Skip to main content

Is Facebook's New Home Page Wrecking Your Referrals?

I know it's about as boring as anything to complain about Facebook homepage redesign, but, well, here are: complaining.

This isn't a crank about how it looks different, though. We all know that there are plenty of people that will bust a gasket at any change, but my perspective is on web statistics. And if your experience is anything like mine, Facebook's new design will slice your referrals by about a quarter.

Every Friday, I post my favorite song of the week on my music blog Naive Harmonies, and I used to promote it by feeding the site's RSS into Facebook. I got almost no referrals from Facebook, so a few weeks ago, I stopped the automatic posting, and instead manually posted a link. I could include a short writeup about what exactly I was posting, and I could often include a picture.

The effect was dramatic. I went from one or two Facebook referrals each time to about twelve to fifteen, plus would get between four or five comments and a few likes, none of which I got when I was automatically posting them.

Then Facebook changed their new homepage so that the "News Feed" is the default and only includes people that Facebook thinks you'd be most interested in, which dramatically decreases the number of people who are likely to see your posted link. For the last two weeks, my Friday posted link has gotten a quarter of the clicks they did the previous two weeks.


Those two peaks are the manual posts and two tiny nubbins at the end were the last two posts, which apparently far fewer people saw thanks to the News feed showing much fewer friends.

Facebook can make their design changes all they want, but they're doing far too much algorithmic guessing here as to who wants to see what. From the user side, I feel that they're making things more complex than they need to be. But from a business side, it seems as though getting viewers to your website from Facebook just got a whole lot harder.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why you should be clicking the Google +1 button

One of the things that most makes me feel like I'm beating my head against a wall is when I'm trying to convince people to click reaction buttons like the Facebook Like button or Google +1 button on web pages. I think that most people just don't really think to do it when they read something that they like, but they should, because as Avinash Kaushik brilliantly termed it , it's applause.  Now, I kind of get why people shy away from the using the Facebook Like button: because it shows up on your Wall, has a chance to show up in people's stream and now shows up in the ticker. All of those things are great for people trying to promote their content and get more clicks, but it's not so great for those of us just trying to get feedback on what people are liking and if they're actually reading what we're writing. Even if you're not actively embarrassed to have people know that you like it, it just feels a little more intrusive than a lot of people wan...

Some scattered thoughts on the money of digital music

If you haven't already read Digital Audio Insider's interview with Camper Van Beethoven's Jonathan Segal ¹, it's a must read for anyone with even a slight interest in digital music and the money of the industry. Segal has tons of thoughts on just about every aspect of digital music, but best of all, he brings in these thoughts as someone whose initial music industry experience was in the days of purely-physical media, when "pirating" meant copying something onto a blank tape. My main takeway is general and obvious but an important reminder: we are in a transition time for music, and what it will become is anyone's guess. I think Segal's take on merchandise and live performances taking the place as artist's primary source of income as "asinine" is too harsh to be true, but I do think that we're in such a state of transition that any shot at predicting artistic income in the future is completely in the dark. Such predictions are really ...

Why are we still judging work done by time spent?

Every morning, when I fill in the hours on my work's electronic timesheet, I'm struck by how odd it is that we're still judging our work by the time spent on it. It's odd because it's old-fashioned. In the paper and phone world, you could really only do work when you were at work. But we do work all the time now. I check my email when I first wake up. Does that mean I start my day at 6:30 am? Should that be reflected on my timesheet? How about when I respond to an email or check Basecamp when I'm on the bus? Does my work day start then? How about when I look at Google Analytics at night or think about email newsletters when I'm in the shower (which I'm somewhat ashamed to admit I did this morning)? On the other side, if someone finishes the work that they're meant to do, why should they feel like they need to stay at work until 5:00, just because that's the official time of the work day? I don't think anyone would argue that time spent ...