4 ms·

I'm in the vocal minority along with John Gruber who is upset about the fact that 9 years of stars are now hearts: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2015/11/04/r

I'm in the vocal minority along with John Gruber who is upset about the fact that 9 years of stars are now hearts: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2015/11/04/red-heart-problem http://daringfireball.net/linked/2015/11/04/red-heart-proble... But I will get over that, because Twitter is a very useful medium. This has nothing to with the success of Twitter as a business. What I am interested in, is whether this is detectable from background noise of people using Twitter more because it is in the news. That is not the sort of thing that a TechCrunch puff piece is going to care about, and/or Twitter may have good reasons for not bothering to share the data. But I would like to know!

Zancarius 11y ago
> What I am interested in, is whether this is detectable from background noise of people using Twitter more because it is in the news. Probably not, or at least I'm sure there's some percentage of users who were oblivious to the fact they could "favorite" something. Now they know, and now they're using it (or were reminded?). That said, I'm sure there's also a non-trivial number of users who feel as I do. I'm sure their UX folks entertained the idea of having both (liking via hearts + bookmarking via favorites) and decided it would be too disruptive to change at this point. I can't really blame them, but I do have to wonder: Are those use cases substantially different enough to warrant having both, or is the advantage of having a single "like" feature (fairly well understood, even across platforms--think Facebook) a more overriding concern with greater utility while maintaining simplicity? It definitely sucks for people who were using favorites for what they were (or thought they were) intended only to have it changed up.