Facebook's Your algorithm: make a clear request, then check what changes

PING's suggested observation method for Facebook's Your algorithm. The graphic uses no Facebook interface or account data. Original illustration by PING! Magazine.

Telling Facebook what you want to see is different from finding a particular person’s post. Meta’s 13 October announcement describes Your algorithm, a place to add and manage interests for Feed and Reels through the three-dot menu. Before typing a request, decide whether you want a different mix of recommendations, a particular source, or a change to who can see your own posts.

Start with one useful request

Here is a suggested exercise, not a tested Facebook prompt. Write one interest and the kind of material that would actually help: for example, practical garment-repair demonstrations rather than general fashion inspiration. Add a useful distinction, such as hand sewing rather than machine buying. The aim is to make your own preference clear enough that you can later judge whether the result fits it.

Avoid a long list of competing wishes at first. If you change several interests at once, you will have less basis for explaining a different feed. Keep a short private note of what you asked for and when. Do not turn that record into a claim that one sentence caused every later change; it is a starting point for observation, not a controlled experiment.

Separate the subject from the treatment

Meta describes follow-up questions after Interested or Not interested, allowing people to explain a reaction in their own words. In a [10 November engineering account](https://engineering.fb.com/2026/11/10/ml-applications/your-algorithm-giving-people-more-ways-to-personalize-facebook-recommendations/), Meta says Feed and Reels read from the same preference store and that viewing and engagement still shape suggestions. Meta says recommendations can adapt within a session. PING did not measure response time.

A useful distinction might be liking a subject but disliking its presentation. Someone could want more repair demonstrations without wanting dramatic before-and-after sales pitches. Another reader might value local arts listings but not distant events they cannot attend. Describe that distinction plainly if the option appears. These are hypothetical reader examples, not screenshots, verified prompts or evidence of how the system interprets any particular wording.

Notice what changed, not just what appeared

For a small personal check, decide what would count as useful before you scroll. Perhaps a repair video names its tools and shows the relevant step, rather than simply displaying the finished item. Note a few examples that meet or miss your criterion. A pleasant post is not proof that the overall feed improved, and an unwanted post is not proof that a setting failed.

Keep the check proportionate. You do not need to spend an extra evening scrolling to evaluate a tool meant to make reading easier. Ask whether the next ordinary visit helps you do what you came to do. If your real aim is a specific maker, publication or event, go directly to that source rather than treating recommendations as a complete directory.

An interest request is not an audience setting

Use Facebook’s separate audience controls to choose who sees your posts. Your algorithm shapes the recommendations you see. Keep feedback about content without adding private customer details, account information or another person’s personal story.

Check the account you actually use

For a reader in Lagos, Nairobi or London, an announcement alone does not prove that a control is present in their account or interface. If the named option is absent, record that limit rather than repeatedly changing unrelated settings. PING has not checked country rollout, signed into an account or tested the feature.

Use a clear request, a modest observation and a realistic purpose. Feedback can be useful without being a guarantee of a perfectly curated feed. Keep the supplier's promise separate from what you have actually seen. Find more source-led guides in PING's archive.