Jump to content

Glenfaba & Peel


Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, offshoremanxman said:

I’m not sure Callister’s prolific blog output is indicative of any guide to popularity at all to be honest.  

It's not about popularity, it is about creating an online presence & social media tools measuring that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, SleepyJoe said:

It's not about popularity, it is about creating an online presence & social media tools measuring that

Yes but I can’t see how that is a metric for anything reliable. For instance in the last 48 hours four MHKs (presumably paid for) election posts popped up in my Facebook feed. I ignored and muted all four of them - actually I reported one as spam as the candidate is basically an idiot. I’d be pretty skeptical that the activity has converted anyone to vote for them but it seems that this is the sort of activity that website draws from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

Yes but I can’t see how that is a metric for anything reliable. For instance in the last 48 hours four MHKs (presumably paid for) election posts popped up in my Facebook feed. I ignored and muted all four of them - actually I reported one as spam as the candidate is basically an idiot. I’d be pretty skeptical that the activity has converted anyone to vote for them but it seems that this is the sort of activity that website draws from.

I assume there's some greater degree of sophistication in the model - for example ignoring Facebook ads unless re-posted by individuals.  But if you look at what they claim to be their success with the Douglas South:

 image.png.cd1ea6d99c863e01cd873d7a1d2cf1ce.png

Apart from getting Christian right, they were well out on most of the others.  And Christian was very much the obvious leader, so that just confirmed what everyone else was saying.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the above Roger Mexico. If it was a reliable guide then persistent internet and Facebook sh*t posters like Josem or Callister would win everything hands down purely because of their excess activity compared to everyone else. I genuinely don’t understand the logic behind the model. 

Edited by offshoremanxman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

I assume there's some greater degree of sophistication in the model - for example ignoring Facebook ads unless re-posted by individuals.  But if you look at what they claim to be their success with the Douglas South:

 image.png.cd1ea6d99c863e01cd873d7a1d2cf1ce.png

Apart from getting Christian right, they were well out on most of the others.  And Christian was very much the obvious leader, so that just confirmed what everyone else was saying.  

They did predict Quine as coming in second surely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

Yes but I can’t see how that is a metric for anything reliable. For instance in the last 48 hours four MHKs (presumably paid for) election posts popped up in my Facebook feed. I ignored and muted all four of them - actually I reported one as spam as the candidate is basically an idiot. I’d be pretty skeptical that the activity has converted anyone to vote for them but it seems that this is the sort of activity that website draws from.

If the social media presence measurement tools are good they will consistently tell you what penetration your product is achieving in the market place in terms of projection

If they - the tools - are not good then nobody continues to pay for them

What comes up in your feed is tailored to your interests as Facebook sees them

Edited by SleepyJoe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, SleepyJoe said:

What comes up in your feed is tailored to your interests as Facebook sees them

Doesn’t paid for content find you regardless? I’m surprised how many seem to be paying for Facebook targeting this time round. For instance I’m fed up of reporting Tim Glovers which seems to still keep finding me so I’m assuming he’s paying to hit a target audience which is why I spam blocked it in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, offshoremanxman said:

I agree with the above Roger Mexico. If it was a reliable guide then persistent internet and Facebook sh*t posters like Josem or Callister would win everything hands down purely because of their excess activity compared to everyone else. I genuinely don’t understand the logic behind the model. 

I think the idea is to pick up on what (and how much) other people are saying about the candidates, rather than what the candidates produce themselves.  How well they do so is another matter, but that's the theory I've seen other social media monitoring claim.

1 hour ago, SleepyJoe said:

They did predict Quine as coming in second surely?

Yes but just behind Christian and way ahead of Josem while it was the other way round in the result:

Christian  930

Quine  469

Josem  463

It's not just order that's important in assessing how well polling does, it's accuracy.   Getting the winner wrong in a close race can actually be more wrong than getting the winner right in a landslide.

They obviously made some adjustments to stop obvious social media targets such as Clanton being over-rated, but still got most of the candidates way out.  I suspect the model under-rates local social contacts that might have benefited Malarkey, Jessopp and Allen for instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

I think the idea is to pick up on what (and how much) other people are saying about the candidates, rather than what the candidates produce themselves.  How well they do so is another matter, but that's the theory I've seen other social media monitoring claim.

Yes but just behind Christian and way ahead of Josem while it was the other way round in the result:

Christian  930

Quine  469

Josem  463

It's not just order that's important in assessing how well polling does, it's accuracy.   Getting the winner wrong in a close race can actually be more wrong than getting the winner right in a landslide.

They obviously made some adjustments to stop obvious social media targets such as Clanton being over-rated, but still got most of the candidates way out.  I suspect the model under-rates local social contacts that might have benefited Malarkey, Jessopp and Allen for instance.

Facebook 'likes' & friend requests may well be factored

Edited by SleepyJoe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

I think the idea is to pick up on what (and how much) other people are saying about the candidates, rather than what the candidates produce themselves.  How well they do so is another matter, but that's the theory I've seen other social media monitoring claim.

Well yes, but again back to my point. Most of the stuff shared about Callister or Josem is fairly negative so how is a comment relevant? The comments might generally be “Your blogs crap” or “You’re a lunatic” 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...