Posted on

Village of Ridgewood Social Media Policy from”Human Resources Manual”

facebook-lg1

the Village of Ridgewood

“Employees must respect the laws regarding copyrights, trademarks, rights of the public, Village, and other third-party rights. Any use of the Village’s name, logos, service marks or trademarks outside the course of the employee’s employment, without the express consent of the Village Manager is strictly prohibited. To minimize the risk of a copyright violation, employees should provide references to the source(s) of information used and cite copyrighted works identified in online communications. 

Notwithstanding the Village’s right to read and retrieve any email messages sent to or transmitted from Village computers, such messages shall be treated as confidential by other employees and accessed only by the intended recipient. Any exception to this policy must receive prior approval from the appropriate departmental director or the Village Manager. 

Continue reading Village of Ridgewood Social Media Policy from”Human Resources Manual”
Posted on

Ridgewood Water Posts and Reposts Facebook page Disclaimer

RidgewoodWaterLogo_061912_rn_tif_

Ridgewood Water FB Page Disclaimer

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, Ridgewood Water posted a disclaimer on their Facebook page first on June 24 and then on July 9th .

“Ridgewood Water can answer your questions or concerns by calling 201-670-5520 during business hours or emailing us at cswater@ridgewoodnj.net. The opinions expressed by visitors of this page do not reflect the opinions of the Village of Ridgewood or Ridgewood Water. Posted comments will be monitored and the Village reserves the right to remove obscenities, off topic comments, personal attacks, or any other comments that are deemed inappropriate. Alternatively, Ridgewood Water will not be responsible for any claims or complaints made as a result of content or postings that are left on or not removed from this page. Any content posted or submitted for posting is subject to public disclosure.”

Posted on

Facebook tips for Ecommerce

facebook-lg1

H1 Facebook ads for ecommerce

You may have heard terms such as “ecommerce marketing platform”, “ecommerce ads” and some others. We have one new one for you – f-commerce.

What is f-commerce?

The point is that ecommerce deals with different channels and Facebook is one of the most popular among them. We have taken the first letter to name a new trend.

Facebook ecosystem has dramatically changed during last five years and now the platform is a great aid for consumers      making purchases on the Internet. Ladies and gentlemen, revolution of online selling has already started and gathering pace.

Why should one have a store on Facebook?

  • 600+ million of users all over the world;
  • an average profile counts up to 130-140 friends to share shopping experience, especially if we talk about opportunities to have quality goods for lower costs;
  • an average time of visiting is more than for Google and is almost 15 minutes per day;
  • nearly 70% of users visit brand groups on Facebook to know about sales and discounts in the store;
  • 15-20% of sales are made on social media for several enterprises;
  • the carts total cost is 10% higher in the network.

H2 Tips for making successful Facebook store

Use right images

Obviously, you should take only those photos that are of high quality. Those seemingly simple “users photo” are sometimes result of photographer’s great work.

Be careful with colours – white and blue merge with Facebook design and may become unnoticeable.

Use happy people on your pics, women are even better for posting than men.

Remember, people are scrolling very quickly the newsfeed, so your photos should be something different and unusual from what they see.

When you use people for the ads – do not take stock photo, professional unnatural images are instinctively tracked by clients and call no emotions. People prefer to see someone real like friends or colleagues.

Bet on interests

Initially Facebook was, and expected by users, to be the place for friendship ,not shopping. You can touch hearts of your audience when their interest correspond with your products.

Play with the tab “Interests” in your Facebook settings to see related groups and categories. Too sizeable interests can be too far from your real audience, try something narrower to find your customer.

Work with people who have already visited your store

Even if your ads are very convincing, only 1-2% will buy. You should work with previous customers to remind about your product and show ads specially designed for them.

Note: here your focus is on those who have visited your store, but haven’t made a purchase yet.

For example, you can offer a discount for the first order that is available for a limited time: “till the midnigh tonight”.

Talk to those who filled the cart, but left it

There can be different reasons of it. But people who already started thinking about your product, are more likely to finish what they started.

Your ad should contain an image of the order your client was planning to order. The quicker you will remind them about yourAs time goes by interest lessons..

Enticing customers into your place can be a puzzle, make it easy, you will need better prices, gifts and multiply  options for people.

Upsell the orders

Larger orders can become higher by at least two variants:

offer related goods to the order, i.e., a cover case for the mobile phone, earphones and so on;

offer a product of higher price, but of better quality.

Certainly, there are people that need only particular goods at that particular moment. But, there are also those, who simply didn’t know you have other items they need. Value added additions can increase your sale size and save a customer time in the long run.

Posted on

There is chatter on Ridgewood Moms and Dads Facebook Group to “filter” out the dissidents

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, the “Ridgewood Moms and Dads” a controversial Facebook group know for promoting an anti-free speech, far leftist agendas, virtue signalling , and promoting the destruction of the Village of Ridgewood thru high density housing , run by disciples of Paul Aronsohn is now looking to further subvert dissent in the Village by urging members to censor the “agitators “. “Agitators” is defined by anyone who disagrees with the group think leftist ,progressive agenda.

Continue reading There is chatter on Ridgewood Moms and Dads Facebook Group to “filter” out the dissidents
Posted on

Trump Administration Begins Monitoring Social Media Censorship

facebook-lg1

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Washington DC, The Trump Administration on Wednesday opened an online form where Americans can share instances in which they’ve been censored by social media platforms like Facebook and YouTube.

The form asks users to share their contact information, social media links, their citizenship and residency status and links or screenshots of any social media content they’ve posted that was censored by the likes of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter or YouTube.

Continue reading Trump Administration Begins Monitoring Social Media Censorship
Posted on

No Sanctuary for Free Speech as Murphy Administration Tries to Shut Down Facebook Group

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Trenton NJ, Attorney General Gurbir S. Grewal and the Division on Civil Rights today called on Facebook to help stem the “rising tide of hate” in New Jersey and across the nation by examining a Facebook page known as Rise Up Ocean County (RUOC).

While no doubt the Rise Up Ocean County (RUOC) has some controversial content the Attorney Generals Letter to Facebook relies on out of context remarks and clearly there are many Democrat groups in New Jersey promoting cop killers that have not illicit-ed a response from the state AG .

Right on the groups about page its states ,”Let’s start with what we are not. We are NOT anti-Semitic, in fact we welcome all faiths to our efforts and more specifically embrace our friends in the orthodox Jewish community. This is NOT about a specific religion, this is about equal treatment under the law and mutual respect for others. “

Continue reading No Sanctuary for Free Speech as Murphy Administration Tries to Shut Down Facebook Group
Posted on

Facebook Suffers Mysterious Technical Glitch

330facebook-800x420

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, Facebook users around the world reported issues logging into and posting on the site as well as on Instagram and WhatsApp. The Ridgewood blog has been prevented from posting intermittently since Tuesday evening, but initially we thought Facebook was just blocking out posts as they often do.  

According to sources Facebook hasn’t given a reason for the outage, and as usual provided minimal information other than acknowledging it is aware services are down in some areas.

Continue reading Facebook Suffers Mysterious Technical Glitch
Posted on

Glen Rock Lawsuit : When is a Facebook page an “official” Facebook page ?

photo of Skip Huisking Glen Rock Councilman -2016-2018, courtesy of his “official” Facebook page

June 17,2018

the staff of the Ridgewood bog

Glen Rock NJ, looks like Ridgewood is not the only town that has issues with social media and OPRA , a Glen Rock resident named  Timothy Larkin claimed he was “banned” from participating in a public dialogue on Councilman Skip Huisking’s Facebook page, which Huisking called an “official” page of Huisking’s, where the councilman conducts official government business.

On April 10, Larkin filed a lawsuit against the Borough of Glen Rock, and Borough Clerk Jackie Scalia, for denying an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request for access to the list of Facebook accounts blocked or removed by Glen Rock mayor Bruce Packer and all members of the Borough Council. The suit is focusing on the public Facebook pages maintained by the mayor and council members, and not their personal Facebook pages.

The lawsuits focus seems to focus on if the “official” Facebook page is in fact “official ” Glen Rock Business .

Skip Huisking Glen Rock Councilman -2016-2018 commented on his “official” Facebook page on June 15th :

“Social Media Lawsuit: As many have been following, it was heard today (6/15/18) with the judge rendering an opinion. As with most cases, there are pluses and minuses.
I can, and will, continue to administer my page as I have in the past. Namely requiring standards of civility by insisting two things (both were on my page and part of the court documents submitted);
“First, always be respectful with comments- no personal attacks against anyone or group”.
“Second, should you comment and I respond, please do not delete my responses or your original comment. Playing this ‘dirty delete’ game is against my policy of openness and transparency. I look forward to your contributions should you decide to make them.”
The Judge did require we provide the names of those blocked if requested – which I will clearly provide the list of 3 accounts blocked (As I offered in late April to settle) for not following those standards
For further detail, the opinion will be posted on the appropriate court site. I am glad the judge rendered the opinion today so we can focus on the many issues facing our Borough.”

Posted on

Beware of Orange and Rockland Power Payment Scam on Facebook

May 13,2018

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Upper Saddle River NJ, had this passed on by the Upper Saddle River Police department .

A Message from Orange and Rockland Power ,

Orange and Rockland Power: CUSTOMERS BEWARE NEW BILL PAYMENT SCAM ON FACEBOOK

PEARL RIVER, NY May 8, 2018 — O&R warned its customers today about a new phony bill-payment scheme — this time in Spanish on Facebook — in which crooks pose as “consultants” who offer to help customers pay their debts. In reality, the crooks are stealing the customers’ money.
The thieves say on Facebook that if customers wire a percentage of their “electric, cable, cell phone or any utility bill” to the scammers, the crooks will put up the difference to fully pay the bill. The example the phony post uses is if a customer’s bill is $250, the customer can wire the thief $150 and thief will cover the rest.
It looks too good to be true. That’s because it isn’t true. The scammer doesn’t cover the customer’s bill. The scammer steals the customer’s money.
To make things worse, after the customer sends the payment to the scammer, the thieves send the customer a bogus 646 phone number for the customer to call to confirm that their payment was received by the company and the bill was paid in full.
Once again, not true. No payment was made on the account. The thieves stole the customer’s money that was intended to pay the bill, the thieves had no intention of helping retire the debt and the bill still needs to be fully paid.
Don’t let this happen to you.
If you have questions about your O&R bill payment, call O&R Customer Service directly at (877) 434-4100 or email us.

Posted on

No Neutral Ground: The Problem of Net Neutrality

Optical-Fibers01_Web(2)

December 14,2017

by Brian Dellinger

On November 21, the Federal Communications Commission announced plans to revisit its Obama-era internet regulations. It seems likely that the resulting vote will repeal the policies often referred to as net neutrality. The name is, perhaps, misleading; to support net neutrality is to support placing the internet more fully under government supervision. The related political debate often divides traditional allies with arguments for free expression pitted against defenses of small government.

To understand net neutrality, one must see its position in technical history. Traditionally, internet service providers (ISPs), such as Comcast and Verizon, have guaranteed their customers a certain quantity of bandwidth – that is, a certain amount of data per unit of time. It was assumed that even a voracious user would rarely use his maximum bandwidth, and services were priced under this assumption. ISPs also de facto allowed customers to access whatever websites they wished; while there was no legal protection for this behavior, technical complexities made discrimination by website infeasible. The result was a largely open web: anyone with a blog could potentially reach millions.
In the early 2000s, the situation changed. Technological innovations enabled providers to determine which site a user visited and so potentially to restrict access. In principle, an ISP could now sell “packages” of websites, in a fashion resembling cable television: “basic internet” for news and Facebook, say, or “premium internet” for those who wanted more. These years also saw the rising popularity of streaming video services like Netflix and YouTube. Users now binge-watched videos, consuming their maximum available bandwidth for hours at a stretch. Such trends increased costs for the ISPs, leading them to investigate new responses: restricted access to high-usage sites, artificially slow downloads, and so on.

Net neutrality stands in opposition to these changes. Broadly, under net neutrality, the government requires ISPs to treat all web traffic in the same way: no limiting access, no reducing speed. Since 2005, the FCC has several times established net neutrality regulations; inevitably, the courts struck down such rules on the grounds that the FCC lacked the authority to regulate ISPs. In response, in 2015 the FCC redefined broadband internet as a telecommunications service, placing it under FCC jurisdiction, and promptly passed net neutrality rules. With the political shift of the 2016 elections, new FCC Chairman Ajit Pai began rolling back these regulations – hence the upcoming vote.
Both sides of the debate have merit. Concerns that ISPs might slow targeted websites are not idle speculation; Comcast did precisely thatto Netflix in 2014. Indeed, Comcast and others have done little to engender public trust in their behavior. Comcast had pledged for years not to “prioritize Internet traffic or create paid fast lanes.” That pledge disappeared from its website less than a day after Pai announced policy changes.

It is also true that the meritocratic nature of the internet – its enabling of anyone to win a following through quality work – has been one of its most notable virtues. A world of “basic internet,” in which new entrants might be simply unreachable, would reduce its value as a platform for new ideas.

Despite these fair concerns, arguments against the FCC rollback seem insufficient. It is difficult to deny that price incentives have drastically shifted over the last decade; if streaming video is generating much of the ISPs’ expenses, it makes intuitive sense that providers might demand Netflix share those costs, or might price service by total consumption rather than maximum bandwidth. Nor are the corporations supporting net neutrality any more trustworthy than the ISPs. Setting Netflix aside, supporters such as Google and Facebook seek to block ISPs from trading in users’ private information – a trade on which these companies themselves depend. For them, net neutrality eliminates the competition.

Other objections rely too heavily on speculation. While a “fast lane” internet would be a marked shift, the brief history of the web is one of constant change. Indeed, the rise of mobile browsing, which often limits the user to app-specific websites and now constitutes a majority of all web usage, may produce a greater alteration than that net neutrality would prevent.

Further, the internet is historically the result of market activity rather than top-down regulations. If one approves of its remarkable evolution to this point, it seems peculiar to assert that this is the moment to freeze it through government action. Given how few accurately predicted that evolution, it seems hubristic to assert how it will change next. Perhaps, as the ISPs argue, the increased revenue from a non-neutral internet would enable the expansion of broadband networks, ending regional monopolies of service providers. Such a change might ultimately produce a faster, more accessible internet – or it might not, but the experiment seems worth the risk.

Finally, whatever one’s feelings on net neutrality, the 2015 rules should be seen for what they are: a staggering expansion of bureaucratic power, by decree of the bureaucracy itself. The result is an ugly patchwork of overlapping authority between the FCC and the Federal Trade Commission, with ISPs disfavored over similar services. This reclassification can never be a stable solution; it will always be vulnerable to precisely the kind of unilateral repeal currently occurring. If the public supports net neutrality, then let it be defended through the proper channel: by laws, and not bureaucratic fiat.

Dr. Brian Dellinger is an assistant professor of computer science at Grove City College. His research interests are artificial intelligence and models of consciousness.