Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Darryl
Is this you? Claim Profile »
1 year ago
in Facebook’s Advice to Viral Growth: Buy Our Ads on AllFacebook
@Greg: Say what? Dude, speak English, and use logic. You're a programmer. You're familiar with the concept of rigorous writing. When you write a program, each word has an explicit meaning and describes an action. English is a similar thing; but it is interpreted by the reader, who will rarely return a bug report for you, which means your English writing must be even more carefully written than a program.
Sadly, your fragment of code above is buggy as all hell. Your vocabulary choices and sentence construction scream "I AM A LYING MARKETROID WEASEL!" from the rooftops. It contains the following errors:
(1) Scare-quoting, not quote-quoting "bad" in "bad social ads". No, they're not "bad" *merely in my opinion*. They're *BAD*. They *suck*. The opinion of relevance is not exclusively mine, it is more general: I refer to a social ad that directly offends the user on whose page it is put. Whom it offends is a variable. And that, with no "" required, is just plain *BAD*.
(2) "Actually a great opportunity". Why would *bad* social ads be a "great opportunity" for anyone? Opportunities to do *what*? Be irritated? I've got more than enough of those, thanks.
(3) "We've found". No you haven't. You've been in business two weeks. That's puffery, intended to add authority to a statement. Because what you're saying you "found" ...
(4) "... when you show a social ad that offers truly valuable information for the targeted user, there is a great click-through" ... is, on one level, a pure tautology; on another, an exercise in putting the cart before the horse. If there is a great click-through, that *means* the information was truly valuable for the targeted user. Duh, ya think? Also, "truly" and "great" in this context make you come across like you're desperate to sell something.
(5) "It gives Sharendipity a terrific opportunity ..." Again, I don't think you're clear on what "opportunities" are. I think you just like the noise that word makes.
(6) "... to stand out within the spam." While it's great that you admit that you're within the spam, desiring to stand out within the spam is hardly a laudable goal.
Even after all that, I honestly have no idea what kind of point, if any, you were originally trying to make. Were you trying to justify something? Spam Sharendipity to me, maybe? Astroturf this blog for it? I don't think you even have a clue yourself.
Which is ironic and disappointing, because on actually looking at Sharendipity it seems that you, by sheer accident, may have stumbled into providing something that could, assuming you don't gum it up with weasel poo, be very good. Interactive gaming is, as Scrabulous shows, one of the major "opportunities" (ugh, I feel kind of dirty now) that Facebook offers to the enterprising programmer.
You must realize though that users are an unimaginative lot and the first thing they will do is badly recreate pre-existing games that they like. Super Mario Bros, etc. US IP law being what it is, this will get you into trouble, unless you distance yourself from the games themselves, ie take the same view of IP-infringing games that Microsoft would take of IP-infringing Word documents: not our problem.
Anyhow. Good luck with it, it is a neat idea. But try not to sound like such a weasel.
Sadly, your fragment of code above is buggy as all hell. Your vocabulary choices and sentence construction scream "I AM A LYING MARKETROID WEASEL!" from the rooftops. It contains the following errors:
(1) Scare-quoting, not quote-quoting "bad" in "bad social ads". No, they're not "bad" *merely in my opinion*. They're *BAD*. They *suck*. The opinion of relevance is not exclusively mine, it is more general: I refer to a social ad that directly offends the user on whose page it is put. Whom it offends is a variable. And that, with no "" required, is just plain *BAD*.
(2) "Actually a great opportunity". Why would *bad* social ads be a "great opportunity" for anyone? Opportunities to do *what*? Be irritated? I've got more than enough of those, thanks.
(3) "We've found". No you haven't. You've been in business two weeks. That's puffery, intended to add authority to a statement. Because what you're saying you "found" ...
(4) "... when you show a social ad that offers truly valuable information for the targeted user, there is a great click-through" ... is, on one level, a pure tautology; on another, an exercise in putting the cart before the horse. If there is a great click-through, that *means* the information was truly valuable for the targeted user. Duh, ya think? Also, "truly" and "great" in this context make you come across like you're desperate to sell something.
(5) "It gives Sharendipity a terrific opportunity ..." Again, I don't think you're clear on what "opportunities" are. I think you just like the noise that word makes.
(6) "... to stand out within the spam." While it's great that you admit that you're within the spam, desiring to stand out within the spam is hardly a laudable goal.
Even after all that, I honestly have no idea what kind of point, if any, you were originally trying to make. Were you trying to justify something? Spam Sharendipity to me, maybe? Astroturf this blog for it? I don't think you even have a clue yourself.
Which is ironic and disappointing, because on actually looking at Sharendipity it seems that you, by sheer accident, may have stumbled into providing something that could, assuming you don't gum it up with weasel poo, be very good. Interactive gaming is, as Scrabulous shows, one of the major "opportunities" (ugh, I feel kind of dirty now) that Facebook offers to the enterprising programmer.
You must realize though that users are an unimaginative lot and the first thing they will do is badly recreate pre-existing games that they like. Super Mario Bros, etc. US IP law being what it is, this will get you into trouble, unless you distance yourself from the games themselves, ie take the same view of IP-infringing games that Microsoft would take of IP-infringing Word documents: not our problem.
Anyhow. Good luck with it, it is a neat idea. But try not to sound like such a weasel.
