a store a 30km radius from me? It's Sunday and I want an 8-port gigabit hub *now* - I'm prepared to pay up to $50. Where can I go get one? In the city where I live (Vancouver, Canada) these types of searches are impossible.

Re:What I "want"... (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about 2 years ago | (#41603397)

Well, you have IRI or AC Neilson data in which to base your search. Both come at millions of dollars per snapshot if you want 24 hours turn around. They come in CSV files. You have to aggregate it yourself too. 2 years of all collectible data for Wal-Mart and it's competitors is ~500GB-7TB for transaction data. That doesn't include inventory manipulations. Good luck.

Re:What I "want"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41603401)

Interesting Idea. But in order for this to happen you'd have to have a sales team convince these local shop owners that it is worth their time and money to publicly publish their inventory and prices. Publishing accurate inventory counts, for small business, is normally a big hurdle.

Re:What I "want"... (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about 2 years ago | (#41606727)

I agree it's impossibly hard, but if vendors really want to take things 'to the next level' these are the sorts of things they need to start offering. I don't want to be given the option to 'want' a wreath, I want to be able to figure out exactly where I can get something that I happen to 'want.'

Re:What I "want"... (1)

neminem (561346) | about 2 years ago | (#41607585)

My best friend from high school is actually working at a little company right now that's trying to exactly that. I tried their beta a few weeks ago and it wasn't that great (their search got me a bunch of crap that wasn't what I searched for mixed in with what I was, and they clearly hadn't indexed the inventories of that many stores in my area), but that -is- basically their goal, and I hope they succeed, because it -would- be a pretty useful thing to have available. I'm blanking on the name of it, sadly.

Long ago... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41603365)

Hosts entry: 127.0.0.1 facebook.com

(and since then... all their other domains that spread buttons n shit to the web)
It's difficult to use a pc that isn't my own to browse the web anymore. There's just so much CRAP loading with most of it. How do regular users put up with that adweb?

Ghostery (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41603509)

Use Ghostery

Re:Ghostery (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41604933)

Use Ghostery

Sure, a plug-in produced by the advertising agency to... report what people are blocking. What could possibly go wrong?

Planted Likes? (2)

mjwx (966435) | about 2 years ago | (#41603519)

I've been suspicious ever since I saw my sister "Like" Unibet and TomWaterhouse (betting sites) and I know for a fact my sister doesn't gamble (motgage and kid, she doesn't have the cash) and when my tea totalling mate liked Johny Walker (hes also a bit of a hipster so if he did drink he'd drink some obscure brand of whiskey made by Scottish virgins that you've never heard of).

So I think that Facebook is inserting these "likes" on the behest of advertisers.

My Facebook Friend list is the same as my real friend list (I dont add any Tom, Dick or Harry that I've met somewhere, at some point in my life) so I notice when things are out of character for them.

Re:Planted Likes? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41603617)

I've got some bad news... they're fooling you. Your sister's been gambling with her kid's college fund to pay off your mate's bar bill. It's actually easier to deceive individual people irl than it is to to hide your desires from Facebook.

(Oh, and you're a hater...)

Re:Planted Likes? (1)

LSDelirious (1569065) | about 2 years ago | (#41605555)

I'm beginning to think the same thing. A couple weekends ago, my girlfriend was on fb on her phone, and she said "oh I didnt realize you stella artois?" Uh I dont actually... I think stella sucks and never would have liked it on fb, yet there I am in her feed as a sponsored story. I logged in and displayed all my likes and sure enough it was there.... I tried to locate when I liked it in my timeline but never did find it

donotwant (1)

codepigeon (1202896) | about 2 years ago | (#41603675)

Is there going to be a donotwant button too? (reserved for slashdot members)

My new antisocial network (5, Funny)

russotto (537200) | about 2 years ago | (#41603781)

Has no Like, +1, or Want button. It does have "-1", "Dislike" and "Do Not Want". If you were to post something, it would delete your post and insult you. However, it doesn't matter because it doesn't accept registrations (either gives server down errors or captchas with symbols not in unicode), so it's all academic anyway.

Re:My new antisocial network (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 2 years ago | (#41605725)

I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter and/or attempt to register on your site.

FB stock is in a death spiral... (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 2 years ago | (#41604125)

Look at the comparative valuations of FB cf. GOOG, AAPL or any of the other hot-button stock du jour. How much must the price of FB fall in order to bring the valuation of FB in line with other comparable stocks?

At what point... (1)

Cyno01 (573917) | about 2 years ago | (#41604191)

Will targeted advertising become a feedback loop and lose all cost effectiveness? If youre only going to show me products im interested in in the first place, why waste money on advertising it to me?

Re:At what point... (3, Insightful)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about 2 years ago | (#41604987)

Never. They will not show you exactly what you want, but will make (hopefully increasingly better) guesses at what stuff you don't know about but might want. You "want"ed an iPhone? It won't show you more iPhones, but might show you accessories for it, or perhaps an ad for an Android phone trying to convince you that this is the better choice.

So if I 'Want' a Victoria Secret ad .. (1)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | about 2 years ago | (#41604345)

.. does that mean I'm a good target market?

Re:So if I 'Want' a Victoria Secret ad .. (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | about 2 years ago | (#41605371)

Can you 'want' a person? Of course, not that I would in real life...

How about a "tantrum" button? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41604961)

Seriously, facebook users are becoming less distinguishable from two year olds by the day.

Browsers need a social link blocker (1)

DrXym (126579) | about 2 years ago | (#41605141)

Browsers are getting do not track options when a large number of sites are being plastered with Facebook Like, G+ and other nuisance tags from "social media" are little more than tracking cookies themselves, capable of tracking someone regardless of them having an account on these services or not. I realise there may be add ons to block these links but my feeling is there should be an opt-out built into the browser. If a person chooses to opt out these links are replaced with placeholders. If the user really wants to, they can click on the placeholder and then the browser loads the real script. And otherwise the page is dark as far as these nuisance links go.

Alternative Strategy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41605621)

This is a mistake, if FB wants to really make some money it should restrict free posting to human users with accounts and then simply auction off a limited number of slots for companies to advertise with.

Victoria Secret (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41606005)

Yes,
when I see adds for sexy models in lingerie I'll probably click the want button. If that collect button works how I'm hoping it would I might just consider getting Facebook for this.

Precision. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41606307)

How can they possibly know I don't 'Want' the model posing from Victoria's Secret instead of the lingerie?

Spock's wisdom holds true.... (2)

RevWaldo (1186281) | about 2 years ago | (#41606757)

After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing, after all, as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true.

.

Doesn't seem to work for me (1)

water-and-sewer (612923) | about 2 years ago | (#41607209)

I've been clicking on the "Want" button on the Victorias Secret page all day, but I'm referring to the models.

What happens next? Cuz so far, ... nothing.

I think maybe it's broken.

A rose by any other name... (1)

sylvandb (308927) | about 2 years ago | (#41611527)

What if all or most just decided to treat the 'want' or 'collect' button as if it were named "dislike"?

FB cannot force us to treat the button according to the text that labels it.

But too bad the masses would never know.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>