4 ms·

> unadulterated reverse-chronological order This is a wonderful phrase. It's hilarious and strange what we've come to value in a feed. What else might we now b

• chc 9y ago
  There's nothing about reverse chronological order that makes it innately better for listing things, or better or worse for advertisers. Even for a feed, there are good arguments for and against different orderings depending on both the data and who you are. As one obvious example, most people prefer forum software with threaded views of discussions to strictly chronological listings of messages. Probably most relevant in Twitter's case is that if your feed contains more stuff than you can get to quickly, any curation is probably more useful than simply missing the things that came first or the things that came last. This is why, for example, people who receive a large volume of email often like prioritization or rule-based organization features in their email clients. Like I said, this might not be your situation and a reverse chronological feed might be better for you, but it's not like it's inherently superior. Like so many design choices, it's a trade-off. And of course you can show ads with a feed no matter what order the feed is in.
  • nathcd 9y ago
    Yeah, you're right. Like @enkiv2 said, it's really about control. If the user controls ordering and filtering, any old order is fine. I think the reason plain old reverse-chronological seems notable is because most people who use feeds are using Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit and/or Snapchat, where the user isn't in control. Even if these services offered sorting options (most don't, I think), the default is an optimization for time-on-site. Which is to say, when most people's experience of feeds is being manipulated by them, boring old reverse chronological sticks out.
• roc 9y ago
  I'd say "your notification tray", but it seems like the majority has already lost that one.