3 ms·
What?! Spamming people with low quality garbage isn't a sustainable high yield strategy for long term engagement?! Stunning, just stunning!
by kristopolous 4y ago
What?! Spamming people with low quality garbage isn't a sustainable high yield strategy for long term engagement?! Stunning, just stunning!
- charcircuit 4y agoThey were already not sending notifications that were predicted to be rated below 4 out of 5. The question of if removing notifications that were predicted to be rated 4 out of 5 is not so obvious.
- darzu 4y agoCitation? I got a lot of crap notifications for years and years and have completely abandoned FB at this point b/c of the low signal to noise.
- charcircuit 4y agoFrom the article >rather than our usual operating model of sending all relevant notifications (either rated 4 or 5 on a scale of 1–5)
- some_furry 4y agoRelevance isn't a sufficient metric. Just because something is "relevant" to me doesn't mean I want to be notified. Usually I don't. I go out of my way to have zero unread notifications in any software I actively use, even if it means making liberal use of Mark All As Read. This lets me visually scan for where activity is without visual noise.
- charcircuit 4y ago>Just because something is "relevant" to me doesn't mean I want to be notified. By definition a relevant notification is something you want to get a notification for.
- some_furry 4y agoYour algorithms cannot quantify relevance, then, because it's inherently subjective. What might be "relevant" to most people will not be relevant to me.
- kbos87 4y agoSame. Years ago I found that thanks to the gymnastics Facebook had done in notification settings, I could no longer stop many of the notifications I didn’t care about - so I shut them all off, FB Messenger and all. Since then I open Facebook maybe once a month.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]