Comments on: Social Fakers: What Do Numbers Mean these Days?

By: marknicholson

marknicholson — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 06:03:55 +0000

I’ve heard many of those fake accounts belong to affiliate marketers…

By: GoogleExpertUK

GoogleExpertUK — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:25:37 +0000

Yeah yeah whatever, millions have been set up by themselves, marketeers and especially criminals with the fake celebrity accounts. Easy way to solve it remove all the people who are not real, make them confirm themselves. Obviously not gonna do that!
http://www.seowebmarketing.co.uk
http://www.twitter.com/GoogleExpertUK

By: 3HatsComm

3HatsComm — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 18:37:57 +0000

FB – I’ve got friends who have accounts for their pets, though it’s not like they do anything w/ them that would skew the works. Twitter is a weird creature; I’ve got more than one (work vs. play). But I would not consider them duplicate or fake accounts; different tweets, posts, RTs, almost entirely different audiences. Do you kick us off, ban these kind of accounts? IDK.

I’m right there w/ you @hessiej on wanting to oust the real fakes – i.e. bots, plants, alternate life forms, sock puppets, even brands and businesses that somehow managed to get in as ‘people’ to be friended rather than liked/followed. And when you block the fake clicks, bogus RTs, sign me up. Faulty metrics are screwing the system; and hurting small businesses who get bamboozled into buying into this crap. The numbers are never gonna add up; but it is important to try to get them as close to right as possible – and always take a closer look. FWIW.

By: hessiej

hessiej — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 04:48:26 +0000

@JonAston That speaks to my point above Jon. Lazy marketers who need to get immediate performance to prove that social works will do anything just for optics and short-term rewards. To think I used to be one of them.

By: hessiej

hessiej — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 04:46:59 +0000

@rdopping I was as surprised as you were, frankly. I don’t necessarily think most of my followers or yours, for that matter, are fake. But certainly there is direct correlation with the larger number of you have, the higher the incidence of fakery. Social media was meant to be niche. There is huge engagement in the smallest and tightest communities. Marketers these days are trying to scale social and fast and that has led to this supply and demand “buy fan” market. I hope it goes away now that FB and some of these suppliers have been called out. But honestly, as long as there is a willing buyer….

By: tkographix

tkographix — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:42:00 +0000

RT @MuhammadInc: Social Fakers: What Do Numbers Mean these Days? – http://t.co/9foT2IZu

By: rdopping

rdopping — Sun, 21 Oct 2012 16:15:36 +0000

Dear @SpinSucks , I have not resubscribed and my Google Reader still picks up your new posts! Just FYI. I must be special or something.

@hessiej I really enjoyed this post but it leaves me a little sad. I am not a social media giant but I proud of the connections I have in the small community I am part of. To think that most of my “followers” are fakes makes me sad so I will bury my head in the sand and plod on.

Of course if I notice a fake out there I will certainly hurl rotten digital tomatoes at it. That’s some scary stuff!

By: JonAston

JonAston — Sun, 21 Oct 2012 13:00:58 +0000

I think the shittiest part is that presumably “leading” PR firms and/or Brands are willing to pay for fake likes. Check out Shell’s FB page for a glaring example. If marketers wouldn’t pay, the black market wouldn’t exist.

By: jennapettinato

jennapettinato — Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:54:30 +0000

@ConstantChanges @samfiorella @ginidietrich If ppl begin conversations with “do you see how many followers I have!?”, immediately tune out.

By: hessiej

hessiej — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 17:26:31 +0000

@KenMueller @Danny Brown @belllindsay Danny, Ken has a point. I can’t wait til’ Harper’s term ends — although unlike US rules, Canadians can vote a politician in multiple terms. If Romney wins, God help you and God help the world!