4 ms·

You can now start a timer until they announce that they're going to algorithmically organize the feed of "Notes" because "chronological order is too hard to fol

You can now start a timer until they announce that they're going to algorithmically organize the feed of "Notes" because "chronological order is too hard to follow." Then, they will let an Algo organize the feed of articles. Then the ads - no, wait, the "sponsored post - will start popping in, etc, etc... Maybe they won't. I enjoy substack as it is today, and maybe they'll pull it off. But I can't help seing this as the next step towards enshitification. In the words of a 21s century social media author : "so sad".

MikusR 4y ago
Can you explain what you enjoy about substack? It just seems to be Forbes contributors with even less vetting.
- ugh0 4y ago
  [flagged]
- adamrezich 4y ago
  can you explain what you mean by "It just seems to be Forbes contributors with even less vetting"? I am subscribed to several different columns, with a couple of paid subscriptions, all about a very wide variety of topics—it's just a blog/podcast platform.
- neither_color 4y ago
  Layperson here: When I click on a forbes article I usually don't notice the author. On Substack I'm subscribed to specific authors and one former newspaper/ now independent journalist I follow.
  - manuelmoreale 4y ago
    Honest question: why is noticing/not noticing the author relevant to you? Isn’t the point of reading something to consume the actual content? I totally get the point of following people you’re already familiar with and have a track record of quality. Not arguing against that. I’m just interested in your comment about not noticing the author.
pvarangot 4y ago
I think before that you need to get all the fake journalists that just get payed by companies to review their products and say it's awesome for the price. Substack doesn't have those yet.
throwaway5752 4y ago
I doubt that will be the case. The cash cow is subscription, not ads or engagement. The fundamental value proposition for the product is getting more people to pay for subscription content. It has a similar feel for the end user, but that appears to be the only overlap. No need for a $8 verified button, they can just say how many paying subscribers has as a form of social truth. That is game-able, obviously, but imposes a substantial cost on buying credibility.
BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
Happens every time. But there are alternatives. It's just that everyone copies prior art and so we have this algorithmic mess.
WheatMillington 4y ago
Catastrophising about a future that doesn't exist based on pure speculation. You're already upset about this product on the basis that bad things MIGHT happen in the future. Live in the moment, this type of chronic negativity is unhealthy.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- naet 4y ago
  You could argue that it isn't just a hypothetical future, it's a trend that already exists and has repeated multiple times over in recent history. Nothing wrong with recognizing that and warning about it ("if you don't learn history you're doomed to repeat it" or something like that). I think that since Substack already has a monetization in subscriptions it's possible that they won't need the same revenue. But it's also hard to convince execs to leave potential revenue on the table when they see it.
- zulban 4y ago
  It's not "pure speculation" if you've seen it happen many times, and you see the same early patterns now. That's not speculation, that's pattern recognition and intelligence.
- tomcam 4y ago
  > Maybe they won't. I enjoy substack as it is today, and maybe they'll pull it off. Mindread much? You have no idea whether GP is upset.
- phtrivier 4y ago
  I not sure I'm upset yet, but I'm definitely concerned, and rather pessimistic on the outcome. Looks too much like deja vu all over again. What bother me the most is that they don't seem to address the issue at all in the announcement. I'm not going to pretend I'm the only one who sees how things could get awry here. I wish they had at least given a nod to the very likely worst case scenario, and maybe explained why they think they're in a better position then pretty-much-every-other-social-media. I just wonder how long it's going to take for: * this Notes tab to be the first thing that the app opens * Content from people I have not subscribed to, to be the first thing in the Notes tab * This content being stuff I do not care about * In short form * Optimized to get "engagement" (aka "arguments between trolls") We'll see...
Fauntleroy 4y ago
In that case, just continue using it until it sucks and move on.
- phtrivier 4y ago
  This assumes there will be an alternative system to move on to. I'm starting to wonder if there is a law of physics that inevitably turns any content publishing platform into youtwitokbook (tm). Let's hope we keep a critical mass of "suckers" who still write good, long form content despite it being the least effective strategy.
andrewmutz 4y ago
I don't think there is inherently anything wrong with algorithmic feeds. Algorithms work well when finding you interesting content when there is too much content to show you all of it. Netflix does this every day and people don't complain about it. I think the real problem is when this is done with an ad-supported business model. In that model, the interests of the algorithm designer are too far removed from the interests of the user. Presumably, since substack has a subscription business model (like netflix) we may end up with algorithmic feeds that users enjoy using.
- rwmj 4y ago
  Maybe there's not anything "inherently wrong", but in all instances I'm aware of they've been worse than simply showing the posts in date order.
- dopamean 4y ago
  I kinda prefer the algo feed tbh. It shows me stuff from yesterday when I didnt check the feed at all. I'm on some IRC servers and a couple discord as well and it often feels like if I don't check constantly I'll miss something and have to scroll for ages to sort it out. I don't mind that as much on those platforms but for things like IG and twitter I do enjoy the algo feed.
russellbeattie 4y ago
This is exactly right. Because they will have to. If you follow 100 people who post 3 times a day, that's 300 posts. You're awake 16 hours a day, so an average of ~18 posts per hour, or 1 every 3 minutes. Many users follow way more people and/or follow accounts which post much more often. Having a non-algorithmic feed means that posters will see low levels of engagement and users will quickly be overwhelmed with their reading list, and miss most of the posts. It's a vicious circle which will cause both writers and readers to eventually give up. If, on the other hand, posts are ranked based on user popularity and engagement and that rank affects its position in subscriber feeds, then it's a virtuous cycle where more people will be directed to interesting posts, and those posters will be incentivised to post more. This is why Mastodon has seen its usage drop after their initial surge earlier this year. We don't have time to wade through a firehouse of random posts every day.
- phtrivier 4y ago
  > If, on the other hand, posts are ranked based on user popularity and engagement and that rank affects its position in subscriber feeds, then it's a virtuous cycle where more people will be directed to interesting posts, and those posters will be incentivised to post more. ... or it's a vicious cycle when someone understand which kind of cheaply generated content games the recommandation system the best. If history has told us anything, it's that radical, divisive, tribal, infuriating, titilating, voyeuristic, trivial, scammy, stupid short form tends to works very well.
  - russellbeattie 4y ago
    I don’t disagree in any way. But in the short term, an algorithmic feed will be the only way to make the service “sticky”. But yes, any algorithm can and will be gamed and it’s a cat and mouse game from that point on.

MikusR 4y ago

Can you explain what you enjoy about substack? It just seems to be Forbes contributors with even less vetting.

ugh0 4y ago
[flagged]
adamrezich 4y ago
can you explain what you mean by "It just seems to be Forbes contributors with even less vetting"? I am subscribed to several different columns, with a couple of paid subscriptions, all about a very wide variety of topics—it's just a blog/podcast platform.
neither_color 4y ago
Layperson here: When I click on a forbes article I usually don't notice the author. On Substack I'm subscribed to specific authors and one former newspaper/ now independent journalist I follow.
- manuelmoreale 4y ago
  Honest question: why is noticing/not noticing the author relevant to you? Isn’t the point of reading something to consume the actual content? I totally get the point of following people you’re already familiar with and have a track record of quality. Not arguing against that. I’m just interested in your comment about not noticing the author.

pvarangot 4y ago

I think before that you need to get all the fake journalists that just get payed by companies to review their products and say it's awesome for the price. Substack doesn't have those yet.

throwaway5752 4y ago

I doubt that will be the case. The cash cow is subscription, not ads or engagement. The fundamental value proposition for the product is getting more people to pay for subscription content. It has a similar feel for the end user, but that appears to be the only overlap. No need for a $8 verified button, they can just say how many paying subscribers has as a form of social truth. That is game-able, obviously, but imposes a substantial cost on buying credibility.

BulgarianIdiot 4y ago

Happens every time. But there are alternatives. It's just that everyone copies prior art and so we have this algorithmic mess.

WheatMillington 4y ago

Catastrophising about a future that doesn't exist based on pure speculation. You're already upset about this product on the basis that bad things MIGHT happen in the future. Live in the moment, this type of chronic negativity is unhealthy.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
naet 4y ago
You could argue that it isn't just a hypothetical future, it's a trend that already exists and has repeated multiple times over in recent history. Nothing wrong with recognizing that and warning about it ("if you don't learn history you're doomed to repeat it" or something like that). I think that since Substack already has a monetization in subscriptions it's possible that they won't need the same revenue. But it's also hard to convince execs to leave potential revenue on the table when they see it.
zulban 4y ago
It's not "pure speculation" if you've seen it happen many times, and you see the same early patterns now. That's not speculation, that's pattern recognition and intelligence.
tomcam 4y ago
> Maybe they won't. I enjoy substack as it is today, and maybe they'll pull it off. Mindread much? You have no idea whether GP is upset.
phtrivier 4y ago
I not sure I'm upset yet, but I'm definitely concerned, and rather pessimistic on the outcome. Looks too much like deja vu all over again. What bother me the most is that they don't seem to address the issue at all in the announcement. I'm not going to pretend I'm the only one who sees how things could get awry here. I wish they had at least given a nod to the very likely worst case scenario, and maybe explained why they think they're in a better position then pretty-much-every-other-social-media. I just wonder how long it's going to take for: * this Notes tab to be the first thing that the app opens * Content from people I have not subscribed to, to be the first thing in the Notes tab * This content being stuff I do not care about * In short form * Optimized to get "engagement" (aka "arguments between trolls") We'll see...

Fauntleroy 4y ago

In that case, just continue using it until it sucks and move on.

phtrivier 4y ago
This assumes there will be an alternative system to move on to. I'm starting to wonder if there is a law of physics that inevitably turns any content publishing platform into youtwitokbook (tm). Let's hope we keep a critical mass of "suckers" who still write good, long form content despite it being the least effective strategy.

andrewmutz 4y ago

I don't think there is inherently anything wrong with algorithmic feeds. Algorithms work well when finding you interesting content when there is too much content to show you all of it. Netflix does this every day and people don't complain about it. I think the real problem is when this is done with an ad-supported business model. In that model, the interests of the algorithm designer are too far removed from the interests of the user. Presumably, since substack has a subscription business model (like netflix) we may end up with algorithmic feeds that users enjoy using.

rwmj 4y ago
Maybe there's not anything "inherently wrong", but in all instances I'm aware of they've been worse than simply showing the posts in date order.
dopamean 4y ago
I kinda prefer the algo feed tbh. It shows me stuff from yesterday when I didnt check the feed at all. I'm on some IRC servers and a couple discord as well and it often feels like if I don't check constantly I'll miss something and have to scroll for ages to sort it out. I don't mind that as much on those platforms but for things like IG and twitter I do enjoy the algo feed.

russellbeattie 4y ago

This is exactly right. Because they will have to. If you follow 100 people who post 3 times a day, that's 300 posts. You're awake 16 hours a day, so an average of ~18 posts per hour, or 1 every 3 minutes. Many users follow way more people and/or follow accounts which post much more often. Having a non-algorithmic feed means that posters will see low levels of engagement and users will quickly be overwhelmed with their reading list, and miss most of the posts. It's a vicious circle which will cause both writers and readers to eventually give up. If, on the other hand, posts are ranked based on user popularity and engagement and that rank affects its position in subscriber feeds, then it's a virtuous cycle where more people will be directed to interesting posts, and those posters will be incentivised to post more. This is why Mastodon has seen its usage drop after their initial surge earlier this year. We don't have time to wade through a firehouse of random posts every day.

phtrivier 4y ago
> If, on the other hand, posts are ranked based on user popularity and engagement and that rank affects its position in subscriber feeds, then it's a virtuous cycle where more people will be directed to interesting posts, and those posters will be incentivised to post more. ... or it's a vicious cycle when someone understand which kind of cheaply generated content games the recommandation system the best. If history has told us anything, it's that radical, divisive, tribal, infuriating, titilating, voyeuristic, trivial, scammy, stupid short form tends to works very well.
- russellbeattie 4y ago
  I don’t disagree in any way. But in the short term, an algorithmic feed will be the only way to make the service “sticky”. But yes, any algorithm can and will be gamed and it’s a cat and mouse game from that point on.