7 ms·

How Path Gets Clicks and Why Foursquare Flops

48 points by jason_shah 15y ago

jason_shah 15y ago
I have noticed a personal trend that I click all the time on links shared via Path for all sorts of people (friends and people I have never met). But I don't do the same for Foursquare. For what other apps do people click through when links are shared on Twitter and Facebook?
- casemorton 15y ago
  Yeah Facebook & Twitter for sure, also Tumblr. But the people you're clicking on Path are in your group right? You can't just see anyone, or am I wrong?
  - evanwalsh 15y ago
    I don't have any people in my group and I've been able to look at others' links.
    - Aloisius 15y ago
      Only the person who posted the photo can share it (and as far as I can tell, only at the time they post). As I understand it, by sharing it they are basically giving access to anyone who has the URL.
- dcaranda 15y ago
  not sure this comparison makes sense. viewing photos isn't foursquare's primary use case. venue broadcast/discovery is. I have 2 problems with Path. 1- I'm not sure what their primary use case is (check-ins, photos, status, music broadcast, tell people I'm awake? wtf). 2- They're not the best at doing any of these things. I'd rather check-in and discover venues on foursquare. I'd rather upload a photo to instagram. I'd rather tell people what I'm listening to on hype machine and spotify. I've never felt the need to tell people when I'm awake or going to sleep but maybe I'm behind on that one. I know Path has awesome (the best?) mobile design. Necessary, but not sufficient.
revorad 15y ago
There might be a simpler reason: most Foursquare links are not photos, just check-ins, which by themselves are no fun. The real dilemma is this: if Path A/B tested their current design against one similar to that of Foursquare, and the Foursquare design had better conversions, then which one should they choose?
- jason_shah 15y ago
  Fair point. Photos definitely are (IMHO) more engaging than plaintext or even Google Maps of where someone is. But this post compared photo posts on either platform, so to be fair, the medium was the same -- but you're still right in that Foursquare doesn't have as much of a focus on photos as Path does. Really interesting counter-question you posed. It appears to then be a decision about Path's conviction to how things SHOULD be designed vs. immediate conversion lifts (and how significant those lifts were/what future engagement was like/other conversion and engagement metrics). For example, I imagine Facebook has tested designs that increased user engagement but didn't fit with a bigger picture strategy or violated some core tenets. They probably scrapped it and stuck to their conviction in a lot of cases when there were alluring potential upticks in conversions with alternate designs.
  - ctide 15y ago
    It doesn't matter that Foursquare added photos later, people have been seeing boring foursquare links on Twitter / Facebook for years now. I don't even notice the [pic] tag because I've been trained to mentally filter out those links because they're boring. Path is inherently about the photo first, I'm never clicking through to Path to figure out where the person is, only to look at the photo.
    - jason_shah 15y ago
      This underscores how important it is for companies to get as close to right early on, no matter how MVP. Arguably if 4sq. started including photos sooner, or had a less boring UX on those UGC landing pages in the first place even if they lacked photos for a while, they could have counteracted this sort of apathy towards their links and avoided, or altered, the mental filter you mentioned.
casemorton 15y ago
I think the main difference is just that Path only lets you follow such a small number of people. Thus you are immediately saying these people are credible to you & whatever links they share are most likely worth looking into. Versus Foursquare where each link posted is just another drop in the hat for people how have hundreds or thousands of people they follow.
- jason_shah 15y ago
  That IS a difference, but I don't follow anyone on Path (yet). The Path links I consume are via Twitter, as were the Foursquare ones, so arguably the credibility and selection bias are equalized. Since the links I consume have been shared on Twitter (by people who don't follow me, and whom I don't follow) people are breaking out of the Path limitations by automatically, simultaneously publishing their updates to Twitter as they're being posted on Path. Effectively people have subverted the 'private' differentiation the Path offers in a lot of use cases from what I am seeing.
parvinsingh 15y ago
This is a great comparison on UX for any app or start-up. What i really want to show the user when he lands up on a page, and what next. This is like the Coca-cola add, where they dont sell the brand, but show a soda bottle with Coca-Cola (in small) for a short duration. Engage the user in what you want, no need to sell the brand-name. He will praise you more if he likes your work :).
mountaineer 15y ago
I can't remember the last time I saw a Path link in my Twitter stream, but I see a few 4sq ones a day.
andrewjshults 15y ago
One place Path definitely falls flat on the click through links parts is in emails they send out. If I'm not on a mobile device the "Someone wants to share their path with you" links are frustrating since they just lead to a download the app page. I have a number of friends that are in my queue on Path simply because I generally handle emails from my computer rather than my phone, so they're pretty much guaranteed to languish underneath a pile of other social media notifications. In contrast, for as long as I can remember foursquare has had a way to accept friend requests from the web, even when the overall web experience was minimal. I know that Path wants to drive people to the mobile app, but the best way for me to want to use the app is to make getting friends into it as seamless as possible. Right now, it always seems like a two step process of seeing the email and then remembering to actually accept the friend request (yes, the notifications are theoretically turned on, but they rarely seem to come through properly for Path on Android).
- cwilson 15y ago
  I'm pretty positive they are working on the various elements of the web experience you've mentioned, while still focusing on driving people to the app. During the Path 2.0 launch, the website was pushed to a lower priority, but they will get there. That said, am I alone in basically turning all email notifications off these days? I filter out, or turn off, emails from Facebook, Twitter, and Path (my primary networks). I'm using those networks often enough to not miss anything important, and you can generally have anything urgent sent as a push notification (direct messages, being mentioned in a post, etc).

48 points by jason_shah 15y ago

I have noticed a personal trend that I click all the time on links shared via Path for all sorts of people (friends and people I have never met). But I don't do the same for Foursquare. For what other apps do people click through when links are shared on Twitter and Facebook?

casemorton 15y ago
Yeah Facebook & Twitter for sure, also Tumblr. But the people you're clicking on Path are in your group right? You can't just see anyone, or am I wrong?
- evanwalsh 15y ago
  I don't have any people in my group and I've been able to look at others' links.
  - Aloisius 15y ago
    Only the person who posted the photo can share it (and as far as I can tell, only at the time they post). As I understand it, by sharing it they are basically giving access to anyone who has the URL.
dcaranda 15y ago
not sure this comparison makes sense. viewing photos isn't foursquare's primary use case. venue broadcast/discovery is. I have 2 problems with Path. 1- I'm not sure what their primary use case is (check-ins, photos, status, music broadcast, tell people I'm awake? wtf). 2- They're not the best at doing any of these things. I'd rather check-in and discover venues on foursquare. I'd rather upload a photo to instagram. I'd rather tell people what I'm listening to on hype machine and spotify. I've never felt the need to tell people when I'm awake or going to sleep but maybe I'm behind on that one. I know Path has awesome (the best?) mobile design. Necessary, but not sufficient.

revorad 15y ago

There might be a simpler reason: most Foursquare links are not photos, just check-ins, which by themselves are no fun. The real dilemma is this: if Path A/B tested their current design against one similar to that of Foursquare, and the Foursquare design had better conversions, then which one should they choose?

jason_shah 15y ago
Fair point. Photos definitely are (IMHO) more engaging than plaintext or even Google Maps of where someone is. But this post compared photo posts on either platform, so to be fair, the medium was the same -- but you're still right in that Foursquare doesn't have as much of a focus on photos as Path does. Really interesting counter-question you posed. It appears to then be a decision about Path's conviction to how things SHOULD be designed vs. immediate conversion lifts (and how significant those lifts were/what future engagement was like/other conversion and engagement metrics). For example, I imagine Facebook has tested designs that increased user engagement but didn't fit with a bigger picture strategy or violated some core tenets. They probably scrapped it and stuck to their conviction in a lot of cases when there were alluring potential upticks in conversions with alternate designs.
- ctide 15y ago
  It doesn't matter that Foursquare added photos later, people have been seeing boring foursquare links on Twitter / Facebook for years now. I don't even notice the [pic] tag because I've been trained to mentally filter out those links because they're boring. Path is inherently about the photo first, I'm never clicking through to Path to figure out where the person is, only to look at the photo.
  - jason_shah 15y ago
    This underscores how important it is for companies to get as close to right early on, no matter how MVP. Arguably if 4sq. started including photos sooner, or had a less boring UX on those UGC landing pages in the first place even if they lacked photos for a while, they could have counteracted this sort of apathy towards their links and avoided, or altered, the mental filter you mentioned.

casemorton 15y ago

I think the main difference is just that Path only lets you follow such a small number of people. Thus you are immediately saying these people are credible to you & whatever links they share are most likely worth looking into. Versus Foursquare where each link posted is just another drop in the hat for people how have hundreds or thousands of people they follow.

jason_shah 15y ago
That IS a difference, but I don't follow anyone on Path (yet). The Path links I consume are via Twitter, as were the Foursquare ones, so arguably the credibility and selection bias are equalized. Since the links I consume have been shared on Twitter (by people who don't follow me, and whom I don't follow) people are breaking out of the Path limitations by automatically, simultaneously publishing their updates to Twitter as they're being posted on Path. Effectively people have subverted the 'private' differentiation the Path offers in a lot of use cases from what I am seeing.

parvinsingh 15y ago

This is a great comparison on UX for any app or start-up. What i really want to show the user when he lands up on a page, and what next. This is like the Coca-cola add, where they dont sell the brand, but show a soda bottle with Coca-Cola (in small) for a short duration. Engage the user in what you want, no need to sell the brand-name. He will praise you more if he likes your work :).

mountaineer 15y ago

I can't remember the last time I saw a Path link in my Twitter stream, but I see a few 4sq ones a day.

andrewjshults 15y ago

One place Path definitely falls flat on the click through links parts is in emails they send out. If I'm not on a mobile device the "Someone wants to share their path with you" links are frustrating since they just lead to a download the app page. I have a number of friends that are in my queue on Path simply because I generally handle emails from my computer rather than my phone, so they're pretty much guaranteed to languish underneath a pile of other social media notifications. In contrast, for as long as I can remember foursquare has had a way to accept friend requests from the web, even when the overall web experience was minimal. I know that Path wants to drive people to the mobile app, but the best way for me to want to use the app is to make getting friends into it as seamless as possible. Right now, it always seems like a two step process of seeing the email and then remembering to actually accept the friend request (yes, the notifications are theoretically turned on, but they rarely seem to come through properly for Path on Android).

cwilson 15y ago
I'm pretty positive they are working on the various elements of the web experience you've mentioned, while still focusing on driving people to the app. During the Path 2.0 launch, the website was pushed to a lower priority, but they will get there. That said, am I alone in basically turning all email notifications off these days? I filter out, or turn off, emails from Facebook, Twitter, and Path (my primary networks). I'm using those networks often enough to not miss anything important, and you can generally have anything urgent sent as a push notification (direct messages, being mentioned in a post, etc).