10 ms·

This is being reported in a strange way. We don't typically write about startups gaining initial signups and then compare them to the active users as if they l

This is being reported in a strange way. We don't typically write about startups gaining initial signups and then compare them to the active users as if they lost something by not getting 100% of them to engage. Do we even have numbers for what percent of twitter users actively engage versus total user base? I don't think they are doing very bad considering it's mobile only right now.

mrcwinn 3y ago
"Not getting 100%" is a bit of a straw man argument. "Less than half" is significant, particularly when the CEO (to his credit) is calling it out as something that must improve. And it matters to balance the existing narrative from the Verge, which seems to just regurgitate Meta's VP's language about it being a runaway success.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- operatingthetan 3y ago
  >"Not getting 100%" is a bit of a straw man argument. Alright, forget the number. Let's focus on active users versus signups and how it's being reported for Threads.
pyrophane 3y ago
I would assume most of the blame here really lies with Meta. I mean, didn't they: 1. Leverage their IG user base to get a lot of early sign-ups and then... 2. Use those early sign-ups to hype up the platform? They got exactly what they wanted, which was a lot of articles about how fast Threads was growing. They probably knew all along that most of those early sign-ups weren't going turn into active users.
mrguyorama 3y ago
>We don't typically write about startups gaining initial signups and then compare them to the active users as if they lost something by not getting 100% of them to engage. I mean, we should? Startup valuations are full of MAU pumping and straight bullshit, so why shouldn't we judge their numbers with a cynical eye? Meta claimed a number of users the first few days, well, half of them aren't using it anymore, so they aren't "Users"
dredmorbius 3y ago
We have seen critical appraisals of past social media launches, e.g., "Google+ Study Reveals Minimal Social Activity, Weak User Engagement" (2012) <https://www.fastcompany.com/1837332/exclusive-new-google-study-reveals-minimal-social-activity-weak-user-engagement https://www.fastcompany.com/1837332/exclusive-new-google-stu...> <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3977050 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3977050> The study in question is, to my surprise, still available directly online: <https://blog.rjmetrics.com/2012/05/15/new-google-plus-data-shows-weak-user-engagement/ https://blog.rjmetrics.com/2012/05/15/new-google-plus-data-s...> There are another 14 HN submissions matching "Google+ ghost town" at this writing: <https://hn.algolia.com/?q=google%2B%20ghost%20town https://hn.algolia.com/?q=google%2B%20ghost%20town> I did my own assessment of G+ later, after there was much discussion of Google's own "engagement" numbers for the platform meeting open skepticism. (I used the platform heavily myself and appreciated elements of it.) I think we're seeing more and deserved skepticism generally in accepting statements of activity at face value, which is a Good Thing in my view.
- operatingthetan 3y ago
  >We have seen critical appraisals of past social media launches, e.g., "Google+ Study Reveals Minimal Social Activity, Weak User Engagement" (2012) <https://www.fastcompany.com/1837332/exclusive-new-google-stu... https://www.fastcompany.com/1837332/exclusive-new-google-stu...> This was nearly a year after G+ launched. The article in question here is about three weeks after the launch of threads. That doesn't seem like a fair comparison to me...
  - dredmorbius 3y ago
    I picked a particular item with significant HN discussion. The fact that it was data-backed (a 40k profile analysis) also means that it lags actual activity. As with all complex evolving situations, hard empirical data are not realtime. The "ghost town" label had been stuck on G+ within the first few weeks, yes. HN discussion from September 2011 (G+ launched in July): <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3019699 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3019699> Numerous HN takes in comments from June -- September 2011: <https://hn.algolia.com/?dateEnd=1316822400&dateRange=custom&dateStart=1308268800&page=0&prefix=true&query=Google%2B%20%22ghost%20town%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateEnd=1316822400&dateRange=custom&...> And, FWIW, at the time I was contesting the characterisation of G+. I distinctly recall the discussions and press coverage, however.
engineeringwoke 3y ago
For how counter-cultural HN has always prided itself in being, I find it a bit hard to believe just how much the media has shaped the story here. There's a lot of reason to be skeptical... it's not that I like Musk but the media doesn't like him and that's no secret. I find it to be quite the opposite of what you're saying, that their press team has done a good job of shaping the story positively for Meta. The puff piece in the WSJ combined with the all the positive press over the success of Threads, with now a quite rosy view of how it has played out since. I'm personally not a believer that they internally think Threads is a success, but to each their own. I constantly hear from my engineering co-workers about how much Twitter has changed and how the sky is falling, but the user numbers don't back that up and my user experience seems to be much the same. https://www.wsj.com/articles/zuckerberg-channeled-og-mark-to-fast-track-secret-effort-that-became-threads-86ce532e https://www.wsj.com/articles/zuckerberg-channeled-og-mark-to...
- operatingthetan 3y ago
  >For how counter-cultural HN has always prided itself in being Really? A bunch of engineering types who work for big corporations and who also dream and or do start their own hopefully big corporations prides themselves as being "counter-cultural?" That seems like a tough generalization to support.
  - meheleventyone 3y ago
    It’s also encumbant company solely owned by the worlds richest man versus enormous global corporation mostly owned by another one. There is no counter-culture here.
    - operatingthetan 3y ago
      Right, and the closest thing I can recall to a counter-culture here is occasionally seeing the suggestion that software engineers should unionize. The rest is bread and butter tech culture (which loves obscure technical topics, psychedelic drugs, discussing money, various ways of accomplishing tasks in a clever way, statistics, design and so on).
marcosdumay 3y ago
We don't expect the number of active users to ever fall in an startup. You are correct in that this was unavoidable because the original number was artificially inflated in a non-sustainable way. But well, that would be a huge red flag for a startup too. It is less so for a giant company like Meta, as they can eat the loss from forcing the market, but it is still ridiculous, even for a company as large as Meta.
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  That's not accurate. There's often an early "tyre kicker" phase, with people signing up to explore a service. Or to ensure that others don't misappropriate well-known account handles. User attrition / retention rates for sites, services, and apps are well-studied and closely watched. E.g., "Retention rate on day 30 of mobile app installs worldwide in 3rd quarter 2022, by category" <https://www.statista.com/statistics/259329/ios-and-android-app-user-retention-rate/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/259329/ios-and-android-a...> General social media growth (or plateau) trends as of 2021 / Pew: <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/04/07/social-media-use-in-2021/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/04/07/social-media...> The highest retention rate listed is 11.3%, for the news category.
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    That mostly only makes the number of users to fall if new people stop coming at some point. To some non-stablished service, people stopping to come is death.
    - dredmorbius 3y ago
      People do in fact stop coming at some point. As an example, Facebook (the site, distinguished from other aquisitions) has seen stagnant or falling usage in certain markets, notably the US and EU, as of about 5--6 years ago: <https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/31/16956818/facebook-q4-2017-earnings-50-million-hours-reduced-usage https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/31/16956818/facebook-q4-2017...> <http://www.businessinsider.sg/facebook-hits-wall-usage-falls-wieser-pivotal-2018-1/?r=US&IR=T http://www.businessinsider.sg/facebook-hits-wall-usage-falls...>

mrcwinn 3y ago

"Not getting 100%" is a bit of a straw man argument. "Less than half" is significant, particularly when the CEO (to his credit) is calling it out as something that must improve. And it matters to balance the existing narrative from the Verge, which seems to just regurgitate Meta's VP's language about it being a runaway success.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
operatingthetan 3y ago
>"Not getting 100%" is a bit of a straw man argument. Alright, forget the number. Let's focus on active users versus signups and how it's being reported for Threads.

pyrophane 3y ago

I would assume most of the blame here really lies with Meta. I mean, didn't they: 1. Leverage their IG user base to get a lot of early sign-ups and then... 2. Use those early sign-ups to hype up the platform? They got exactly what they wanted, which was a lot of articles about how fast Threads was growing. They probably knew all along that most of those early sign-ups weren't going turn into active users.

mrguyorama 3y ago

>We don't typically write about startups gaining initial signups and then compare them to the active users as if they lost something by not getting 100% of them to engage. I mean, we should? Startup valuations are full of MAU pumping and straight bullshit, so why shouldn't we judge their numbers with a cynical eye? Meta claimed a number of users the first few days, well, half of them aren't using it anymore, so they aren't "Users"

dredmorbius 3y ago

We have seen critical appraisals of past social media launches, e.g., "Google+ Study Reveals Minimal Social Activity, Weak User Engagement" (2012) <https://www.fastcompany.com/1837332/exclusive-new-google-study-reveals-minimal-social-activity-weak-user-engagement https://www.fastcompany.com/1837332/exclusive-new-google-stu...> <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3977050 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3977050> The study in question is, to my surprise, still available directly online: <https://blog.rjmetrics.com/2012/05/15/new-google-plus-data-shows-weak-user-engagement/ https://blog.rjmetrics.com/2012/05/15/new-google-plus-data-s...> There are another 14 HN submissions matching "Google+ ghost town" at this writing: <https://hn.algolia.com/?q=google%2B%20ghost%20town https://hn.algolia.com/?q=google%2B%20ghost%20town> I did my own assessment of G+ later, after there was much discussion of Google's own "engagement" numbers for the platform meeting open skepticism. (I used the platform heavily myself and appreciated elements of it.) I think we're seeing more and deserved skepticism generally in accepting statements of activity at face value, which is a Good Thing in my view.

operatingthetan 3y ago
>We have seen critical appraisals of past social media launches, e.g., "Google+ Study Reveals Minimal Social Activity, Weak User Engagement" (2012) <https://www.fastcompany.com/1837332/exclusive-new-google-stu... https://www.fastcompany.com/1837332/exclusive-new-google-stu...> This was nearly a year after G+ launched. The article in question here is about three weeks after the launch of threads. That doesn't seem like a fair comparison to me...
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  I picked a particular item with significant HN discussion. The fact that it was data-backed (a 40k profile analysis) also means that it lags actual activity. As with all complex evolving situations, hard empirical data are not realtime. The "ghost town" label had been stuck on G+ within the first few weeks, yes. HN discussion from September 2011 (G+ launched in July): <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3019699 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3019699> Numerous HN takes in comments from June -- September 2011: <https://hn.algolia.com/?dateEnd=1316822400&dateRange=custom&dateStart=1308268800&page=0&prefix=true&query=Google%2B%20%22ghost%20town%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateEnd=1316822400&dateRange=custom&...> And, FWIW, at the time I was contesting the characterisation of G+. I distinctly recall the discussions and press coverage, however.

engineeringwoke 3y ago

For how counter-cultural HN has always prided itself in being, I find it a bit hard to believe just how much the media has shaped the story here. There's a lot of reason to be skeptical... it's not that I like Musk but the media doesn't like him and that's no secret. I find it to be quite the opposite of what you're saying, that their press team has done a good job of shaping the story positively for Meta. The puff piece in the WSJ combined with the all the positive press over the success of Threads, with now a quite rosy view of how it has played out since. I'm personally not a believer that they internally think Threads is a success, but to each their own. I constantly hear from my engineering co-workers about how much Twitter has changed and how the sky is falling, but the user numbers don't back that up and my user experience seems to be much the same. https://www.wsj.com/articles/zuckerberg-channeled-og-mark-to-fast-track-secret-effort-that-became-threads-86ce532e https://www.wsj.com/articles/zuckerberg-channeled-og-mark-to...

operatingthetan 3y ago
>For how counter-cultural HN has always prided itself in being Really? A bunch of engineering types who work for big corporations and who also dream and or do start their own hopefully big corporations prides themselves as being "counter-cultural?" That seems like a tough generalization to support.
- meheleventyone 3y ago
  It’s also encumbant company solely owned by the worlds richest man versus enormous global corporation mostly owned by another one. There is no counter-culture here.
  - operatingthetan 3y ago
    Right, and the closest thing I can recall to a counter-culture here is occasionally seeing the suggestion that software engineers should unionize. The rest is bread and butter tech culture (which loves obscure technical topics, psychedelic drugs, discussing money, various ways of accomplishing tasks in a clever way, statistics, design and so on).

marcosdumay 3y ago

We don't expect the number of active users to ever fall in an startup. You are correct in that this was unavoidable because the original number was artificially inflated in a non-sustainable way. But well, that would be a huge red flag for a startup too. It is less so for a giant company like Meta, as they can eat the loss from forcing the market, but it is still ridiculous, even for a company as large as Meta.

dredmorbius 3y ago
That's not accurate. There's often an early "tyre kicker" phase, with people signing up to explore a service. Or to ensure that others don't misappropriate well-known account handles. User attrition / retention rates for sites, services, and apps are well-studied and closely watched. E.g., "Retention rate on day 30 of mobile app installs worldwide in 3rd quarter 2022, by category" <https://www.statista.com/statistics/259329/ios-and-android-app-user-retention-rate/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/259329/ios-and-android-a...> General social media growth (or plateau) trends as of 2021 / Pew: <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/04/07/social-media-use-in-2021/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/04/07/social-media...> The highest retention rate listed is 11.3%, for the news category.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  That mostly only makes the number of users to fall if new people stop coming at some point. To some non-stablished service, people stopping to come is death.
  - dredmorbius 3y ago
    People do in fact stop coming at some point. As an example, Facebook (the site, distinguished from other aquisitions) has seen stagnant or falling usage in certain markets, notably the US and EU, as of about 5--6 years ago: <https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/31/16956818/facebook-q4-2017-earnings-50-million-hours-reduced-usage https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/31/16956818/facebook-q4-2017...> <http://www.businessinsider.sg/facebook-hits-wall-usage-falls-wieser-pivotal-2018-1/?r=US&IR=T http://www.businessinsider.sg/facebook-hits-wall-usage-falls...>