3 ms·

Clueless. Twitter has got to start realizing its much more a Wikipedia and not at all a Facebook. Twitter's journalistic and celebrity users are its ONLY value,

by rrggrr 11y ago

Clueless. Twitter has got to start realizing its much more a Wikipedia and not at all a Facebook. Twitter's journalistic and celebrity users are its ONLY value, in the same way Wikipedia's editors are its primary value. Focus on content, incentivizing content and nothing else. Stop treating earnings misses, user growth, etc. as metrics that require your immediate attention. Stay the course and enhance content. Twitter IS important for discourse, democracy and transparency. It is still a national and possibly global treasure.

grandalf 11y ago
Without an algorithmic feed, the utility of twitter maxes out once you start following more than about 200 people. The point of the algorithm is to show the user the content he/she wanted to see in the first place but might not have had the patience to scroll for, or might have gotten fed up reading lower quality content and closed the app before reading. An algorithmic feed will also help a lot with spam detection/prevention.
- gherkin0 11y ago
  I would rather make the call myself about what I want to see delegate to some twitter algorithm. And yes, I'm going to sometimes miss tweets I'd otherwise be interested in; it's no big loss. What I want to see is what's happening now.
pjc50 11y ago
Twitter's journalistic and celebrity users are its ONLY value Not quite - certainly all value is user created, but saying that only certain users are valuable is just as bad. There are whole subgenres of people that don't fit those two categories like "weird twitter", activists, indie game devs, and novelty/parody accounts. How do you monetise Tahrir Square? Should you?
sphericalgames 11y ago
It is nothing like a Wikipedia - you can't edit my tweet for a start. It is more like a micro blogging platform with an integrated RSS Reader. My tweets are my blogs entries limited to 140 characters. Clicking on followers is the same as clicking on subscribe to another blog RSS. When I view all my followers tweets, that timeline is exactly like me viewing all my subscribed RSS in an RSS reader, the only different is you see the content there and then rather than clicking a link to view the entire story. Retweets is same as reblog button on a blog. Reply to a tweet is same as making a comment to a blog post. As for Facebook I don't have an FB account to know how it functions. I'm guessing if you think about it long enough it is close to being a blog too with more bells and whistles. Adding your family/friends is akin to subscribing to their feed is just like subscribing to RSS on a blog.
- pjc50 11y ago
  Facebook is like that, except it doesn't show you all the stuff you've subscribed to, and when it does it's out of order. The relationship between human users and "pages" that don't represent a person is even stranger, given that "like" means "subscribe to this, but only a few percentage of subscribers will see posts unless the page owner pays us".
untog 11y ago
How do you figure that Twitter is a Wikipedia? It is very far from being a vetted, verified source of information. People say whatever they want on there. A non-linear timeline makes sense to me, as long as the linear one is also left as an option.

by rrggrr 11y ago

grandalf 11y ago

Without an algorithmic feed, the utility of twitter maxes out once you start following more than about 200 people. The point of the algorithm is to show the user the content he/she wanted to see in the first place but might not have had the patience to scroll for, or might have gotten fed up reading lower quality content and closed the app before reading. An algorithmic feed will also help a lot with spam detection/prevention.

gherkin0 11y ago
I would rather make the call myself about what I want to see delegate to some twitter algorithm. And yes, I'm going to sometimes miss tweets I'd otherwise be interested in; it's no big loss. What I want to see is what's happening now.

pjc50 11y ago

Twitter's journalistic and celebrity users are its ONLY value Not quite - certainly all value is user created, but saying that only certain users are valuable is just as bad. There are whole subgenres of people that don't fit those two categories like "weird twitter", activists, indie game devs, and novelty/parody accounts. How do you monetise Tahrir Square? Should you?

sphericalgames 11y ago

It is nothing like a Wikipedia - you can't edit my tweet for a start. It is more like a micro blogging platform with an integrated RSS Reader. My tweets are my blogs entries limited to 140 characters. Clicking on followers is the same as clicking on subscribe to another blog RSS. When I view all my followers tweets, that timeline is exactly like me viewing all my subscribed RSS in an RSS reader, the only different is you see the content there and then rather than clicking a link to view the entire story. Retweets is same as reblog button on a blog. Reply to a tweet is same as making a comment to a blog post. As for Facebook I don't have an FB account to know how it functions. I'm guessing if you think about it long enough it is close to being a blog too with more bells and whistles. Adding your family/friends is akin to subscribing to their feed is just like subscribing to RSS on a blog.

pjc50 11y ago
Facebook is like that, except it doesn't show you all the stuff you've subscribed to, and when it does it's out of order. The relationship between human users and "pages" that don't represent a person is even stranger, given that "like" means "subscribe to this, but only a few percentage of subscribers will see posts unless the page owner pays us".

untog 11y ago

How do you figure that Twitter is a Wikipedia? It is very far from being a vetted, verified source of information. People say whatever they want on there. A non-linear timeline makes sense to me, as long as the linear one is also left as an option.