Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.

Filing 179

Joint Notice of Refiling of Documents Accompanying Class Certification Briefs and Evidentiary Objections. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Redacted), # 2 Exhibit 2 (Redacted), # 3 Exhibit 3 (Redacted), # 4 Exhibit 4 (Redacted), # 5 Exhibit 5 (Redacted), # 6 Exhibit 6 (Redacted), # 7 Exhibit 7 (Redacted), # 8 Exhibit 8 (Unredacted), # 9 Exhibit 9 (Unredacted), # 10 Exhibit 10 (Redacted), # 11 Exhibit 11 (Redacted), # 12 Exhibit 12 (Redacted), # 13 Exhibit 13 (Redacted), # 14 Exhibit 14 (Redacted), # 15 Exhibit 15 (Redacted), # 16 Exhibit 16 (Redacted), # 17 Exhibit 17 (Redacted), # 18 Exhibit 18 (Redacted), # 19 Exhibit 19 (Unredacted), # 20 Exhibit 20 (Redacted), # 21 Exhibit 21 (Redacted), # 22 Exhibit 22 (Unredacted), # 23 Exhibit 23 (Redacted), # 24 Exhibit 24 (Redacted), # 25 Exhibit 25 (Unredacted))(Chorba, Christopher) (Filed on 3/28/2016) Modified on 3/29/2016 (kcS, COURT STAFF).

EXHIBIT 34

From:
Sent:
To:

Cc:
Subject:

Mike Vernal
Wednesday, October 10, 2012 11:04 PM
Alex Himel; Caryn Marooney
Malorie Lucich; Frederic Wolens; David Swain; Brandon McCormick; Jonathan Thaw
Re: like/share:counter issue?

Let's frame this up in a message to Mark in a small thread; I'll touch base w/ Alex on this.
-mike
From: Alex Himel <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 21:28:19 -0700
To: Caryn Marooney <[e-mail]>
Cc: Malorie Lucich <n1alorie(Wfb.con1>, Mike Vernal <vernal(Wfb.con1>, Frederic 'vVolens <fred.wolens(Wfb.con1>, David
Swain <[e-mail]>, Brandon McCormick <[e-mail]>, Jonathan Thaw <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: like/share:counter issue?

That's the correct reading of the data. I was also surprised that the contribution was this large.
-Alex
On Oct 10, 2012, at 9:09 PM, "Caryn Marooney" <[e-mail]> wrote:
Reading this data - are we seeing from these samples are seeing btwn 18-29% likes through private
messages? That seems huge?
Think it makes sense to ask mark about it. I mentioned this to chris cox, and he was surprised that it acted in
this way.
Will these news sites see their Likes go down by 20% if we stop dong this going forward?

From: Alex Himel <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 19:55:25 -0700
To: Malorie Lucich <[e-mail]>, Mike Vernal <[e-mail]>
Cc: Frederic Wolens <[e-mail]>, caryn marooney <[e-mail]>, David Swain
<[e-mail]>, Brandon McCormick <[e-mail]>, Jonathan Thaw <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: like/share:counter issue?

Summary:
1/ % of like button count attributed to private messages is higher than we had hoped. My recommendation would
be to keep the count as is, but we should start a thread with Mark about it to get his opinion. I'm also curious what
other people on this thread who are closer to the public sentiment think. Stats below.
2/ Diff in review to prevent the same user being able to increment the like count by more than one with private
message sends. In other words, just like I can personally only bump the count once by clicking the like button, I will

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

FB000000802

only be able to bump once with private messages.

DATA:
Looked at four domains, all of which are news sites because I figured those were what we cared about the most nytimes.com, washingtonpost.com, huffingtonpost.com, techcrunch.com.
For each, I pulled the top shared urls on a given day (10/8). Sample sizes:
* nytimes.com => 87
* washingtonpost.com => 82
* huffingtonpost.com => 56
* techcrunch.com => 82

%, for each, of like count attributed to private messages:
* nytimes.com => 24.39%
* washingtonpost.com => 18.38%
* huffingtonpost.com => 20.91%
* techcrunch.com => 29.42%
-Alex

On Oct 10, 2012, at 1:58 PM, Malorie Lucich <[e-mail]>
wrote:
> No worries. We were delayed on circling back with you. Thanks Alex.
>
>On 10/10/12 1:57 PM, "Alex Himel" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
»Hey, I'll send something out later today. Sorry for the delay - was
»waiting for a couple changes to go out to production to limit over
»counting from the send dialog. More info soon.
>>
»-Alex
>>
»On Oct 10, 2012, at 1:40 PM, Malorie Lucich <[e-mail]>
>>wrote:

>>
»> Hi Alex -- Sheryl asked for an update on this.
>>>
»>Were you able to look into how often people share links through
>>> messages,
»>and if it makes sense for us to pull that type of sharing from the
»>share/like counter?
>>>
»>Thanks!
»>Malorie
>>>
>>>
»>On 10/4/12 2:49 PM, "Malorie Lucich" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
»»+Dave and Brandon so we are all on the same page for follow up
>>>>
»»Alex is looking into data re: how often people share links through
»»messages. From there we will determine if any product changes should
»»happen to align with user expectations.
2

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

FB000000803

>>>>
» » PR will keep an eye on press coverage and continue to follow up to
>>>>ensure
»»press understands the distinction between Page likes/ plugin likes.
>>>>
» » Fyi -- an update was just posted to the TechCrunch article with a good
>>>>statement from Josh Constine:
>>>>
»»"Josh Constine sees it differently. 'This isn 1t a human reading your
»»messages, it1s a machine scanning them. Facebook would need to do that
>>>>anyway to prevent spam. As for the result, there 1s no Like, my face
» » doesn 1t appear next to the button, and nothing shows up on my profile.
>>>> lt1s just an anonymous+ 1 on a counter, letting it more accurately
»»reflect
»»that people are interested in a website. I think we need to ease back
>>>>from
» » philsophical outrage about perceived privacy violations and ask if this
»»actually hurts us. I don 1t think this does."'
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
»»Thanks all,
» » Malorie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
»»On 10/4/12 1:34 PM, "Frederic Wolens" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
»»>I just booked Touch Base in Building 17 if everyone wants to meet in
»»> 10
»»>minutes at 1:45
>>>>>
>>>>>Fred
>>>>>
»»>On 10/4/12 1:21 PM, "Mike Vernal" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>What's the issue?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm free right now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Oct 4, 2012, at 1:21 PM, "Caryn Marooney" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>
»»»will be quick
>>>>>> But would love to connect
>>>>>>
»»»Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

3

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

FB000000804