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 Announces Social Search Tools

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the stalking-made-simple dept.

Facebook 128

Today at a press conference in California, Mark Zuckerberg announced a big new feature from Facebook: Graph Search. It's a set of tools designed to quickly bring together social information involving "people, photos, places, and interests" in response to a user's query. Zuckerberg was quick to point out that they aren't indexing the web, and thus aren't challenging Google. However, it will use the vast volumes of data already stored on Facebook to answer questions like "What kinds of movies do my friends like?" and "Who are friends of friends that are single in San Francisco?" Addressing the obvious privacy concerns, the company said it wouldn't allow users to search content that wasn't already shared with them (or already public). The searched data does, however, include location data, if it's been shared — you can search by places your friends have been. Significantly, the official site also mentions that Graph Search will help you meet new people, something Facebook hasn't really highlighted until now. Graph Search is being rolled out as a limited beta, with only a few thousand participants. In the coming months, they'll open it to more users and continue working on mobile and non-English versions.

cancel ×

128 comments

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

Great! (5, Insightful)

jddeluxe (965655) | about 2 years ago | (#42595493)

Additional levels of automated stalking!!!

Re:Great! (4, Insightful)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | about 2 years ago | (#42595523)

Additional levels of data to mine and sell to our advertisers!

Re:Great! (2)

alphatel (1450715) | about 2 years ago | (#42595553)

How much is my privacy worth? Can I get paid to browse this social portal? Why is my account banned?
No results.

Re:Great! (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#42595631)

Facebook is just poking at the law of unintended consequences, daring it to bite... its users. See how this works? Hmmmn.

You say that you were tricked to "Like" the GNAA fanpage?

Looks like a flashmob has now nominated your house as the starting point for the next Klan rally!

Remind me again, why I don't use TumbPinTwitBookSpace.

Re:Great! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42595929)

Remind me again, why I don't use TumbPinTwitBookSpace.

So you can stay up there on your geek pedestal, nose held high, scoffing at all the sheepy plebs

Re:Great! (2)

Servaas (1050156) | about 2 years ago | (#42596079)

Just drink the kool-aid man, just take a sip!

Re:Great! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42596081)

> TumbPinTwitBookSpace

Sorry, but "Family Circle" in the newspaper comics beat you to that joke about 5 years ago.

Re:Great! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42596367)

Why'd ya pull yer resume off LinkedIn Jeremiah Cornelius -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3368135&cid=42529887 [slashdot.org] Is it since someone spotted you're not only a "San Fran 'Man'" (a fella is more like it) and that you can't even spell what you allegedly used to do for a job? It's correctly spelled PENETRATION, not "pentration" as you misspelled it there in front of 1,000's no doubt (one would think an anal penetration man from San Fran'd know how THAT is spelled at least, lol). Jeremiah Cornelius likes to troll others -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2238996&cid=36457426 [slashdot.org] , but can't handle it when it's done in return showing he is illiterate, and that much is obvious. You fail troll. How many years did you leave your resume up there with that basic literacy fail on it? Yes you have been trolled. You like? I wager you don't since you removed your faulty resume (on the very thing you took pride in that you can't even spell correctly most likely indicating you weren't any good at it either).

Re:Great! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42596699)

Gosh darn it, APK. I didn't even summon you properly this time. Now I look like a fool.

Re:Great! (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#42598077)

Did somebody say "Hosts File"? :-)

I still remember James "Kibo" Perry...

Re:Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42596131)

Additional levels of data to mine and sell to our advertisers!

Not exactly. They will be selling the questions people ask so they can better sell the data that is used to support the questions. People may be going to movies but they are asking questions about the theaters (seats, A/C, concession prices, parking availability, etc). Advertiosers will then be able to target those questions in their ads.

Re:Great! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42596899)

Additional levels of data to mine and sell to our advertisers!

Not exactly. They will be selling the questions people ask so they can better sell the data that is used to support the questions. People may be going to movies but they are asking questions about the theaters (seats, A/C, concession prices, parking availability, etc). Advertiosers will then be able to target those questions in their ads.

Duhh the questions ARE additional data. Why, they could even be described as "additional levels of data" to be monetized. Monetized as in, "mined and sold to advertisers".

I am sorry but your primary school teachers grotesquely failed to instill in you any sort of skill at reading comprehension as evidenced by your completely redundant post. Remedial training is highly recommended.

Re:Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42596203)

Additional levels of data to mine and sell to our advertisers!

Now the government doesn't have to do all the heavy lifting when it comes to data mining. "Hmm. All of Billy's friend's seem to like Fight Club a little too much. Let's watch him a little closer."

Re:Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42597909)

Right.

Because "liking Fight Club" is a good predictor of evil intentions, as opposed to, say, being a pretentious twat who smokes too much weed and occasionally browses 4chan.

How IS life now that you're a senior in high school, AC? Must be pretty great, being the big swingin' dick on campus, huh?

Re:Great! (1, Troll)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 2 years ago | (#42595839)

Additional levels of automated stalking!!!

Don't you understand? People who sign up for Facebook *WANT* these things - their pathetic lives would be even less without their "friends". Without Facebook, many people have NOTHING!

Re:Great! (1, Troll)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 2 years ago | (#42597157)

Ha ha ha ha...

Modded "Troll"!

You know what that means?

It means that even as most Slashdotters TRASH Facebook, the secret reality is that they not only have accounts, they spend a lot of "social" time on those accounts!

Too sweet!

Re:Great! (3, Interesting)

causality (777677) | about 2 years ago | (#42597681)

Additional levels of automated stalking!!!

Don't you understand? People who sign up for Facebook *WANT* these things - their pathetic lives would be even less without their "friends". Without Facebook, many people have NOTHING!

Your "Troll" mod was not because you said anything inaccurate. It is because we live in an increasingly emotionally immature society where the pleasantness of a thing is considered more important than the truth of a thing. It is the result of being governed by emotion and not reason. Whoever modded you "Troll" is like that. Sadly, many people are unable to calmly articulate their own opinion, so they need to "get back at you" in some way for offending them. After all, you didn't constantly say things like "well just my opinion" (something already understood) and "hope it doesn't offend anyone" (that is their choice) to kiss their asses and placate their desire to climb up on their high horse and cry about how terrible you are. Their self-importance and false sense of entitlement demand that you show such undue deference, you know.

Anyway, when you have real friends whom you love and respect like family members, and a satisfying social life, Facebook has no appeal. All Facebook offers that cannot easily be had elsewhere is the exchange of trivia with and casual attention from strangers or superficial acquaintences. The trade-off of losing so much irretrievable privacy in exchange for something so devoid of real value makes no sense. To those who are not starved for attention, it is all minuses and no plusses. The bandwagon it has become is also unappealing to those who are not herd animals, who don't find "everyone else is doing it" to be a valid reason to do anything.

I can certainly see how those who otherwise would have no satisfying social life might find it appealing. This merely constitues Facebook taking advantage of a weakness/shortcoming and exploiting it in order to make money. The disrespect they frequently show to their userbase and the obvious disregard of basic privacy concerns makes it inherently exploitative in nature. It's something that a healthy, happy person who is not needy would refuse to tolerate. Zuckerberg's contempt for his own users has been repeatedly established by his very own statements. This is someone people want to trust with so much personal data? It's absurd and indicates that many people have no idea whom they're dealing with, or simply no real discerning standards for themselves.

If someone has to data-mine and connect lots of different dots and perform all kinds of automated searches in order to find you, it is because you didn't want to be found. That's why such vast systems and huge databases were necessary to do something that is otherwise so simple. If you want someone to be involved in your life in some way, none of that would be needed.

I do agree with your premise that for people who have little else, this kind of attention may actually be welcome. Of course that is pathological, used as a terrible substitute for real fulfillment and real quality time with people who actually love and understand you. This should be obvious, but when lots of people want to legitimize something, the first thing they must do is create confusion and complicate otherwise simple things. When enough people do that, it can make the obvious seem controversial when really it is merely inconvenient (the gun control "debate" is that way - wow criminals don't obey weapons restrictions, who'da thunk it?).

Finally, I wonder: how many people would have had to face and overcome their personal social weaknesses if they hadn't had Facebook as a readily available crutch?

Re:Great! (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 2 years ago | (#42598131)

Very well articulated, better than myself.

Thank you...

- Frosty

Re:Great! (2)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | about 2 years ago | (#42596345)

On the other hand, at least users get access to the same information that advertisers have had...

Inspirational quotes (5, Funny)

DarthVain (724186) | about 2 years ago | (#42596521)

Only if I can cross referances single girls of friends of friends who post less than or equal to 0 inspirational quotes with pictures per day (including but not limited to: jesus, them being a strong mom, something sappy about relationships, something about being a badass woman, what makes up a real man, their son and/or daughter and how much the love them, etc...)

Facebook: We find out how crazy some of your old friends really are!

Re:Inspirational quotes (2)

feandil (873841) | about 2 years ago | (#42597101)

you should become gay. your criteria for women are definitely too restrictive

Re:Great! (1)

oztiks (921504) | about 2 years ago | (#42598863)

I have to admit (not proud of it) but I was nearly going to stay up and wait for this announcement.

I love to watch the Stock Market and see how things go on the day-to-day, not really to put money down but just to simply observe. In any case, Reuters did post an article about this and it did receive some (not a lot) attention.

Sufficed to say FB's stock has been growing quite steadily at to this point back to $38 a share (IPO offering) but as soon as this new search feature broke being the next "big new thing" from FB their stock dropped by close to $1. Anyway, here is what a Reuters commenter wrote:

reality-again wrote:
Kinda disappointing
Google’s search algorithm has become outdated, from the results page that’s almost identical to the design offered by Altavista and Northern Lights back in the nineties, to results provided by this monopoly’s search engine that increasingly look irrelevant to the point of being comic.
This naturally calls for someone to introduce a better web search service, but FB’s search function seems like yet another ‘internal’ feature of their website, and not something for the ‘real world’ out there.

I felt it noteworthy to post this for a few reasons. When I read it if found it quite cute :) It's funny how these investor people think in some ways.

a) The commenter thinks that Google uses old broken algorithms. Anyone who follows Google knows that they update and refine (especially with mobile platforms) 100s of times a year and do this for this exact reason. In fact, I'd tell this person to go use Google's mobile stuff (and so should Mark Z) and see exactly what it takes to run a proper mobile platform.
b) That writing a search engine that can rival Google can be done by Mark Zuckerberg (this one really makes me giggle)
c) Being able to index pretty much the entire internet in just a few short weeks/days. I.E from the beginning of when FB wrote "see what we're building" and we were going to see a dropped curtain on a Google killing Search Engine.

I know what the commenter wrote was opinionated as it almost looks like he/she knows a few things about Search Engines by mentioning Altavista but if we are to ever understand these "dotcom bubble investors" I sure think this comment gives us some insight into them. Scary.

Stalkers Rejoice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42595515)

No one can hid now

Re:Stalkers Rejoice (4, Insightful)

ToadProphet (1148333) | about 2 years ago | (#42595555)

Well, those of us who have successfully managed to stay off facebook can...

Fee for Service (1)

craigminah (1885846) | about 2 years ago | (#42595525)

I'm sure this service will cost $100 or so to make use of. Good thing Facebook fully thought through their business model prior to going public.

No thanks (4, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 years ago | (#42595537)

When I've wanted to know what movies my friends like, I'll probably have already talked to them about it.

On Facebook, though, I've got "friends" who are basically just people I shared some period of time and space with - e.g. high school classmates. I don't really care what movies they like, unless they're members of the tiny minority with whom I've kept contact over the decades.

BTW this is the exact same logic that made me immediately turn off Google's "social" search results when they enabled that last year (in a previous attempt to revive the moribund Google+). If I'm doing a Google search, it's because I'm asking a question my immediate friends can't help me with.

Re:No thanks (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42595639)

On Facebook, though, I've got "friends" who are basically just people I shared some period of time and space with - e.g. high school classmates.

Why?
Maybe this explains the people I see with 500-1000 Facebook friends.
My only Facebook friends are people I'm actually friends with. What's the benefit of "friending" anyone else?

Re:No thanks (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 years ago | (#42595769)

There's a lot of times I want to get in contact with an old classmate or colleague I'm not "friends" with anymore... this is a good way to do it. A lot of people change their email addresses more often than their Facebook accounts. I just keep everyone I'm not close with in a separate group (College, High School, Family, etc) that's locked down pretty tight. It's called networking... great for finding jobs, planning a vacation or something else my immediate friends can't help with but someone from my greater group of acquaintances can.

Re:No thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42596057)

great for finding jobs, planning a vacation or something else my immediate friends can't help with but someone from my greater group of acquaintances can.

Maybe I'm socially retarded, but I wouldn't feel comfortable asking for that kind of help from "just people I shared some period of time and space with".

Re:No thanks (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 2 years ago | (#42597551)

What you fail to realize is that many people see virtual space as a way to become much more than they are. People "Friend" on FB because they are in need of attention and/or recognition. They epeen wave to feel important, and make themselves feel good by epeen waving. If they post "I ate froot loops" and their "friends" respond "zomg! I love froot loops" they believe that they have accomplished something. They have influenced their "friends", and can feel good about eating froot loops.

Your view is, of course, more accurate, but lets not discount what something like FB is to many.

Re:No thanks (1)

steveg (55825) | about 2 years ago | (#42595905)

Not only that, but I seldom announce to my "friends" on Facebook (even though they are mostly really my friends) what movies I like or what products I like, etc. I might "like" a band I support, etc., but that's as far as it goes.

Facebook just doesn't have enough information about me to make most of these connections. It's not so much that I'm trying to keep a low profile with them, I just don't have the urge to share that kind of stuff, even face to face. Unless the question comes up. I'm not unwilling to talk about it, I just have no urge to make sure people know those kinds of details.

Re:No thanks (1)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#42596015)

I seldom announce to my "friends" on Facebook (even though they are mostly really my friends) what movies I like or what products I like, etc.

Maybe its public purpose is to help you and others share and search trivialities, but the private purpose is to provide feedback to astroturfers, those who hire astroturfers, crazy super fans, and self promoters on how far the astroturfers reach goes.

For example before I deleted my account I didn't log in or use it for a couple months (it was a slow gradual decline), so you can't simply count a guy who's not really a follower as a follower. Or something like that.

Re:No thanks (2)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#42595927)

I don't really care what movies they like

I think its interesting the discussion is being carefully and methodically framed by both sides as being solely for trivial deep as a rain puddle pop culture queries.

It would be interesting to data mine my "friends" for religious beliefs, political party membership, stuff that is at least theoretically more important. Or information to sell to potential employers. So according to my friends, illegal drugs are (select one) a) bad b) good c) too expensive. My friends think I should (select one) a) get married b) not get married

Then again my limited experience on FB some years ago was most people pretty strongly believed it was only for "trivial deep as a rain puddle pop culture" and people got pretty freaked out if you directly displayed above room temp IQ via comment, hobby, pic, or interest. Then again, indirectly, maybe via geotag analysis and so forth you could pull interesting data anyway.

3 percent of CPU for privacy (-1, Flamebait)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 2 years ago | (#42595539)

Zuck said that Facebook spends 3 percent of their CPU power on privacy. With such a low CPU budget dedicated to something as important as users' privacy, it's no wonder they do such a poor job of it.

Re:3 percent of CPU for privacy (4, Insightful)

hawguy (1600213) | about 2 years ago | (#42595675)

Zuck said that Facebook spends 3 percent of their CPU power on privacy. With such a low CPU budget dedicated to something as important as users' privacy, it's no wonder they do such a poor job of it.

I read 10%, not 3%:

http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/15/facebook-graph-search/ [engadget.com]

What would you consider to be a more reasonable amount of CPU budget to spend on excluding search results from some queries? I'm surprised it's as high as 10%, but I never really thought of CPU usage as a metric for privacy protection.

Re:3 percent of CPU for privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42596007)

but I never really thought of CPU usage as a metric for privacy protection.

It isn't at all unless it can be used as fodder for complaining about facebook privacy.

"Only 2.4% of the screen real estate is used for privacy controls! They don't care about privacy!"

Re:3 percent of CPU for privacy (2)

hedley (8715) | about 2 years ago | (#42596009)

How can 10% of a server farm go to that? if(notallowed(X,Y)) { etc

How is that notallowed() function written?

boggles my mind. Maybe I am alone and the Ubercoders at FB really can spend 10% of quality CPU time satisfying that func().

H.

Re:3 percent of CPU for privacy (3, Insightful)

hawguy (1600213) | about 2 years ago | (#42596611)

How can 10% of a server farm go to that? if(notallowed(X,Y)) { etc

How is that notallowed() function written?

boggles my mind. Maybe I am alone and the Ubercoders at FB really can spend 10% of quality CPU time satisfying that func().

H.

Facebook processes more than 500TB [slashgear.com] of data a day, and has over 100PB in its Hadoop cluster.

Maybe a simple notallowed() function doesn't scale linearly across many PB of data.

Re:3 percent of CPU for privacy (2)

hackula (2596247) | about 2 years ago | (#42595947)

Cpu percentage is hardly meaningful. For example, my site uses 0 cpu on privacy, since it does not collect user data.

Is anyone even interested anymore? (4, Insightful)

venom85 (1399525) | about 2 years ago | (#42595545)

Is anyone outside of the teenage girl crowd even paying attention to Facebook announcements anymore? I'm legitimately asking. I have a Facebook account that I log into maybe once or twice a year. And most of the circles I spend time in don't really use it much anymore either. Am I the only one that sees Facebook announcements and just shrugs with indifference?

Re:Is anyone even interested anymore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42595637)

its so irrelivent that im long-bored with talking about how little FB matters.

Re:Is anyone even interested anymore? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42596093)

its so irrelivent that im long-bored with talking about how little FB matters.

And yet you took the time to post on /. about it.

Re:Is anyone even interested anymore? (4, Insightful)

Macrat (638047) | about 2 years ago | (#42595777)

Facebook is a photo sharing service for many families.

Re:Is anyone even interested anymore? (1, Interesting)

war4peace (1628283) | about 2 years ago | (#42595919)

DUMB families, that is. When you have Dropbox, SpiderOak, Microsoft's whatever-it's-called storage service, why in the name of the Unholy would you stick to Facebook?
Yes, my sister shrugged when I had her go to a Dropbox link to download my kid's pictures, but I basically told her that's how I function and she either can go there or wait until she sees him directly. Or I could send the pictures to her through Yahoo Messenger Send File option.
Bot NOT Facebook. No, thanks.

Re:Is anyone even interested anymore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42596605)

And then she perfunctorily posts the photos of your kid onto Facebook.

Re:Is anyone even interested anymore? (1)

war4peace (1628283) | about 2 years ago | (#42596971)

You just made the assumption my sister is dumb enough to do that. She isn't.

Re:Is anyone even interested anymore? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42598725)

You just made the assumption my sister is dumb enough to do that. She isn't.

We've already determined that she's dumb enough to put up with your demanding spergie crap. Just now narrowing down how dumb she is.

Re:Is anyone even interested anymore? (3, Informative)

aclarke (307017) | about 2 years ago | (#42596637)

I'm in the process of uploading lots of old scanned family pictures to Facebook. The reason is that almost all my immediate and extended family is on Facebook. This way my cousin can provide a comment on whether that was actually at her parent's farm or the one down the road or some other incredibly important tidbit of information, and my sister can read this and comment on it. If someone tags my nephew in a photo, he gets notified that there's a baby photo of him up. It's social aspects like this that make Facebook much better (in many ways) than Dropbox. Of course, there are downsides too. For those who don't want to have anything to do with Facebook, I'm happy to upload the photos to Dropbox and send them the link.

Re:Is anyone even interested anymore? (1)

war4peace (1628283) | about 2 years ago | (#42596961)

Yeah, I don't know, I prefer meeting them rather than commenting on pictures on social media. Oh well, to each his own.

Re:Is anyone even interested anymore? (1)

aclarke (307017) | about 2 years ago | (#42596999)

So do I, but you do understand that it's not an either/or choice, right? Maybe you have a smaller family than me who all live in the same town. I have family all over the world, so I don't get to see them all as often as I'd like to.

Re:Is anyone even interested anymore? (1)

war4peace (1628283) | about 2 years ago | (#42597841)

My sister lives in another country, she has a Facebook account and is free to post whatever she wants in there. I choose not to do the same, and family members have a choice to acknowledge that or not. Their choice.

Re:Is anyone even interested anymore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42596865)

But with Dropbox, you have discrete box that you have to add the users to. Every family has to create their own box. With Facebook each individual can upload pictures and share them with their own friends and family. In other words, each person has their own view of what the group should be. For example, if I share pictures on Dropbox I'd have to upload the pictures both to my family's group and my in-law's group. I can see the pictures my sister uploads on Facebook, and my in-laws that probably don't care about them can't see them.

Re:Is anyone even interested anymore? (1)

war4peace (1628283) | about 2 years ago | (#42596945)

"Dropbox shared folders let you collaborate on a set of files. When someone joins a shared folder, the folder appears inside their Dropbox, and syncs to their computers automatically."

So, no. All they need is to have a Dropbox account.

Re:Is anyone even interested anymore? (4, Insightful)

hawguy (1600213) | about 2 years ago | (#42595801)

Is anyone outside of the teenage girl crowd even paying attention to Facebook announcements anymore? I'm legitimately asking. I have a Facebook account that I log into maybe once or twice a year. And most of the circles I spend time in don't really use it much anymore either. Am I the only one that sees Facebook announcements and just shrugs with indifference?

Actually, I thought the demographic went the other way -- most of my young nieces and nephews (18 - mid twenties) seem to have dropped off facebook, with very rare updates. On the other hand, the 30 year old and up parents and grandparents are still posting baby pics and talking about doctor's appointments.

Do teenagers still care about FB?

Re:Is anyone even interested anymore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42595845)

This is more likely their News Feed algorithm adjusting your stories to those it thinks "interest" you more. When I still had a Facebook account I was annoyed that my feed was only showing me stories from friends that I cared little or nothing about, yet showed nothing of the friend *I* felt I wanted to know about.

If you go directly to their Facebook page you'll probably see that they're still quite active on Facebook, but your feed is not showing it due to Facebook's algorithm selectively filtering their posts out of it.

Re:Is anyone even interested anymore? (1)

hawguy (1600213) | about 2 years ago | (#42595965)

This is more likely their News Feed algorithm adjusting your stories to those it thinks "interest" you more. When I still had a Facebook account I was annoyed that my feed was only showing me stories from friends that I cared little or nothing about, yet showed nothing of the friend *I* felt I wanted to know about.

If you go directly to their Facebook page you'll probably see that they're still quite active on Facebook, but your feed is not showing it due to Facebook's algorithm selectively filtering their posts out of it.

Naa, I've checked their facebook pages, and aside from a few "Happy birthday grandma" type posts, most of their pages are empty.... I asked my nephew where he went since he used to post interesting sites of the day nearly every day - he said after his friends stopped using Facebook, he moved to Pineterest.

Young users are fickle and there's not much friction preventing them from moving around. Facebook wants to create that friction by providing an ecosystem so broad and useful that no one will want to leave, but few are wiling to invest that much effort into one platform - and even if someone wants to, they really need all of their friends to do so too to make it useful.

Re:Is anyone even interested anymore? (3, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#42596095)

Do teenagers still care about FB?

They snapchat. Its basically a photo sharing app with sexting optimized features although the flyer was careful to note the optimized for does not necessarily equal exclusively used for... No I'm not involved don't have an account LOL, this is from one of those "parents learn about your kids life online" type of flyers I believe sent home from school, or maybe it was online, so its probably already months outta date. Facebook is seen as the place mom and dad hang out, so you can't "do stuff" without them so go somewhere else to socialize...

Re:Is anyone even interested anymore? (2)

guttentag (313541) | about 2 years ago | (#42597163)

Is anyone outside of the teenage girl crowd even paying attention to Facebook announcements anymore?

Spotted: D knows V who is dating K who can send MZberg a message without having to pay $100. OMFG she is sooo connected!

If the paragraph above made sense to you, you probably were forced to watch an episode of Gossip Girl by someone you know. That person who forced you to watch Gossip Girl will be very excited by facebook's announcement.

Oh good, searchable privacy problems (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42595589)

Facebook, search: all the dirty secrets my friends didn't navigate FB's privacy maze properly on.
Or potential employees.

I use Facebook to keep in touch with friends that've moved out of town. Every time they offer a "new exciting privacy feature" it changes my default privacy back to public (from friends only) and I need to redo all my security settings. Now it looks like anything I might miss gets slurped-up in easy to search format.

Fantastic.

Re:Oh good, searchable privacy problems (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42595767)

Facebook has never changed my privacy settings on its own. You are lying.

Wrong, genius (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42595867)

Re:Wrong, genius (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42596013)

he never set the privacy settings in the first place so he has always been open to the public. that is why it never changed on him.

Re:Wrong, genius (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42596847)

Or that was a buildup to "I don't use Facebook, so I don't HAVE any privacy settings!"

Facebook friends are not really my friends (5, Insightful)

hawguy (1600213) | about 2 years ago | (#42595605)

What Facebook doesn't seem to realize is that my Facebook "friends" aren't really my friends - they are a large group of family and acquaintances. I don't think my taste in food and/or movies matches maybe 10% of my FB contacts. So if I do search for movies or restaurants my "friends" like, I'm not likely to get any better results than if I search Google.

Plus everyone I know would have to share a lot more information to make this service useful.

Re:Facebook friends are not really my friends (1, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 2 years ago | (#42595911)

What Facebook doesn't seem to realize is that my Facebook "friends" aren't really my friends...

What you don't seem to realize is that Facebook doesn't care about what you think and who you think your friends are. Facebook is simply enlarging their HUGE database for mining profitable connections. It's all about gathering information and AFTERWORDS letting loose the statisticians and analysts. If there was not HUGE amounts of money involved, they would not do it.

The pencil-necked bean-counting abacas drivers at Facebook are tapping into the value of BILLIONS of pieces of ennui.

Re:Facebook friends are not really my friends (1)

war4peace (1628283) | about 2 years ago | (#42595935)

Don't add them to Facebook, or put them in the appropriate group, with the appropriate privacy settings. Geez.

Re:Facebook friends are not really my friends (1)

hawguy (1600213) | about 2 years ago | (#42596011)

Don't add them to Facebook, or put them in the appropriate group, with the appropriate privacy settings. Geez.

Or just treat Facebook "friends" as a collection of family and acquaintances and then treat your real friends as real friends. One doesn't *have* to use facebook to connect with friends.

There's no way I'd trust Facebook's evolving privacy settings to protect information that I share only with my real friends.

Facebook getting desperate? (3, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | about 2 years ago | (#42595617)

I think so. Do you?

Re:Facebook getting desperate? (5, Funny)

boristdog (133725) | about 2 years ago | (#42595825)

Well you can now find out if all your "friends" think Facebook is getting desperate too!

Yet I can't search my own profile (5, Interesting)

scorp1us (235526) | about 2 years ago | (#42595627)

I use my profile to bookmark (and share) waht I find interesting. The problem is, if I need to find something over 2 weeks old it takes forever to find it. Why can't I search my own profile?

Re:Yet I can't search my own profile (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42595967)

+1

Re:Yet I can't search my own profile (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42596091)

That would be what Google+ is for.

Re:Yet I can't search my own profile (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42596115)

You got that right. I so want to be able to search my own profile for a post it drives me crazy.

would graph searching "graph search" be recursive? (1)

waddgodd (34934) | about 2 years ago | (#42595635)

The interesting thing I'm seeing is that the news is propagating via twitter and MSM. I haven't seen a thing about graph search on facebook itself...

Re:would graph searching "graph search" be recursi (1)

MagikSlinger (259969) | about 2 years ago | (#42595813)

Technically, that would be "meta". ;-)

How about EU? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42595653)

Someone should now sue Facebook from abusing dominant market position on social networks and we need to force Facebook to offer Google search, Google Maps and Google Music in Facebook site. Even a GMail is forced to be available for every Facebook user.

As when I am doing search in facebook, I am sure Facebook is directing traffic to its own services instead Googles.

CANT SOMEONE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT?!

Search: Intent, Function and Results (1, Insightful)

davecrusoe (861547) | about 2 years ago | (#42595685)

Rather than blowing it away outright (which some of the comments have done), let's think about it for a sec. There's some cool stuff going on here, and then a big question.

The cool stuff is the technology and innovation. Think about this for a sec - Facebook's engineers are essentially looking at a variety of signals to determine (a) intent and (b) likely outcome. The signals are getting increasingly complex - not simply keyword boolean queries any longer - and, to me, that's a fascinating growth and extension of technology. It's innovation.

The question, however, is whether there will be enough value, simplicity and meaning to change user behavior from defaulting to Google to defaulting to Facebook or Bing. In my observations of search, for instance, I've seen young people search for Bing on Google simply to access Bing to perform a search. Our default to Google to answer questions of all forms and types is deeply embedded in our action and thought. Furthermore, search will have to prove itself valuable to all the searches not relevant to social graph: typically research questions, like "Who was George Washington?".

So, I applaud the innovation, and will await time to view change, through the lens of history.

--Dave

Re:Search: Intent, Function and Results (3, Informative)

hawguy (1600213) | about 2 years ago | (#42595863)

Rather than blowing it away outright (which some of the comments have done), let's think about it for a sec. There's some cool stuff going on here, and then a big question.

The cool stuff is the technology and innovation. Think about this for a sec - Facebook's engineers are essentially looking at a variety of signals to determine (a) intent and (b) likely outcome. The signals are getting increasingly complex - not simply keyword boolean queries any longer - and, to me, that's a fascinating growth and extension of technology. It's innovation.

It was innovation 10 years ago, now it's what everyone is doing -- Google doesn't do a simple SQL query in a big database to determine the results and ads you see for a query - they mine data from Gmail and their ad network and combine your personal preferences to determine relevance.

Re:Search: Intent, Function and Results (1)

davecrusoe (861547) | about 2 years ago | (#42597089)

Absolutely true; I suspect they've got some innovation in their analysis of imagery and "friend" social signals, something that Google may be working to catch-up on with Google+. But, yes, clearly intent and a number of other innovations have been happening elsewhere, over time.

Re:Search: Intent, Function and Results (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42595885)

Searching in more advanced forms beyond boolean (semantics etc.) is far far older than facebook - they are doing nothing interesting, indeed it is surprising how little they are extracting with this. "Photos of me when I was 19" - check variable for DOB of user - search photo database tagged with them within a 1 year period. There is very little "innovation" here.

fuck you mark (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42595713)

srsly. y u no morl?

on a side note, we can now better visualize some of the stuff that facebook knows about us personally.

Underimpressed (3, Interesting)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 2 years ago | (#42595773)

They even got the BBC excited with the news of their news conference. Then the big announcement is this? Really? If it isn't going to turn into big piles of $$ for investors by this afternoon, they better have something earth-shattering coming in real soon. Right now they have a lot of shareholders who are nervous about how much money they lost in a hurry on opening day, and I don't see how this will help them (and I am most certainly glad to not be one of those investors).

Re:Underimpressed (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | about 2 years ago | (#42596027)

If it isn't going to turn into big piles of $$ for investors by this afternoon

Considering at one point the stock was down over $1 from yesterday's price (currently down .8575 cents), it doesn't look as this afternoon will be good for investors if they're day trading.

Re:Underimpressed (1)

Zocalo (252965) | about 2 years ago | (#42596055)

Taking a quick peek at their stock ticker [google.com] on Google, I don't think the markets have been impressed at all, in fact more the opposite. That they are hyping up such a small feature enhancement as this so badly seems like they are completely out of any ideas to increase revenue and are down to grasping at any straws they can. I guesses at a long slow slide into mediocrity for Facebook in the aftermath of their IPO, and so far I've not seen anything that makes me think they might avoid that fate.

Re:Underimpressed (1)

hedley (8715) | about 2 years ago | (#42596111)

I agree. Now they are in the boy who cried wolf domain for the next 'big thing' they want to talk about. They had CNBC all in a titter this morning
ready to 'live blog' etc, CNBC is totally centred on the bottom line, this in their parlance would be a 'miss' since they were looking for wow (hardware, a goog competitor etc). No wow, just meh. Some CS folks at FB got to crack the spines open on their seldom used graph theory books from school.

H.

not much different than (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42595809)

a friend snooping around your house when they're over.

this is simply another reason to stay away from facebook.

Graph search is a new paradigm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42595829)

Relationship status has meant nothing without knowing if they prefer bar or pie.

This is a good idea (0)

fermion (181285) | about 2 years ago | (#42595857)

Facebook is becoming grey. Many kids I know are spend their time on other service. Their parents spend their time on facebook monitoring what the kids are saying. Facebook is alienating kids by acting like their parents and suspending accounts.

But there is demographic that likes to conform, do what the popular kids are doing, even though, or because, they themselves are not popular. The greatest risk in these people lives is to go an unpopular movie or have the wrong clothes. Ever since Facebook left the college culture, this has been the demographic that kept it going.

Of course, for many of us this is another reason to never create a facebook account. Another way for employers or stalkers or jealous lovers to make life difficult.

For those that want to be out there, there is always tumblr.

Re:This is a good idea (1)

rsborg (111459) | about 2 years ago | (#42596301)

But there is demographic that likes to conform, do what the popular kids are doing, even though, or because, they themselves are not popular. The greatest risk in these people lives is to go an unpopular movie or have the wrong clothes. Ever since Facebook left the college culture, this has been the demographic that kept it going.

One demographic. I see other demos that have a strong presence on FB whenever I log back in (once every few months or so): The exhibitionist (posts lots of artistic pictures and comments about herself and occasionally her kids - very amusing). The entertainer (local musician/dancer who uses FB as a marketing channel). The family fulcrum (an amiable extended family member who just likes to pull people together and is super nice). Smaller players in my feed: the emo grownup, the political activist, the hobbyist, the small-kid parent.

This is really going to be used for... (2)

Cheza (1242376) | about 2 years ago | (#42595865)

Don't kid yourself, 99.9% of these searchers are going to be something along the lines of.. "Girls with mutual friends who became single in the last month" "Single girls near me whose status contains 'drunkkk' more than twice a week" Combine this with imaging searching = awesome "Girls that have dated guys that look like me"

Not addressing privacy concerns... (5, Insightful)

swb (14022) | about 2 years ago | (#42595973)

"Addressing the obvious privacy concerns, the company said it wouldn't allow users to search content that wasn't already shared with them (or already public). "

Translation:

"This is totally worthless without shared, public data, so we plan to completely fuck with our privacy settings a whole bunch before this rolls out so that we can make sure your data is public and shared."

Re:Not addressing privacy concerns... (4, Insightful)

Mitreya (579078) | about 2 years ago | (#42596943)

"This is totally worthless without shared, public data, so we plan to completely fuck with our privacy settings a whole bunch before this rolls out so that we can make sure your data is public and shared."

Indeed -- Facebook regularly changes (publicly or quietly) various settings to "streamline" user experience and protect user privacy. But I am yet to see a single example where the default change did not expose additional information that used to be private. You'd think at least one move geared to "protect user privacy" would make something private, yet that never happens.

ha ha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42596249)

irony... today my account closed after the 14 days;-)

Shouldn't they fix the obvious (1)

thisisfutile (2640809) | about 2 years ago | (#42596369)

I always thought their basic search features sucked to begin with. For one, it doesn't do well with finding alternate spellings of the same name and lately I've noticed that all three of the people filters (which in and of itself should have more than three) now don't limit their own lists. "Locations" will be intermixed with "Education" so even when looking up a school, you'll have 5 or 6 entries and it's hard to tell which one you're supposed to select. So if I try 4 spellings of a name and use all 6 of the different Education filters, they expect me to try 24 times to make sure all bases are covered. I personally don't use social networking so I might be missing something.

Want to know (2)

rpresser (610529) | about 2 years ago | (#42596413)

Want to know what kind of movies your friends like? ASK THEM.

Want to get set up with a single friend of a friend? ASK YOUR FRIEND.

Want to make Zuckerburg disgustingly rich? USE FACEBOOK.

Goodbye google! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42596813)

Bing/Facebook FTW!

facebook fabric (1)

hresult (902522) | about 2 years ago | (#42596869)

Facebook’s intent is really obvious – they are trying to replace “raw” Internet with the Facebook layer, and people would do all interactions: social, searches, shopping through their layer. This would render other companies like Google, Yelp, you name it obsolete. The problem however is in the details: how can anyone trust Facebook with their private data, searches etc. considering all the privacy issues, lack of user’s control over their data, etc.? Once you’re in the Matrix, you cannot unplug. That’s what Facebook is trying to bring to the users.

Like Siri, but with typing (1)

rjejr (921275) | about 2 years ago | (#42597735)

So instead of asking Siri questions I can type them into Facebook? This whole "event" was just so Mark Zuckerberg can continue parading himself around as the next Steve Jobs.

If you want privacy... (1)

greentshirt (1308037) | about 2 years ago | (#42598825)

If you want privacy, don't willing share information on a public forum, like Facebook. Users are on the one hand using the site and all of its features, which presumably they find useful, and on the other bemoaning that the actions in which they publicly engage can be either aggregated or used by the company to - gasp - make money. Facebook has consistently responded to user privacy demands, or paid severely when they haven't (Instagram lost half its traffic in one month). As far as I'm concerned, they are an example of a how to balance user demands for privacy with monetizing a free service.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?