-
Website
http://whitneyhess.com/blog -
Original page
http://whitneyhess.com/blog/2009/05/twitters-most-moronic-change-removing-reply-settings/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
rorowe
4 comments · 2 points
-
sandieman
8 comments · 1 points
-
Dave Friedel
7 comments · 4 points
-
Matt J McDonald
5 comments · 1 points
-
Lisa Rex @lisarex
6 comments · 1 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
Take our Twitter survey for a chance to win a $200 Amazon gift card
3 weeks ago · 4 comments
-
Take our Twitter survey for a chance to win a $200 Amazon gift card
Unfortunately, I don't think Biz and Ev care much about what the "little" people think. Twitter may have been built on the backs of geeks and techies, but they clearly seem to care more about catering to the Oprah's and Ashton Kutcher's and other pop-princesses of the world.
Here's my commentary on the latest change: http://www.ourgeeklife.com/2009/05/12/its-just-...
Bad bad bad idea twitter. Way to cripple your service.
Prediction: Retweets (RTs) will become more important in discovering new people since putting an RT at the front of a tweet prevents Twitter from using a leading @ reply as a filter. This is one reason why I retweet so much and don't just say "@soandso great tweet!"
change, I'm going to have to completely alter how I craft my tweets. I may
in fact never start a tweet with a username again.
For instance: @orian just told me the funniest thing: he values my advice!
No one would see that!
And an easy way to tweet that differently and keep it short enough for twitter? You tell me, I'm at a loss.
I think the whole filtering replies thing in any way should be ditched and we should all just seem the uncensored streams of those whom we follow!
Funniest thing from @orian: he values my advice!
vs.
@orian just told me the funniest thing...
Also has the virtue of being shorter, leaving more chars for the content.
I can't believe how they can make such a mistake to hide @replies from non-followers. It can't be "because it's undesirable", as there was already an optional (and default to boot) setting for those that don't wanna see those replies. It really is a stupid move.
Would be nice if people had some sort of option, though.
Seems pretty dumb.
The whole concept of #followfriday became a joke when it just became people listing a hundred names, but when you find someone who has a mutual interest to discuss, it is far more valuable.
This is kinda odd coming from Twitter. I'm on Identi.ca with the same user name. Evan Prodromou and crew have a consistent vision of what they want to do with Identi.ca and the code is openly available. With a drastic change like this from Twitter, it seems that sites within the Laconica federation are going to be far more stable.
1) Referrals of a single person often start with a description of why they're cool, so they're not considered replies.
2) Lists of people to follow often start the same way.
3) Lists of people from someone you know may contain other people you follow, so if #2 is untrue, you'll see it due to #3.
There are some that are filtered out by this, but that's the point. Would be nice if people had the option though, of course.
Like everything in life, sometimes things are not understood, it is the job of those in charge to make sure that people understand them -- again, educate them.
Great initiative by posting this, I hope they actually start listening and reinstate the feature and in the future engage the community in these "small changes" before they take place.
This decision just undermines the organic nature of twitter, and how our list of followers tends to grow. I value each of the people I follow, and each of their tweets have a great potential for impact. I just don't feel I should be missing entire conversations because I'm not following every single person on twitter.
Following so hard on the heels of the new Twitter notification emails, and their rather stuffy and formal style, I have to ask the question: has Twitter lost touch with its users?
"NOT happy about the @reply change. Twitter is about conversation and discovery. I like conversation & discovery. #twitterfail #@replyfail"
You are right in that Twitter has underestimated its users and how they have defined its growth. I'm actually surprised that they are still leading with "What are you doing?" when it really should be Facebook's "What's on your mind?" (In fact, FB & Twitter should switch those because that's how people use them more frequently).
Twitters USERS made it about conversation and discovery, not "eating a burrito for lunch" which is what non-Tweeps think it is about based on the "What are you doing" lead.
Another GREAT example of how this debacle will hurt conversation & discovery: @SuzeOrmanShow replies to EVERY SINGLE finance question she gets. She has over 11,000 followers, not just because she is a celeb, but because she provides valuable information and actually responds to and engages with all her followers. Usually, I read her replies and then click on "in reply to @user" if I want to read the original question. However, I do not wish to follow the thousands that send Suze a tweet. So now I won't be able to see those replies? And Suze will have to find another way to reply to questions so that her followers see them?
Bad move, @Twitter. RECALL NOW.
(Just saw that the #1 trending topic is #fixreplies -- above Adam Lambert, Kris Allen, Star Trek, Kobe, American Idol... they have to respond)
More transparency would be better - ie user behavior stats in the blog post.
That said, is this *really* the battle you want to pick? Lame.
For the sake of my son who is in Germany for 2 months with limited internet, I will keep following his people for interesting tidbits. When he gets back, I'll be gone.
Bring back the @ settings you silly Twits.
Please, Twitter, treat your users with the respect we deserve. Let us choose the options we want, for @ replies and other features. If you want to eliminate confusion, how about building clear, consistent, up-to-date guidance into the interface?
I am going to have to disagree with you on this one.
Two reasons:
One: I have had to explain to too many people that the ability exists to filter out to just @-replies to people you follow. It has lost me followers, and caused me to pull out my MacBook at, at least, one party and walk a guy through the steps. (He still never followed me back :( )
Two: The point of twitter is conversation, and currently what many people do is they simply disregard their main stream. They create groups on Tweetdeck just so they can filter out all the noise of people talking all over.
Twitter is making a declaration: Engage with your current followers, don't just always be looking for a new fix, errrr.. conversation. It's not a numbers game.
Create a search if you want to see everything that happens about someone. I do that with @1938media, and I am able to actually track the conversations, as opposed to a one sided response.
Now, maybe brands will adjust and write "Thanks for the feedback, @dwag29" instead of "@dwag29 Thanks for the feedback" but probably not if it's just easy to hit the "reply" button which puts the @name first. Unless this is something else Twitter plans to change...
Connecting with others and locating those you might know is already enough of a barrier to entry--why make it harder? Suggesting that they follow @ijustine does far less to engage a user than exposing them to conversations with others they may already know or at least share interests with.
Steve is right: This change is absolutely ham-fisted and really disappoints me. Given the nature of this medium I would have thought @ev and company would have a better grasp on the way users interact with Twitter.
I love getting replies from ppl not in my network. This happens regularly as I ask questions and use hash tags to ensure that people following a tag can see it and it's a great way to crowd source answers - now it's less likely to be successful.
twitter change = feail
Happy Birthday to Robert Pattinson - turns 23 woo hoo - May 13
I'am not furious, i will just walk away and find another community site that will bring me what i want.
Thanks, Whitney, for pointing this out and leading the charge. Hopefully they will listen to their people.
And as Wendy pointed out, people take my Twitter name and not only misspell it, but do it on purpose. I'm @periodicdesign, but people will use @periodicmoviegoer or @periodictraveler. When people ask, "why didn't you respond to my tweet?," I say, "What tweet?!" I don't call them by a different name, I use their name. If your name is John, I don't call you Bob.
Particularly sad for me, since a few months ago I suggested what I humbly believed to be an enhancement to this setting - allowing users granular control over which users they receive @messages from - only to hear from Alex that the suggestion was a feature best left for development by the 3rd party app community. This makes all sorts of faulty user assumptions, and the underlying lack of insight has now manifested in this new @messages change.
Twitter guys: It's a terrible change. And in general, you're misunderstanding and devaluing one of Twitter's key draws (that it is usable via multiple entry points, from SMS to various API consumer apps, to the twitter.com website itself) by pushing feature development responsibilities out to app development communities.
Clearly this is a MONSTER topic on Twitter (see #fixreplies) so let's turn it into an experiment on how effective Twitter can be as a force of change (or perhaps how bullheaded @ev and @biz can be in their new celebrity)
Who wants to make odds on when it gets fixed?
On a side note: (not data supported) I would think that (for now) the majority of Twitter traffic emanates from the US. So why on earth would Twitter take down the service at noon pacific time for 1 hr as opposed to, say 3am?
Twitter, please restore this feature.
mike pratt: over under is five business days.
Cutting out the @all at replies option will reduce twitters server load significantly!
Now I am not familiar with the Twitter database structure but I know that cutting an option like the @all reply will significantly reduce the calls the servers need to make per tweet per second. From now on the servers don't have to cross check users account to see if they have this option selected. This would have been painful for the server load before, because regardless as to whether you had changed this option or not, the server scripts would still have to have checked it.
With users on the increase and money coming in at a minimum as CEO I would certainly be looking for ways to keep the service up an running without buying another tower block of servers?
Sorry for getting a lit bit geeky. Anyway, I'm sure providing the best service comes way before profit and loss margins. I mean who would have thought a company trying to make money would have any ulterior motives!? ;0)
I'm wondering now: does @Twitter actually understand Twitter? Does the team "get" Twitter. Hard to believe; kinda ironic if true.
If I were one of the VCs who invested in Twitter, I'd be holding a sit-down with the team.
"If I wanted to only talk to people I already knew, I wouldn't need @Twitter in the first place. #fixreplies"
http://twitter.com/jayfanelli/status/1784446028
Dear Twitter, if an option is confusing, the solution is to redesign the interaction or explain the option better. Yanking it is not the answer.
http://blog.twitter.com/2009/05/whoa-feedback.html
http://blog.twitter.com/2009/05/we-learned-lot....