3 ms·

Disagree. I think they abused Twitter and made twitter feeds noticeably worse. All their tweets are essentially useless after a few moments and just litter feds

by pbreit 12y ago

Disagree. I think they abused Twitter and made twitter feeds noticeably worse. All their tweets are essentially useless after a few moments and just litter feds. I may be naive but I think if Meerkat was closer to following the rules and respecting user feeds it wouldn't have been cutoff (i.e., Twitter's supposed competitor was not the reason).

clarky07 12y ago
I still haven't managed to click on a stream that was still going on. (somehow even clicking on the streams that are happening in X minutes but didn't)
- harryh 12y ago
  If feels like Meerkat could be an order of magnitude more powerful if streams were saved for at least some amount of time. That's gotta be on their roadmap somewhere.
  - pbreit 12y ago
    Yeah. Could still be "ephemeral" but give us 5 or 10 or 30 minutes or 24 hours. I don't think that would compromise the live-ness" of it, whatever that really connotes.
harryh 12y ago
Given that twitter is a stream of a whole bunch of tweets each one of which you can read really really fast, I've always been a bit confused by complaints about useless tweets. Some fairly big % of your stream is always going to be useless tweets. Has Meerkat really increased that percentage all that much? I can see why people might disagree with me here though.
- MaulingMonkey 12y ago
  > Some fairly big % of your stream is always going to be useless tweets. Has Meerkat really increased that percentage all that much? Sounds like it. I unfollow people sending too large a % of useless tweets, even if I find some of their feed interesting. And those were hand-written tweets written without the benefit of spammy automation!
- pbreit 12y ago
  They have, by far, the shortest shelf-life of all the tweets in my feed. It would be one thing if they were published by Meerkat, quite another that they are "published" be people I follow. And actually, I find the signal:noise ratio in my stream to be very high.

by pbreit 12y ago

clarky07 12y ago

I still haven't managed to click on a stream that was still going on. (somehow even clicking on the streams that are happening in X minutes but didn't)

harryh 12y ago
If feels like Meerkat could be an order of magnitude more powerful if streams were saved for at least some amount of time. That's gotta be on their roadmap somewhere.
- pbreit 12y ago
  Yeah. Could still be "ephemeral" but give us 5 or 10 or 30 minutes or 24 hours. I don't think that would compromise the live-ness" of it, whatever that really connotes.

harryh 12y ago

Given that twitter is a stream of a whole bunch of tweets each one of which you can read really really fast, I've always been a bit confused by complaints about useless tweets. Some fairly big % of your stream is always going to be useless tweets. Has Meerkat really increased that percentage all that much? I can see why people might disagree with me here though.

MaulingMonkey 12y ago
> Some fairly big % of your stream is always going to be useless tweets. Has Meerkat really increased that percentage all that much? Sounds like it. I unfollow people sending too large a % of useless tweets, even if I find some of their feed interesting. And those were hand-written tweets written without the benefit of spammy automation!
pbreit 12y ago
They have, by far, the shortest shelf-life of all the tweets in my feed. It would be one thing if they were published by Meerkat, quite another that they are "published" be people I follow. And actually, I find the signal:noise ratio in my stream to be very high.