Chronotope’s avatarChronotope’s Twitter Archive—№ 82,365

              1. I find these metrics... doubtful and the impact they describe is statistically ambiguous. After 3 days 80% of what? Compared to what? journalismfest/918364571232063488
            1. …in reply to @Chronotope
              In my investigation of Facebook metrics I noted that traffic continues to propagate only if an article receives traffic >=50% of day before
          1. …in reply to @Chronotope
            After day 3 we could be talking about an 80% decrease only applied to ~13% of the total traffic an article received on the first day.
        1. …in reply to @Chronotope
          If an article received 1000 hits day one, 500 day two and 250 day 3, this impact would drop day 4 from 125 to 25...
      1. …in reply to @Chronotope
        But that's likely too simple, the impact is probably even lower, projected over anticipated traffic over multiple days.
    1. …in reply to @Chronotope
      And then you still have to take Facebook's capacity to project traffic accurately as a given, which also seems doubtful...
  1. …in reply to @Chronotope
    Though we do *know* how companies like Facebook often attempt to collect these types of stats... By A/B testing.
    1. …in reply to @Chronotope
      Though that would imply Facebook knowingly distributed Fake News with no warning.
      1. …in reply to @Chronotope
        Also, reporters have gotten good at noticing that sort of thing, I think it is more likely FB is projecting impact over miniscule long tail


Search tweets' text