I think the poster underestimates the costs involved in creating some of those product features, but it's not a bad idea and it's kind of shocking Twitter hasn't released a pro version over the years.
It's a shame top management spent so much energy fighting each other instead.
Ignoring the fact that he's choosing to fund a proprietary platform, he should make it clear that all his poll showed was that "36 percent of people [who follow him and responded to his poll]" are happy to pay.
> For $1 a month & $12 a year, you get to prioritize your Twitter feed. You can have one timeline in chronological order and another one in order of your priorities, by topic and by follow. You also get a mobile version of Tweetdeck, which doesn’t currently exist, but is an essential for a power user.
So...I might have missed it, but has there ever been a good explanation for why Twitter has so bewilderingly neglected Lists? I recently saw on Facebook a little balloon pop up to tell me that if I wanted to, I could make friends lists, and here was the menu to go to do so...Facebook, a site that has pretty much mastered the ability to prioritize your friends (not just Close Friends, but favorite friends in a given locale), still thinks users might like curating their own lists.
But Twitter...The only way I see to even accessing my lists is to go to my profile, where there are 4 buttons at the top: the settings-gears, a button that takes me to Twitter Ads, another button that let's me switch accounts as if more than one person were using my iPhone, and then "Edit Profile". The lists are currently buried in the Settings button, and even then I have to stumble around to find the lists that I've carefully curated.
The biggest complaint I hear from new users is that it's hard to cut through all the noise. So they limit who they follow...because in every other social network, there's a distinct FOMO when your newsfeed is being crowded out. Being able to easily generate lists and switch between them would've encouraged them to follow more people and thus broaden the network. The most common advice given among journalists about Twitter is to join Tweetdeck, because of how powerfully it lets you monitor a variety of subjects.
Making lists usable -- and hell, sharable, like Spotify has made playlists -- is not a technical or a product challenge in the way that Moments or an algorithmic timeline is. I'm not saying it's trivial to fit List-making/following functionality into the interface but it doesn't even seem like Twitter gave a shit.
I don't have any inside data, but I'm suspect Facebook's usage numbers for lists are quite low. Anecdotally, I'm the only person out of all my friends that uses friend lists for anything (mostly to tailor privacy settings). Most people are unaware they exist.
Secondly, Facebook auto-populates lists based on clusters of friends (e.g. a bunch of friends are in your current city, so Facebook might create an automatic list for that). Twitter can't do this bootstrapping, for obvious reasons (and if they tried I wouldn't be surprised if the clustering was poor quality).
Also, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter how many ways to slice and dice your friends there are. Nothing will change the fact that Twitter is crap if 1) nobody knows who you are (you're just tweeting to an empty room), and 2) you haven't spent the time to follow the right people.
One will note that Facebook puts everything into one algorithmic news feed.
The author ran a Twitter poll asking people how much they would pay for Twitter. 64% said "nothing." The author believes people have a tendency to vote "more negatively" to make a statement, and a lot more people would actually pay than are represented in the poll. Laughable.
If anything, people love to say they're willing to pay (it's just a click). But when the time comes to actually pay money... they're nowhere to be found.
Darren Rovell can't shill for brands if twitter doesn't exist!
Rather than retweet people, he does a lot of "steal pic, 'credit via /cc'" essentially stealing a ton of exposure for other smaller twitter users. How many people click on an @ to see who recorded a video clip rather than just click the RT button.
Says there can't be racism in sponsorships (in reference to Serena Williams not getting sponsorship) because there are black athletes that get big $ deals, therefore no racism can exist!
Says college players don't deserve to get paid, no one even knows who they are! (Except you know people from that school, rival, and obviously excluding the superstar college players who are probably losing the most)
Tweets constantly about the food he eats at sports events which would be fine if he hadn't written some stupid article 5 years ago chiding "foodies that tweet 10 sports tweets"
Just to let you know, there are some people who actually hate retweets. I would prefer that someone I follow would tweet only in their own voice even if they're resharing what someone else shared. As you said, he signs his retweets with "credit via". I mean what more do you want him to do? In my experience the most annoying thing on Twitter is just because I'm following Marc Andreesen I have to consume all the random tweets he retweets from his friends/colleagues/interns/acquaintances/some random guy he met online.
You're taking this tweeting thing too seriously. It's not like someone wrote a nobel prize winning discovery on Twitter and someone else stole it to publish on Nature and took the credit. That aside, based on all the downvotes I received I guess I'll get downvoted again for this but just gotta say this. I didn't say you were wrong. I said there are other people who feel this way and was just sharing another point of view. And you are the one who's refusing to accept there can be other perspectives.
18 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 49.4 ms ] threadIt's a shame top management spent so much energy fighting each other instead.
So...I might have missed it, but has there ever been a good explanation for why Twitter has so bewilderingly neglected Lists? I recently saw on Facebook a little balloon pop up to tell me that if I wanted to, I could make friends lists, and here was the menu to go to do so...Facebook, a site that has pretty much mastered the ability to prioritize your friends (not just Close Friends, but favorite friends in a given locale), still thinks users might like curating their own lists.
But Twitter...The only way I see to even accessing my lists is to go to my profile, where there are 4 buttons at the top: the settings-gears, a button that takes me to Twitter Ads, another button that let's me switch accounts as if more than one person were using my iPhone, and then "Edit Profile". The lists are currently buried in the Settings button, and even then I have to stumble around to find the lists that I've carefully curated.
The biggest complaint I hear from new users is that it's hard to cut through all the noise. So they limit who they follow...because in every other social network, there's a distinct FOMO when your newsfeed is being crowded out. Being able to easily generate lists and switch between them would've encouraged them to follow more people and thus broaden the network. The most common advice given among journalists about Twitter is to join Tweetdeck, because of how powerfully it lets you monitor a variety of subjects.
Making lists usable -- and hell, sharable, like Spotify has made playlists -- is not a technical or a product challenge in the way that Moments or an algorithmic timeline is. I'm not saying it's trivial to fit List-making/following functionality into the interface but it doesn't even seem like Twitter gave a shit.
Secondly, Facebook auto-populates lists based on clusters of friends (e.g. a bunch of friends are in your current city, so Facebook might create an automatic list for that). Twitter can't do this bootstrapping, for obvious reasons (and if they tried I wouldn't be surprised if the clustering was poor quality).
Also, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter how many ways to slice and dice your friends there are. Nothing will change the fact that Twitter is crap if 1) nobody knows who you are (you're just tweeting to an empty room), and 2) you haven't spent the time to follow the right people.
One will note that Facebook puts everything into one algorithmic news feed.
The author ran a Twitter poll asking people how much they would pay for Twitter. 64% said "nothing." The author believes people have a tendency to vote "more negatively" to make a statement, and a lot more people would actually pay than are represented in the poll. Laughable.
If anything, people love to say they're willing to pay (it's just a click). But when the time comes to actually pay money... they're nowhere to be found.
Rather than retweet people, he does a lot of "steal pic, 'credit via /cc'" essentially stealing a ton of exposure for other smaller twitter users. How many people click on an @ to see who recorded a video clip rather than just click the RT button.
Says there can't be racism in sponsorships (in reference to Serena Williams not getting sponsorship) because there are black athletes that get big $ deals, therefore no racism can exist!
Says college players don't deserve to get paid, no one even knows who they are! (Except you know people from that school, rival, and obviously excluding the superstar college players who are probably losing the most)
Tweets constantly about the food he eats at sports events which would be fine if he hadn't written some stupid article 5 years ago chiding "foodies that tweet 10 sports tweets"
literally that is what i want him to do. that is what "more" he can do. literally give people credit for what they tweet about.
also you are probably the only person who "hates" retweets. i don't even get what that means.