5 ms·

This. I get that they want sign-ups, but it's hard to sell the service with that page.

therobot24 11y ago
but would a search engine approach be any more effective at conversions? I use google and wikipedia, but it doesn't mean i have a blog or edit.
- mikegioia 11y ago
  That to me is the problem, that for some reason conversions is the sole metric with which success is measured. Why is that though? I don't have to be a GMail/Google user to get value out of Google search, yet Google generates most of its revenue from search. If Twitter knows what everyone likes, or is talking about (especially the influencers), then that would be a good source of search results if I'm looking for something to buy or do. Its an entirely different search engine than Google or even Facebook.
- adventured 11y ago
  That prompts a question as to whether Twitter can best grow its future value more through user signups / conversions, or through maximizing one-way consumption as a broadcast medium. I read the nytimes.com all the time. They have no idea who I am and never will. I'll never signup for an account. They still get to feed me ads. I consume ESPN one-way. They have no idea who I am and never will. It's worth $50 +/- billion to Disney (per Forbes and others). Why can't Twitter maximize that potential? Most of Google's global users don't have or don't use a G account, and are not signed in when they search (even if Google builds a profile on them anyway). That doesn't detract from Google's ability to monetize based on interest and intent. Twitter's intent will never be as valuable, but it wouldn't take much given we're talking about Google's intent being worth $100 billion in advertising sales in the near future. My point being, perhaps Twitter's biggest mistake is in trying to be Facebook and worrying about users. Instead they should focus on maximizing output of high quality sources, and boosting total consumption.
  - mattzito 11y ago
    How do you read nytimes "all the time" with the paywall? Edit: I'm confused by the downvotes. I wasn't trying to turn it into a discussion about whether paywalls are right or wrong, I was just drawing out that either the parent was not reading nytimes all the time, or they were evading the paywall, or they were paying for access. They're talking about how Twitter should get value from giving readers access and using nytimes as an example - but it seems like a terrible example, given that nytimes actively tries to prevent people from reading more than 10 articles/mo for free.
    - trevyn 11y ago
      Google the article title, click the link.
    - kmonsen 11y ago
      Open links in an incognito window
    - adventured 11y ago
      As another comment mentioned, Google the title. Also, some parts of their site and some articles are not paywalled. I probably also burn the article limit per month without paying attention. Add it all up, and I can't remember the last time I was blocked out of reading an article on their site.
  - Pyxl101 11y ago
    > I read the nytimes.com all the time. They have no idea who I am and never will. I'll never signup for an account. They still get to feed me ads. How do you know you're not being tracked through cookies on other sites that you have logged into, or ad networks that interact with those sites? When I load nytimes.com and view the network trace, I see about 50 different domains appear there: pagead2.googlesyndication.com s.tagsrvcs.com <number>.fls.doubleclick.net px.dynamicyield.com beacon.krxd.net pixel.tapad.com c1.rfihub.net tags.w55c.net p.rfihub.com secure.quantserve.com d.xp1.ru4.com ... I'll stop there. I assume that these sites can track my persona whether or not I'm logged in, and probably with a pretty good chance even if I use an incognito window.
- pbreit 11y ago
  Search should be part of it. But they could create a pretty compelling logged out page of trending topics.
mikekchar 11y ago
I don't even need a search. Just give me a "Trending on Twitter" view. Then as I read through it, make the "Follow" button more obvious. As soon as I click "Follow" then sign me up (or get me to log in). Even when you go to a tweet from an external link when not logged in, 20% of the vertical height is taken up by a big blue "Sign up for Twitter (or log in)" thing. Just give me the content and lure me into hitting the "Follow" button.
- rspeer 11y ago
  The moment a topic becomes trending, it gets overrun with spam and shitposts by attention-seekers who know exactly where to find attention. That's not the best first impression.
  - dredmorbius 11y ago
    Well then, that's another problem they've got to fix.
  - thehal84 11y ago
    Yep and sometime you just want the cliff notes on that trend without the spam. This was why I put together our trending search feature @ http://theenginuity.com http://theenginuity.com on the front-page. We compile a list of social trends from our indexes of social data and make it easy to instantly figure out what's going on based on your language / region settings.

but would a search engine approach be any more effective at conversions? I use google and wikipedia, but it doesn't mean i have a blog or edit.

mikegioia 11y ago
That to me is the problem, that for some reason conversions is the sole metric with which success is measured. Why is that though? I don't have to be a GMail/Google user to get value out of Google search, yet Google generates most of its revenue from search. If Twitter knows what everyone likes, or is talking about (especially the influencers), then that would be a good source of search results if I'm looking for something to buy or do. Its an entirely different search engine than Google or even Facebook.
adventured 11y ago
That prompts a question as to whether Twitter can best grow its future value more through user signups / conversions, or through maximizing one-way consumption as a broadcast medium. I read the nytimes.com all the time. They have no idea who I am and never will. I'll never signup for an account. They still get to feed me ads. I consume ESPN one-way. They have no idea who I am and never will. It's worth $50 +/- billion to Disney (per Forbes and others). Why can't Twitter maximize that potential? Most of Google's global users don't have or don't use a G account, and are not signed in when they search (even if Google builds a profile on them anyway). That doesn't detract from Google's ability to monetize based on interest and intent. Twitter's intent will never be as valuable, but it wouldn't take much given we're talking about Google's intent being worth $100 billion in advertising sales in the near future. My point being, perhaps Twitter's biggest mistake is in trying to be Facebook and worrying about users. Instead they should focus on maximizing output of high quality sources, and boosting total consumption.
- mattzito 11y ago
  How do you read nytimes "all the time" with the paywall? Edit: I'm confused by the downvotes. I wasn't trying to turn it into a discussion about whether paywalls are right or wrong, I was just drawing out that either the parent was not reading nytimes all the time, or they were evading the paywall, or they were paying for access. They're talking about how Twitter should get value from giving readers access and using nytimes as an example - but it seems like a terrible example, given that nytimes actively tries to prevent people from reading more than 10 articles/mo for free.
  - trevyn 11y ago
    Google the article title, click the link.
  - kmonsen 11y ago
    Open links in an incognito window
  - adventured 11y ago
    As another comment mentioned, Google the title. Also, some parts of their site and some articles are not paywalled. I probably also burn the article limit per month without paying attention. Add it all up, and I can't remember the last time I was blocked out of reading an article on their site.
- Pyxl101 11y ago
  > I read the nytimes.com all the time. They have no idea who I am and never will. I'll never signup for an account. They still get to feed me ads. How do you know you're not being tracked through cookies on other sites that you have logged into, or ad networks that interact with those sites? When I load nytimes.com and view the network trace, I see about 50 different domains appear there: pagead2.googlesyndication.com s.tagsrvcs.com <number>.fls.doubleclick.net px.dynamicyield.com beacon.krxd.net pixel.tapad.com c1.rfihub.net tags.w55c.net p.rfihub.com secure.quantserve.com d.xp1.ru4.com ... I'll stop there. I assume that these sites can track my persona whether or not I'm logged in, and probably with a pretty good chance even if I use an incognito window.
pbreit 11y ago
Search should be part of it. But they could create a pretty compelling logged out page of trending topics.

mikekchar 11y ago

I don't even need a search. Just give me a "Trending on Twitter" view. Then as I read through it, make the "Follow" button more obvious. As soon as I click "Follow" then sign me up (or get me to log in). Even when you go to a tweet from an external link when not logged in, 20% of the vertical height is taken up by a big blue "Sign up for Twitter (or log in)" thing. Just give me the content and lure me into hitting the "Follow" button.

rspeer 11y ago
The moment a topic becomes trending, it gets overrun with spam and shitposts by attention-seekers who know exactly where to find attention. That's not the best first impression.
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  Well then, that's another problem they've got to fix.
- thehal84 11y ago
  Yep and sometime you just want the cliff notes on that trend without the spam. This was why I put together our trending search feature @ http://theenginuity.com http://theenginuity.com on the front-page. We compile a list of social trends from our indexes of social data and make it easy to instantly figure out what's going on based on your language / region settings.