Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Facebook Social Networks

How Facebook Ruined Comments (at Least For One Writer) 135

Posted by samzenpus
from the it's-always-winter-and-never-christmas dept.
harrymcc writes "Back in late March, Facebook finally introduced a feature which lets you reply to a specific comment on an update. But at the same time, it started reshuffling the order of comments in an attempt to put the best ones at the top. The change only applies to Pages and to the Profiles of people with more than 10,000 followers, but it's driving me crazy. Over at TIME.com, I explain why."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Facebook Ruined Comments (at Least For One Writer)

Comments Filter:
  • by prelelat (201821) on Sunday May 12, 2013 @04:10PM (#43704029)

    It didn't seem to work for me so I went to http://techland.time.com/2013/05/12 [time.com] and then was able to browse to the article.

    Here's the actual link see if it works if you have issues http://techland.time.com/2013/05/12/facebook-comments/ [time.com]

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 12, 2013 @04:36PM (#43704181)

      The clip is great. Here's what I don't get: WHY do people keep using that shit, when so many seem to hate it so much?

      I hate broccoli. You know what? I don't eat it every day and then bitch about how horrible it is. Why would anyone keep using a service that they seem to dislike as much as they do?

      Are they insane, or masochists, or what? I mean, it isn't like people were talking with other people, keeping up to date, and planning things to do together with friends, on the internet for decades before FB came along, or anything... Or is it that they believe they need a for-profit data-harvester in the middle, in order to talk to people?

      Seriously, WTF?

      O

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by crutchy (1949900)

        prolly cos they just want to... i dunno... keep in touch with their friends and family. there used to be facebook for that

        myspace died because it became popular as a simple social networking platform and then commercial interests took over and killed it

        then facebook took over from where myspace failed

        (peering into future some)

        facebook died because it became popular as a simple social networking platform and then commercial interests took over and killed it

        then the borg took over from where facebook failed

        • by Anonymous Coward

          prolly cos they just want to... i dunno... keep in touch with their friends and family. there used to be facebook for that

          My phone is so amazing it lets me send my voice in real time to my family and friends. Even more amazing -- rather than posting to FB when they speak I hear the sounds right in my ear! If you had a cell phone that could make voice calls besides just FB then you would see how useless FB is.

          I don't have a facebook account or ever bother with it and get along just fine without it. I keep in

          • by SJHillman (1966756) on Sunday May 12, 2013 @05:23PM (#43704505)

            We get it, you don't have Facebook and feel the need to tell the world they don't need it either so that you can feel superior by being different.
            I don't have cable TV, but I at least understand that some people feel that TV has value and thus subscribe to it so I'm not going to go around telling everyone that because I don't want TV they shouldn't want it either.

            • by Anonymous Coward

              I don't have cable TV, but I at least understand that some people feel that TV has value and thus subscribe to it...

              That's interesting because -
              [commercial]Introducing the all new bell minnow insipidon, with 2Biggahertz Core Quan-Do combined with the latest soiled-stick-vibe, it's better than the sex you aren't getting. You haven't even been addicted to online gaming until you've seen the graphics from the jaw-sploding nVisceral FxU69007-GD, with eye twitching resolutions of up to 3.14159pi. You'll never even look at your depressing family again. Buy it now or else everyone will start laughing behind your back. It's your

              • by crutchy (1949900)

                holy shit dude! i've watched a fair amount of tv in my time but nowhere near enough to be able to come up with that!

            • by pegasustonans (589396) on Sunday May 12, 2013 @09:08PM (#43705877)

              We get it, you don't have Facebook and feel the need to tell the world they don't need it either so that you can feel superior by being different.
              I don't have cable TV, but I at least understand that some people feel that TV has value and thus subscribe to it so I'm not going to go around telling everyone that because I don't want TV they shouldn't want it either.

              Clearly, people see value in communicating with friends/family in a casual environment. I understand that.

              The issue for me is, to use the TV example, my TV doesn't compromise the privacy of my neighbors and acquaintances, Facebook does. I'm not on Facebook because the potential value there is outweighed by my privacy concerns with the service.

              Unfortunately, my friends and family *are* on Facebook. This means, as family members share private photographs of me and talk about me on Facebook, my privacy is compromised even though I never agreed to it. This is the real issue here.

              • Do you have a cellphone? Do you use smartphone apps? do you use google or other search engine? do you use an email service? Do you use an ISP? what software do you use? Do you monitor your outgoing connections? Do you wear hoodies in front of cameras when you enter commercial buildings?

                All these things affect your privacy. You're arbitrarily deciding FB is not worth that "invasion" but trying to convince others that FB should objectively be excluded and is somehow radically different than all these othe

              • Do your family and friends ever talk to their friends about you? If so then your privacy is compromised without your participation ... shall we ban conversation?

              • Oh for mod points...
            • You're right. "I don't have Facebook" has taken over from the "I don't even have a TV" as the cry of the superior elitist.

          • by crutchy (1949900)

            a picture says a thousand words... so while we're posting photos on fb, you just keep talking

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          prolly cos they just want to... i dunno... keep in touch with their friends and family.

          What on earth makes you think you need Facebook to do that?

          I've been "keeping in touch with friends and family" online for a long time before Facebook was even a gleam in Zucks eye.

          Handy tip: you don't need Facebook to do that. It's bizarre to talk to people about it. It's like they live in some alternate reality where FB is the only way to communicate with people on the internet. It's not. It never was.

          • by crutchy (1949900)

            Handy tip: you don't need Facebook to do that. It's bizarre to talk to people about it. It's like they live in some alternate reality where FB is the only way to communicate with people on the internet. It's not. It never was.

            handy tip: many people who use facebook also talk on the phone (it's totally amazing how they could, like, you know, use two means of communication, even at the same time! OMG!!!!)

            but hey why in the world would anyone want to send a photo or web link and be able to talk to the person they sent it to? is that just plain stupid or what? duh!!! haven't these facetards heard of a FAX MACHINE!!!!

        • by Anonymous Coward

          > keep in touch with their friends and family

          You are aware that you don't need to use FB for that, right?

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          myspace died because it became popular as a simple social networking platform and then commercial interests took over and killed it

          That can be said for all of the Internet.

          The one true law of the Internet was, is, and should always be, that there are no laws.

          The only reason for laws is that there is limited space and resources which people have to share. But on the Internet, there is unlimited virtual space and everyone can put up his own resources. Don't like it? Fork it! Works for any communication space.

          • by Anonymous Coward

            I say we make a new Internet. With anons and webs of trust! Where the only laws are, that there are no laws, and no non-digital-natives.

            I wish you luck in finding a way to outrun the world.

          • by crutchy (1949900)

            the law of the internet is that users will use what work and avoid what sucks, regardless of the price... call it common sense if you like... it's not always sensible, but it is common

            just because this law doesn't suit corporations or the hippy freedom fighters doesn't mean the internet can't work

      • by symbolset (646467) *

        It has to do with what people really care about. This is the basic primitive that most of the major players in tech just don't get. As humans we crave some things and are willing to pay inordinate prices to get them. Zuckerberg gets this. Jobs got this. Google gets this. Intel, AMD, Microsoft, IBM, Dell, HP, Acer, Asus, Toshiba, Fujitsu, LG, Sony and Lenovo - they just don't.

        People don't - and never did - give a flying fuck about the widget. What they cared about was how the widget helped them do wh

      • Well, you're reading those who hating so much, you're not reading those who use it because those who use it don't go all around slashdot complaining.

        If you pay attention, we've been over this. In some places, FB (or any online service where people you know use) is an extremely practical way to contact be in touch with people (and later take that online interaction to, let's call it, real life) .

        Now, the problems of privacy and all that shit are big but, at this point, human culture has basically stated the

      • To extend your anoalogy... say you hate broccoli. But, every time your friends want to go out to eat. they always go to this trendy broccoli restaurant. They refuse to try other restaurants because all their friends eat at this one, and they see nothing wrong with this one, at least nothing bad enough for them to leave all their friends.

        You can thus either find new friends, or eat broccoli.

        This is why everyone uses Facebook.

      • by dj245 (732906)

        The clip is great. Here's what I don't get: WHY do people keep using that shit, when so many seem to hate it so much?

        I hate broccoli. You know what? I don't eat it every day and then bitch about how horrible it is. Why would anyone keep using a service that they seem to dislike as much as they do?

        Are they insane, or masochists, or what? I mean, it isn't like people were talking with other people, keeping up to date, and planning things to do together with friends, on the internet for decades before FB came along, or anything... Or is it that they believe they need a for-profit data-harvester in the middle, in order to talk to people?

        Seriously, WTF?

        O

        Back in the day, everybody hated AT&T too. They were a monopoly, they charged too much, never innovated, etc etc. They were still a more convenient option for communicating compared to USPS so people used them anyway.

    • by crutchy (1949900)

      mod up parent... i know its just a youtube video... but it's short and very... err... sympathetic :)

    • by Dogtanian (588974)

      Facebook updates in real life. [youtube.com]

      It's not just a good satire of Facebook. They also got their finger on the irritating tone of present-day consumer-oriented advertising and communications- the faux-chummy, informal, first-names social-media-era style of a corporation pretending to be our best friend. The "Facebook" guy in the video is this personified.

      This post isn't specifically about Facebook, though. It's about a far more general trend that's become common in the past decade or so, and particularly the past five years.

      The video even

  • Well.... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I was going to make a comment how by merely using Facebook you are crazy but that world be false.

    By using Facebook you are an idiot, the crazy is irrelevant.

  • Ok (Score:2, Insightful)

    by trifish (826353)

    Relax. It will go away soon. Like, MySpace, or any other fad in the past...

    • by Ash-Fox (726320)

      Relax. It will go away soon. Like, MySpace, or any other fad in the past...

      Then why is MySpace still around and why do I still see MySpace IDs being referenced in stuff like newly designed restaurant menus?

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        It's one of those retro fads, like those new '50's style diners.

      • Re:Ok (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ArcadeMan (2766669) on Sunday May 12, 2013 @05:00PM (#43704345)

        Because some businesses don't want to lose even 1% of potential customers. That's why you see Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc. everywhere.

        I just wish companies would put up pages for their own products on their own website instead of telling us to learn more at "facebook.com/product/".

        • Re:Ok (Score:4, Informative)

          by T-Bone-T (1048702) on Sunday May 12, 2013 @10:10PM (#43706259)

          Why make your own website when you can use a free page on Facebook? You don't have to hire a designer or any other internet related things and by default you get an interface that almost every customer is familiar with.

        • by 6Yankee (597075)

          Especially when they're a university, trying to sell you a Master's in IT with a strong emphasis on Web development...

      • by Chuq (8564)

        Then why is MySpace still around and why do I still see MySpace IDs being referenced in stuff like newly designed restaurant menus?

        ... you do?! Really?

  • Facebook's changes are pissing off its users....the same people who put them in the dominant position it is in now.

    The thing about facebook though, it isn't like Ebay, where a critical mass of people have no choice to stay. They are free to go elsewhere.....and will as soon as another competitor shows up that offeres a better experience. In my opinion, the time for this to happen is imminent.

    • by Frosty Piss (770223) * on Sunday May 12, 2013 @05:26PM (#43704515)

      Facebook's changes are pissing off its users....the same people who put them in the dominant position it is in now.

      I don't believe this is so.

      I think Facebook is pissing of Techies and the Uber Cool but that the "average" Facebook user is still quite happy.

      Maybe some of these Super Cool Proto Users should take another look at Google+ which as evolved into something very similar to the "original" Facebook. Of course you will not be able to validate your sad life with 100's of "friends" whom you really don't know and have never met in person...

      Not many people inhabit Google+ yet but if they don't kill it off like so many of their "projects", it will be the natural transition when Facebook becomes passe by the normal non-Uber Cool Proto Users.

    • by jandrese (485)
      It's actually pretty hard to switch away from a social media site that all of your friends are using. Google+ showed us just how hard with it's sausagefest userbase and extremely high percentage of eagerly created but completely inactive accounts.
      • Remember MySpace and GeoCities and AOL. It is ez to leave.
        I think it's even easier to leave active friends because they get tiresome after a while by posting too much stuff.
        You suddenly realize the only people left are spammers (even tho you went to high school with them. All they do is forward lame political messages and ancient jokes).
        • by jandrese (485)
          But my friends post high quality content and important social information. I've already filtered out the people who just spam useless posts.
    • by isorox (205688)

      Your link states
      The philosophy of a design should be to minimize the amount of time a user has to learn the interface and try to be as similar as possible to other interfaces the user has used previously to avoid getting mixed up from time to time.

      OK, don't do anything new, copy other interfaces. Great

      It then goes on to say:

      Almost all websites are like this.

      So what it's saying in the second statement is that the standard - new items first - is ubiquitous. The first statement it states this is good. I fail t

      • by symbolset (646467) *
        The struggle between ease of adoption and power of use is an endless one. There are options that seek to avoid the strife by optimizing for the least of each, which is a pathological solution (this is a technical term) to the problem. Example: Windows 8.
    • So you've probably hate The Guardian's Live Blogging.

      It's not about reviewing EVERYTHING, it's about the latest. If you're really interested, you can scroll down and move up.

      I don't really see the average user struggling with this.

      • by HJED (1304957)
        With comments it makes it very hard to follow a conversation, especially as the behaviour is inconsistent so you don't realise that the comment that dosen't make sense is actually in reply to the comment 5 comments below it.
    • by jandrese (485)
      I would read that but it's got the annoying white on black color scheme that hurts my eyes because I use the computer in a lit room instead of a darkened basement.
  • It's because it's harder to tell when there are new comments in a thread, so conversations fragment.

    Nothing at all like pretending to start a topic here, just to try to get us to click on your link to continue, right? :)

  • First "I do", then 10,000 followers fill his shoe, then pussy-whipped and Zucker-punched. He should have ended his complaint by confessing that he feels so ruthlessly dis-empowered he hasn't had a decent erection in three weeks.

  • by Brucelet (1857158) on Sunday May 12, 2013 @09:09PM (#43705879)
    Well I'm glad Slashdot headlines are at least becoming honest about the substance-free stories we've been seeing lately.
  • Your mistake is expecting much of anything from facebook. The sooner we all move to Diaspora where control isn't ceded to someone with a vested interest in selling ad space, the better.
  • The article is talking about how it's now harder to follow the discussion around a Facebook post because Facebook is re-ordering the replies based on their assessment of their quality. This could be easily remedied by adding sort-by-time and sort-by-quality buttons.

    There's another more fundamental problem with Facebook as a venue for non-trivial discussion:

    Many sites are shutting down their forums and moving comments to their Facebook pages. I suppose their thinking is that the (mostly) real names cut

  • Well it worked on Facebook!
  • I don't understand. How does an organization as big as Time not have the resources to just write their own comment/forum/whatever system? Whatever happened to this? Every fucking site uses Facebook or Disqus, now. Rolling your own is trivial and strips you of dependence on third parties and lets you retain the data.

    Also, who are all of these idiots posting on articles and things, via Facebok, using their real name and saying the most vile and horrible shit. Are they seriously this stupid?!

    • They used to have their own system. Sister sites CNN and Money used to too, but they switched to Facebook and later to Disqus (no reason was given why they dumped Facebook).. Someone must have seen some "savings" in outsourcing vs. keeping it in-house.
  • Basically: shuffling all the comments on one item is like cutting up a movie script, mixing up the dialogue and expecting it to still make sense.

    Facebook is turning into a David Lynch movie.
    For those unfamiliar with David Lynch movies, Rabbits. [youtube.com]

    -

  • Google analysts are no doubt watching the FB decline and making comparissons to Yahoo, MySpace, et al.

    We'll soon have an answer to the question, "How many nails does it take to seal a social network coffin?"

    That still leaves open the question of what sort of nails. How many nails are bollocksed user interface features, like this one, and how many are an overabundance of marketing crappola?

    Aye, there's the rub.

  • Seriously, if this is the worst thing you have happening in your life, then I think you are in pretty good shape.
  • fb comments are only marginally less retarded than YouTube comments.

    • fb comments are only marginally less retarded than YouTube comments.

      No they aren't ;-)

    • by unix_core (943019)
      If the comments you see on Facebook are just a little less retarded than what you see on Youtube, you must have a lot of mentally challenged friends.
      • by gelfling (6534)

        I rarely respond to morons like you but in your case I'll make an exception because I have 30 seconds to kill.

  • That a 'tech writer' even cares what facebook does with their site is bad enough. That it affects him is even worse.

  • Just some ramblings and opinions about Facebook today.

    Facebook has risen to the top of social networking, becoming ubiquitous in society to where it's mentioned in daily conversations and business transactions. Facebook doesn't seem to have significant invest interest in its user base as to what features are useful or not, or just plain unwanted. Not until people start blogging really loudly and when the media begins amplifying those complaints.

    The "Facebook Feedback" page seems perfunctory, at best.

    In r

We are experiencing system trouble -- do not adjust your terminal.

Working...