So the point of the post is "Now the timeline order has changed. It's not a timeline anymore, but it's a filtered and reordered feed. I feel very sad about that and I want to explain you why." The why in that is "Now Instagram aims to be the brother of Facebook: a time sucking machine that has to steal the highest amount of my time to maximise the exposure of his ads. Now it’s too hard for me follow what’s happening to my friends, and I can’t do it real-time anymore.".
I don't really think it makes much sense to be so sad about this, since the whole reason Instagram did this (according to them) is that people were only seeing 30% of the images on average so it just made sense to try and present the best 30% up front (explained here http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/technology/instagram-feed....). And if like me this guy follows few enough people to keep up with all the photos, then there should be no issue because I can always easily keep up with only the people I am following and see all their output. Maybe it is not real time anymore and it is noticeable to this person, but it still seems to be overstating the case.
And how is this change relevant to try to capture most of your time? It seems moreso to be about trying to give the best experience possible, confronting a problem that most people probably friend and follow way too many people to keep up with. Seems reasonable to me... Not to mention it's very dubious to claim the call came from Facebook, and not internally from Instagram following the same direction Facebook and Twitter went over time.
I know it's late but I wanted to add something that's been frustrating me on Facebook lately, and that is that it's almost impossible to re-find a newish post that you've seen already. The during algorithm makes you wade through tons of other posts first, even thigh the one you're looking for used to be right on top.
Neither you nor the article is correct. The exposure algorithm is being introduced because with it, they can sell premium spots to advertisers. Without it, it's impossible to do it in a way that doesn't stick out.
>> It is stealing me as much time as they can. They are fighting to get my attention span, only to feed me with more ads. They are just like the television.
That's an interesting point. Seems like that can be applied to a long list of sites/apps now (or maybe it's always been like that, not sure now is any different).
That's a bizarre complaint. Companies like Google, Apple, and Facebook (and their CEOs) are all routinely discussed and criticized here. Nobody is "crucified" and it is in no way specific to Facebook. Nor is HN somehow unique as a place where Facebook is criticized. Why so sensitive on Zuckerberg's behalf?
Not bizarre at all. I strongly disagree that companies like Google, Apple and Facebook are equivalently criticized and, in fact, I find that each one has the "primary criticism" and the "we don't talk about it" part of the business that is oddly ignored.
For Google, "we don't talk about" their aggressive and abusing advertising practices, even though they themselves have written the book on invasive online advertising and monetization of free users. Instead, we criticize Facebook mainly for it. Nearly every thread on privacy attacks Zuckerberg by name while not even mentioning the Google corporation in abstract. Just an observation.
"Why so sensitive on Zuckerberg's behalf?"
Why do you choose to attack me personally for posting an observation about discussion here?
You claim that all are routinely criticized, so could you verify that by showing a conversation here which criticizes a Google executive by name for their advertising practices? I can find literally hundreds of conversations doing it to Zuck, but literally zero conversations criticizing ANY Google executive by name. Just an observation, of course.
So whats your point? As long as Zuck is doing what everyone else is doing its fine?
Give me a break. With the 35 Billion the world has donated to him he is going to be an obvious target. The poor boy can use his brain and isn't being forced into his bullshit decisions.
He could have just opensourced Facebook. He could have got it to work like IRC or email. There are a zillion options an imaginative mind can come up with, especially given the hubris about openness and society he peddles every time he gets on stage.
I am quite happy with the amount of vitriol directed at him, and am even happier to read recently in this supposed open and connected world, he has created that he has to live surrounded by 20 bodyguards.
Linus Torvalds and Jimmy Wales dont. And they are better models of what software can do any day of the week than Zuckerberg's bullshit generating creation.
>As long as Zuck is doing what everyone else is doing its fine?
I love when a user invents a fake point, then spends their entire post attacking the fake point.
Nice strawman, I hope it was pleasurable to knock it down, because other than giving yourself pleasure, I'm not quite sure why you chose to waste your time this way.
>I am quite happy with the amount of vitriol directed at him, and am even happier to read recently in this supposed open and connected world, he has created that he has to live surrounded by 20 bodyguards.
Frankly, you're a sick person and I pity you a little. No wonder you're a new account, this kind of nastiness is not the way this community behaves.
Google sticks ads at the top of a search page it creates for you.
Facebook pretends that it gives you a personal blog platform but it hides and reorders your content to shove more ads at you in otherwise private feeds.
It's not really all that interesting, is it? It's what every business does; to try and make money from you. They make films you want to watch, books you want to read, music you want to listen to, and websites you want to read. Even blogs.
Business that are here to try to "make money from you" sucks and don't stay around if there is good/honest competition. I think good businesses should try to provide you with the best product/service, in way that they can satisfy you while making profits.
This post informed me that Instagram has fixed the problem that made me hate it and never want to open it (irrelevant/boring photos cluttering my timeline). The most prolific posters, often also with the lowest-quality content, would drown out all the more thoughtful posters.
> Maybe because he uses it like FB, adding friends
Exactly! I've got PLENTY of friends on FB that don't get followed on Instagram. There's probably a 20% overlap at max. I keep my follow count low and start unfollowing anyone or brands that bore or annoy me.
In that way most of my media posts (which I shamefully admit are 90% my kids being adorable to me only) go to Instagram only or Instagram and shared with FB as well. I NEVER post directly to FB with media.
I think a lot of people who don't see value in Instagram think of it like they do Facebook.
That is a difficult problem to solve. How do you differentiate between genuine (even if self-interested) self expression and 'advertisement'?
If I think I make really muffins and I want everyone to know is that advertisement and is it a bad thing? Of course, I love my muffins so much that I want everyone to have them so I'm going to have to start charging, because the best way to get as many people to try them is to do it full time. And of course at some point I'm going to have to hire other people and teach them to make the muffins for me because one man can only make so many muffins. I'll probably have to incorporate and buy a muffin factory. And I'm much better with muffins than I am with words so actually the proclamations of my muffin's superiority are going to be designed by a professional.
I actually don't have a way with words so I'm not sure how to wrap this up but it's a piece of my perspective either way.
IMO, simply flat out preventing for profit companies from talking with non customers is probably worth it. Sure, you might end up with some edge cases, but in the end customers pay for advertising and it's often zero or even negative sum.
The edge case is of course. Disease X now has a treatment!
But IMO, if it's important people are going to find out other ways.
When an "infection" from an ad can lead to malware, trojans, ransomware, etc...
At what point does the monetary value of the damages caused by "advertising" surpass the amount of damages caused by cigs?
Will that amount of damage ever be more than lung cancer and lost lives? Who knows... but ads aren't just annoying. They are dangerous.
Just ask the hospitals that have had to run at limited capacity due to infections. (that infection was due to a tainted email... but it could have easily been from a drive-by-ad-malware... ala 30-after-30 malware: http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/08/you-say-advertising-i-say... ). And it's only a matter of time until one infection causes a death...
Then expand that to our increasingly connected cars and houses...
I don't want to eat fast-food, but they will use shiny pictures, bright colors, reverse psychology, "everyone else eat burgers" tactics, etc. to make me want it.
"Decision fatigue can influence irrational impulse purchases at supermarkets. During a trip to the supermarket, trade-off decisions regarding prices and promotions can produce decision fatigue, hence by the time the shopper reaches the cash register, less willpower remains to resist impulse purchases of candy and sugared items."
We are bombarded with ads, which we discard, but every time we discard one, it tires us.
When I read that sort of thing i'd like I'm reliving the 1980s, where everyone had that sort of "they live" (the movie) paranoia that they were being controlled.
You can easily transcend all of that.
Not the fact that you're being controlled by an elite consisting of rich, well brought up white people and a media which serves them and each other.
But the day to day annoyances of adverts and supermarket deals etc. If you read books, listen to music ripped from CDs, watch movies/tvs from netflix/downloads etc, then you're going to suffer only very slight interference from ads. Certainly I see no justification for the suggestion it's "tiring" to "discard" an ad.
If you have to shop in supermakets (and you do not) then it's possible to just buy sensible stuff; fruit, veg, milk, juice, break, rice etc. You don't need to wander down the colourful aisles and pay over the odds for this seasons exciting "as seen on tv" junk foods. It's hard to imagine any self-respecting HN reading struggling to understand which size/brand of some product is the cheapest. It's not remotely taxing to do this, and mental activity keeps your mind fit and staves off dementia. It has no consequence on willpower whatsoever. In any event, a lot of shops in the UK have no "candy" by the "cash register" because it annoys parents who have to get their kids to stop screaming for it.
> It's hard to imagine any self-respecting HN reading
Exactly, but most people are not HN readers.
I've added countless ads to websites, added countless trackers, implemented countless marketing emails. Of course I am aware of what's happening behind the scene.
Most people are going to be watching TV and be bombarded by ads. They are then going to go to the supermarket, and be bombarded by packaging. They are going to listen to radio on the way to work and be bombarded by audio ads, with some nice billboards on top.
Every day, we are trying harder and harder to customize our ads to be more effective toward users. It's not paranoia. We have "loyalty" cards that track all of our users purchases which we analyse and use to send targeted ads. We are working our best to beat the mind's "firewall" to inject our "malwares" into the mind of the consumers.
When we fully understand the psychological effects of advertisements on the brain like we do the physical effects of cigarettes on the lungs. IMO a pretty long time.
At least on iPhone, the web app is less resource-hoggy and just as featureful.
Most of the social events I go to are now typically organized via Facebook; the non-FB people require a separate email which is an extra step that is not taken 100% of the time.
Yeah, I used to think that way. Thing is, while you're sitting at home feeling superior because you don't use that horrible mainstream website that all those terrible peasants are using and would stop using if only they knew how bad it was and how it's all about the money, your friends are all out there having fun at events they've organised on facebook and not quite ever got around to emailing all the bold, independent people who are too good for it.
I have only ever used Facebook on mobile web and it's perfectly sufficient. I don't want push notifications ever, so it's not a problem. The one friend who actually posts anything that is relevant to my interests and not totally inane is my best buddy Suggested Post.
I find it strange that they don't simply allow two streams: the reordered via algorithm and the timeline.
Introduce the new thing as a cool new beta product that people can try and after a certain amount of time switch it to default, but still allow the old version. Then wait until a majority switch over and cut off the old version.
Facebook "does" this and I put "does" in quotation marks because even when I change the newsfeed sort order to "Most Recent" I still see posts I've already seen from hours ago jumbled in with things happening more recently, and if I leave the page and come back, or merely hit the refresh button I'm back to "Most Popular".
Combine that with the ever annoying problem of leaving the page, suddenly seeing something interesting, hitting the back button and being presented with an entirely different order of sorting news items forcing me to go digging through my friend's timeline on their actual page ....
I guess what I'm saying is I don't trust them to not fuck up two streams on Instagram the same way they've done it on FB: to the point of being completely useless as a dichotomy.
How do know this is not purely an Instagram decision? If Instagram usage data demonstrated that most users only looked at 30% of the timeline, then it makes sense to optimize for the most active/engaging content.
This is why I stopped using Facebook. The feed became non-deterministic and unpredictable. It felt manipulative. I don't need a mediated experience, thanks.
All of these shiny social network websites are there for profit. They play nice to grow and then they will squeeze as much profit as they can from users.
What did you expect is going to happen? Why would you invest so much effort and emotion into growing a thing that you can be 100% sure will eventually try to consume you.
If people want social media that does not feed on them, they have to start using p2p, decentralized social apps. Not like Diaspora (federated), but truly p2p, where each user contributes resources and there's no need to support scalability engineers maintaining state of art datacenters.
When you have a product you give away for free, it's always a challenge to find new and inventive ways to pay for it. Ads are one way so I don't begrudge FB for tweaking something I don't have to pay for if it means they somehow make some money on it. I like using it and find it pretty useful. I think it's just going to impact buyers of ads because they'll likely see their numbers dip as more people abandon Instagram for something else like Snapchat. Users are fickle. If you start messing with something they're used to eventually they'll just find something else to keep their A.D.D. in check.
The changes are a natural progression towards a curated experience. You may not like it but I would argue it does not 'ruin' instagram; just makes it a more controlled experience (which many do prefer).
But they aren't asking people which one they prefer. Some GM or product manager somewhere has goals to "increase engagement" which is probably naively defined as scrolling or clicking more. They need those metrics to go up to sell more ads.
People's opinion that Instagram is 'ruined' is completely valid. Just because the 'average' experience ticked up doesn't mean that you're making it better for everyone. This is a classic case of managing to the average. The desires of the people who are most passionate about Instagram are being ignored in lieu of hitting quarterly numbers.
This is why it's important to deeply understand your users qualitatively as well as quantitatively. You can't A/B test your way to a great product.
This algo will show photos with more likes on top. I wanna see photos from people and not this hashtagspam pushed crap in my timeline. Instagram fails at catching spam all the time. More likes = more views = more likes. The same problem facebook has right now. I wanna see pics of my follower and not only the "pages" with photographic skills + photoshop + hashtagspam.
It's getting less social and more like magazine-subscription of channels.
Facebook's algorithmic news feed is why my feed is full of politics, when if I actually visited people's profile pages individually, that's not really the case. There are all these non-political posts that just don't show up in my feed.
Real time is better. Don't guess what I would prefer to see. Let me filter it myself.
How is this Zuckerberg's fault? Where was the Product and Design leads on this implementation? I see everyone liking posts from them on Medium but suddenly they are absolved from changes that irk people?
So what is chronological order anyway? What time stamp do we order by? Is it when it was posted? The last comment? The last like/reaction? The last interaction by someone in our network?
Never got into Instagram, never got why Facebook bought it, never got why would people use it, and not Google Photos, Flickr, Facebook Photos, or the million others... Oh, filters, right!
I'm really tired of reading rants and opinions on Medium.
In any case it sounds like if there's a huge drop-off of users Instagram can very easily address the issue by setting a sort by option in the settings.
tired of it too . just another platform for tumrblr people who are grownup to channel their narcissism. And most of the articles are of low quality, with unnecessarily large font and stupid pictures that makes me feel like I'm in 5th grade again.
I don't really think it makes much sense to be so sad about this, since the whole reason Instagram did this (according to them) is that people were only seeing 30% of the images on average so it just made sense to try and present the best 30% up front (explained here http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/technology/instagram-feed....). And if like me this guy follows few enough people to keep up with all the photos, then there should be no issue because I can always easily keep up with only the people I am following and see all their output. Maybe it is not real time anymore and it is noticeable to this person, but it still seems to be overstating the case.
And how is this change relevant to try to capture most of your time? It seems moreso to be about trying to give the best experience possible, confronting a problem that most people probably friend and follow way too many people to keep up with. Seems reasonable to me... Not to mention it's very dubious to claim the call came from Facebook, and not internally from Instagram following the same direction Facebook and Twitter went over time.