How Facebook Ruined Comments (at Least For One Writer) 135
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."
link in the article doesn't work (Score:4, Informative)
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]
An Extremely Decent video on the subject (Score:5, Funny)
Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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!
Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm totally stealing this quote (attributed), and posting it on Facebook.
Re: An Extremely Decent video on the subject (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
a picture says a thousand words... so while we're posting photos on fb, you just keep talking
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Facepeople are delusional, AFAICT
I don't use Facebook
since you don't use facebook, you probably can't tell very far how delusional facepeople really are
there are various ways of keeping in touch with friends and family, and facebook is just one of them.
there are also various ways to travel to work... i usually walk to work, so by your logic everyone who drives a car to work is delusional?
Re: (Score:1)
Because the only way to interact with a faceperson is through facebook?
???
no... i didn't say that
i assumed you were implying that facepeople were delusional because they use facebook (hence the "facepeople" tag). how could you know anything about such facebook-induced delusion if you don't use facebook yourself? how do you know you aren't just hanging out with people who are deluded by other causes? do they tell you that facebook deludes them?
in any case it doesn't really matter anyway... the line you quoted was merely intended as a poke (no pun intended). it's interesting tha
Re: (Score:1)
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!!!!
Re: (Score:1)
> keep in touch with their friends and family
You are aware that you don't need to use FB for that, right?
Re: (Score:1)
photos
Re: (Score:1)
telepathy
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Love the way you conflate "the mid to late 1980's" with Eternal September.
I only started using the 'net in 1991 and it was still painfully apparent when September came. Even then wasn't as bad as Cantor and Siegel; at least the unwashed masses were merely ignorant.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you're worrying too much about "appearances".
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
More on Broccoli (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
mod up parent... i know its just a youtube video... but it's short and very... err... sympathetic :)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
If you like that.... (Score:3)
Well.... (Score:1, Insightful)
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)
Relax. It will go away soon. Like, MySpace, or any other fad in the past...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It's one of those retro fads, like those new '50's style diners.
Re:Ok (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I'm sure companies like Hasbro and Fox don't have their own website.
Re: (Score:2)
Especially when they're a university, trying to sell you a Master's in IT with a strong emphasis on Web development...
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Time for new Facebook competitor? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Time for new Facebook competitor? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comments are ordered backwards, even on /. (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
http://emphatious.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/warning-this-website-is-upside-down/ [wordpress.com]
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess why (Score:2)
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? :)
sunk capital kissed by caprice (Score:1)
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.
"At least for one writer" (Score:4, Insightful)
Your mistake... (Score:2)
Timelines vs Forums (Score:2)
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
First post! (Score:2)
I don't get it. (Score:1)
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?!
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook Shuffling Comments (Score:2)
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]
-
Gleefully Counting Nails (Score:2)
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.
No one Cares (Score:2)
Who cares? (Score:2)
fb comments are only marginally less retarded than YouTube comments.
Re: (Score:2)
fb comments are only marginally less retarded than YouTube comments.
No they aren't ;-)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I rarely respond to morons like you but in your case I'll make an exception because I have 30 seconds to kill.
So what? (Score:2)
That a 'tech writer' even cares what facebook does with their site is bad enough. That it affects him is even worse.
Ramblings about Facebook (Score:1)
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
Re:You know who else had things ruined? (Score:5, Insightful)
True dat. All of the cares in my life have been overwhelmed by explosions that don't affect me, and have already been over-reported, and a case about kidnapped girls that are white enough that you know you will be hearing about them for the next year.
So there is absolutely no room whatsoever in my tiny heart, or my pea brain, not to mention my millisecond attention span, to possibly read anything else, ever. Get back to me next year... unless someone blows something up again or kidnaps some girls.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, pity about the thousands of innocent victims (including women and children) killed by US drones in Pakistan. Oh but they aren't US citizens so that doesn't count, right?
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
the US harbors terrorists too (not even counting those that work for the US government)... you gunna advocate blowing up innocent US women and children between drones and terrorists in the US?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
[Pakistan] harbor terrorist
citation please
dont like how we live and play go the fuck home
the rest of the world has been telling that to the USA for years
Re: (Score:1)
Also, pity about the thousands of innocent victims (including women and children) killed by US drones in Pakistan. Oh but they aren't US citizens so that doesn't count, right?
That might make the government look bad, so mainstream news downplays it or doesn't cover it at all. It's not something that makes front-page news.
They don't mind (often accurately) portraying the federal government as bumbling, incompetent, wasteful, etc. That's all in good fun and something of an American tradition. But the staggeringly high number of FIVE corporations who control all mainstream news, well they draw the line at showing the ways in which government are downright evil. Most of the me
Re:You know who else had things ruined? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you want us to police the world or not?
Not. Please.
Seriously, do you and other people in the US really think they're the world's police, the last bastion for freedom, etc? Is this a common mentality?
Re: (Score:1)
As a US citizen, no on both counts. In fact a great percentage of people in the US aren't anything like other countries' citizens like to see us as. But as they say, morons are louder.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I think most were more annoyed by the American 'no it is not a genocide, so we don't have to interfere with it', the actively trying to prevent other countries from setting up a proper UN mission, and afterwards claiming to be the heroes. Anyway, it wasn't just the US that got flack there, France got a lot more flack. Anyway, it's a long time ago, hopefully lessons have been taken...
Re: (Score:1)
And if America had said, "oh yes we must intervene immediately" the rest of the world would have pulled that "oh you meddling villains, stay out of affairs that don't concern you" and there would have been some sort of Blackhawk Down incident in Rwanda as well.
In these sorts of things, you start with the conclusion and work your way backwards: America is always wrong, so just justify it however it needs to be done. Intervene: bullies. Don't intervene: uncaring.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you even read my comment?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you want us to police the world or not?
Not. Please.
Seriously, do you and other people in the US really think they're the world's police, the last bastion for freedom, etc? Is this a common mentality?
Regardless of what Americans think, there is no other superpower who wants or tries to be the world's police. So other countries expect the US to be the world's police. Just look at all the pressure we are getting on Syria.
As for myself, I don't think we should do serious intervening, even in Syria. But I do think that we could quietly put our thumb on the scale and tilt it one way or another. The war needs to end- hundreds of thousands of refugees are fleeing across the border to western-friendly Tur
Re: (Score:2)
Just look at all the pressure we are getting on Syria.
No one is putting pressure on the US to "do something" in Syria. No one.
The pressure is internal - It's propaganda. No one wants a US military invasion. There is no pressure.
Re: (Score:1)
only morons in the US want the US to police the world... the rest of the world wants the US to fuck off... always has, always will
Team America... World Bully
Re: (Score:2)
The Boston Bomber victims. The three kidnapped girls. But never mind them, obviously your pain is greater. Please tell us more.
As a technical community, there is little we can do about events that occurred in the past short of inventing a time machine (and I think there would be worse atrocities to prevent than those if we did). But ongoing problems caused by short-sighted technical ideas are right up our street. They're things that are in our line of professional thought (for a large proportion of the community here) and that a few here might have direct influence over (don't try telling me none of facebook's dev team reads /.,