4 ms·
Yeah anecdotally, my in app time for Snapchat vs Instagram flipped once they changed the feed. Twitter was even worse, I don't use it anymore. How insane would
by AJ007 10y ago
Yeah anecdotally, my in app time for Snapchat vs Instagram flipped once they changed the feed. Twitter was even worse, I don't use it anymore. How insane would it be if your email inbox didn't sort chronologically?
I don't know what cohorts Facebook is looking at. Are they seeing a drop in engagement but balance it doesn't matter because of the revenue stream from advertisers? Or may be the bulk of users have increased engagement with a non-chronological feed? Perhaps more users than I realized follow over 1,000 users and the chronology value was lost a very long time ago.
Oddly enough I'm finding myself returning back to RSS feeds. Lots of excellent independent bloggers still out there who actually write useful things. edit: and photographers.
- sbarre 10y agoI never understood why they couldn't just give people the option to retain the chronological sorting.. It can't possibly be that difficult to give users the choice.
- niftich 10y agoMoving the feed from 'chronological' to 'algorithmic' obfuscates the true quantity of actual content on the your timeline, thereby allowing a higher density of ads and other sponsored content without you necessarily being able to tell or prove. I hypothesized about other benefits and drawbacks here [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12190724 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12190724
- tedmiston 10y agoThis lets them experiment with showing ads at the most optimal times. I don't believe the new feed is about anything other than ad money.
- madeofpalk 10y agoI don't understand this. I already see ads every n posts - why would non-chronological timeline change this?