4 ms·

It can't be replaced but it can be made easily mutable. For example, imagine a quick-switcher that flips the feed from algorithmic to time based with a single

It can't be replaced but it can be made easily mutable. For example, imagine a quick-switcher that flips the feed from algorithmic to time based with a single tap. That's a powerful feature and adapts twitter to different use-cases fast. I think the key here is to give users options instead of trying to shepard them into a particular direction, especially with their bipolar userbase (e.g. people use Twitter for various, seemingly disjoint use cases)

partiallypro 11y ago
But making the algorithmic feed the default, alone, is enough to kill the platform. For the mere fact of nudging, and human laziness. It will just make the shit rise to the top, instead of the hidden gems that make Twitter golden. Twitter has to be one of the most poorly run tech companies, outside of Yahoo. They changed their API token limits, and destroyed 3rd party clients. They bought TweetDeck and then utterly destroyed it. Live data is their product, but they bury it with stupid business decisions; utterly baffling. They tout MAUs during their conference calls (which they always miss), but that has nothing to do with their product. Their product has some of the top content providers, providing unique content in real time. Facebook can't say that, no other platform sans Snapchat can say that. Facebook has figured this out and that's why they are rolling out offerings like Paper. Twitter doesn't get it.
- askafriend 11y ago
  I completely agree with you on all counts. Why they forced the algo as a default is a mystery to me. I mean...the old Discover tab was fantastic and if they filtered that with their new algos, then I think people would love the result! Instead we get a static list of top news (Moments) that you can find on Yahoo's homepage.
- erichocean 11y ago
  > Facebook has figured this out and that's why they are rolling out offerings like Paper Right, but hasn't Paper been a gigantic flop?
  - partiallypro 11y ago
    Maybe, it's too early to tell. The thing is that Facebook has to convince content providers to do it...Twitter already has them doing it; they just don't seem to know the value. Facebook is for sharing links, to me that's a lot less valuable than original content in the space (per user). I'm not saying Twitter should be worth more than Facebook, only that their core component is undervalued, but Twitter seems keen on killing it because they are trying to focus on meaningless stats like MAUs, which have only a small importance to do with what their model should be. If Twitter were under someone who saw it as an information company instead of a social media platform, imo, it would be a steal of a company at the current market price...unfortunately Jack and his team are incompetent.
- makomk 11y ago
  At a guess, they want to be able to charge companies to reach the people that are following them on Twitter just like Facebook does and they can't easily do that with reverse-chronological.
  - majewsky 11y ago
    That's sort of the usual explanation: Shareholders see that Facebook is more popular and profitable than Twitter, hence they put pressure on Twitter to be more like Facebook. The problem being of course that no one needs a second Facebook.
- r3bl 11y ago
  Did Facebook figure it out? Because I don't see people actually browsing the homepage anymore. What used to ne an exciting way to explore stuff has turned into a bunch of pictures and a couple of Facebook videos ripped off from YouTube. I haven't seen anyone browsing through their homepage excitingly in a very long time. Now it's just a chat platform.
  - takno 11y ago
    I still browse the homepage, even with the need to switch it back to most recent every other day when they try to sneak you back onto algorithmogeddoen.
  - partiallypro 11y ago
    I see people every day going scrolling through their timeline on the Facebook app on their phone. Maybe it depends on your what your timeline's algo is showing you. I will say that I see much less Facebook engagement on the whole from people ~28 and younger, even in chat; people have shifted to Snapchat. Of course I'm a Windows Mobile user, so I am totally in the dark in that area because their CEO hates Microsoft. But that doesn't really have much to do with what I'm saying, Facebook has figured out that original content is important (something it now lacks; if you don't include Instagram), that doesn't mean they've found the solution. Twitter doesn't seem to know that is important, but they already have somewhat of a solution.

partiallypro 11y ago

But making the algorithmic feed the default, alone, is enough to kill the platform. For the mere fact of nudging, and human laziness. It will just make the shit rise to the top, instead of the hidden gems that make Twitter golden. Twitter has to be one of the most poorly run tech companies, outside of Yahoo. They changed their API token limits, and destroyed 3rd party clients. They bought TweetDeck and then utterly destroyed it. Live data is their product, but they bury it with stupid business decisions; utterly baffling. They tout MAUs during their conference calls (which they always miss), but that has nothing to do with their product. Their product has some of the top content providers, providing unique content in real time. Facebook can't say that, no other platform sans Snapchat can say that. Facebook has figured this out and that's why they are rolling out offerings like Paper. Twitter doesn't get it.

askafriend 11y ago
I completely agree with you on all counts. Why they forced the algo as a default is a mystery to me. I mean...the old Discover tab was fantastic and if they filtered that with their new algos, then I think people would love the result! Instead we get a static list of top news (Moments) that you can find on Yahoo's homepage.
erichocean 11y ago
> Facebook has figured this out and that's why they are rolling out offerings like Paper Right, but hasn't Paper been a gigantic flop?
- partiallypro 11y ago
  Maybe, it's too early to tell. The thing is that Facebook has to convince content providers to do it...Twitter already has them doing it; they just don't seem to know the value. Facebook is for sharing links, to me that's a lot less valuable than original content in the space (per user). I'm not saying Twitter should be worth more than Facebook, only that their core component is undervalued, but Twitter seems keen on killing it because they are trying to focus on meaningless stats like MAUs, which have only a small importance to do with what their model should be. If Twitter were under someone who saw it as an information company instead of a social media platform, imo, it would be a steal of a company at the current market price...unfortunately Jack and his team are incompetent.
makomk 11y ago
At a guess, they want to be able to charge companies to reach the people that are following them on Twitter just like Facebook does and they can't easily do that with reverse-chronological.
- majewsky 11y ago
  That's sort of the usual explanation: Shareholders see that Facebook is more popular and profitable than Twitter, hence they put pressure on Twitter to be more like Facebook. The problem being of course that no one needs a second Facebook.
r3bl 11y ago
Did Facebook figure it out? Because I don't see people actually browsing the homepage anymore. What used to ne an exciting way to explore stuff has turned into a bunch of pictures and a couple of Facebook videos ripped off from YouTube. I haven't seen anyone browsing through their homepage excitingly in a very long time. Now it's just a chat platform.
- takno 11y ago
  I still browse the homepage, even with the need to switch it back to most recent every other day when they try to sneak you back onto algorithmogeddoen.
- partiallypro 11y ago
  I see people every day going scrolling through their timeline on the Facebook app on their phone. Maybe it depends on your what your timeline's algo is showing you. I will say that I see much less Facebook engagement on the whole from people ~28 and younger, even in chat; people have shifted to Snapchat. Of course I'm a Windows Mobile user, so I am totally in the dark in that area because their CEO hates Microsoft. But that doesn't really have much to do with what I'm saying, Facebook has figured out that original content is important (something it now lacks; if you don't include Instagram), that doesn't mean they've found the solution. Twitter doesn't seem to know that is important, but they already have somewhat of a solution.