Optimizing for something as abstruse as "engagement" seems like a great way to completely ignore everything that actually makes social networks compelling.
Or anything else, for that matter. The most shocking part of Android Pie release[0] was the repetition of the "drive engagement" mantra (in the post as well as surrounding articles). Fundamentally, phones are tools; how good is any tool to me when it's purposely designed to make me use it more? A tool should make me more efficient, hence, for the same task, make me use it less! Everything about this is spiralling to artificially inflate dubious metrics such as eyeball time or number of interactions.
[0]: https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2018/08/introducin...
Example: I'm on 2 dating app. I want notification on so I can make sure to receive messages from actual people but I get one notification every day from each app "You should check for new matches today!" Nether app has a way to turn off that notification.
Google Maps now does something like this too where they are trying to get me to add reviews and photos so Google Maps starts notifying me "Add a review of that place I think you just visited?" I think Google Maps at least had a way to turn it off though not 100% sure.
In general though the more some service bugs me with anything the less I want to do business with that service. That includes mailing lists. Hate them! Don't add me. I didn't opt-in! Etc...
It makes sense when you consider Android phones as a set of tools used by advertisers to reach consumers. The more eyeballs the more efficient the tool becomes.
Does Android have something like Siri suggestions with P? Because that seems intended to do the exact opposite of what you’re saying. It is the feature that suggests your notes app if you often use your notes app in the grocery store location. It would be a good use for Android instead of the constant asking to review the store.
Though I suppose in this stretched analogy those are not great positions to be in.
I never wanted it to become the way I talk to my folks, I wanted to talk to that cute girl in my class or some guy in Russia that happened to like the Smashing Pumpkins too. Maybe I'm not using it right, but it seems more difficult to find new people while wading through ads and political posts from peripheral friends.
Are you satisfied?
[yes] [no] https://is.muni.cz/el/1421/jaro2008/ESB032/um/5136660/MacDon...
But you can't invest in things you can't quantify. You can't make money off of good vibes and authenticity without metrics. Snapchat and the like have thrown enormous money at understanding humans and have the best people in their fields to get this right.
I think what worked 10 years ago no longer flies now. How we socialize on the web has changed, and we're turned off by the traditional mechanics to keep us viewing. There are many alternatives to the service Facebook offers, but I'd like to people aren't 'showing off' as much anymore and are having more 1-to-1 or small friend-group experiences. The larger community is almost always toxic.
Look at cord-cutting: For the longest time we just ignored commercials, until we didn't.
From:https://genius.com/Frank-zappa-drooling-midrange-accountants...
Once upon a time, a record company had A&R people in it who would take a chance, make a decision, use their gut reaction, sign a group, and see what they could do with it. Okay? That was, whoa, a long time ago. It's not that way anymore. All decisions about who get signed and what happens to the record are made by these drooling little midrange accountants. And everything is based on the numbers games in there. And the taste of the accountants is what is ruling the mass media."
Continues at link.
This attitude is like trying to predict the weather tomorrow by just guessing it'll be the same as today. You're right most of the time...
I hope you mean the current world of VC and the greater finance world can't do that. Because as individuals and small companies we can absolutely invest in anything we want whether there's a metric or not. Granted, you can't organize a mega corporation or a hypergrowth startup around vague values because you're so far past Dunbar's number that any kind of shared understanding of anything more complex than simple metrics is tenuous at best.
However it's worth recognizing that there's a real thirst in the world for authenticity in a world driven by global brands and corporate behemoths. There's plenty of room for other approaches, it's just not what interests the financial world whose interest is directly proportional to the number of zeros involved.
Sure you can. It's how Jobs turned Apple around. By all accounts, nobody had metrics saying consumers wanted less choice. No metrics suggested that a music player with "no wireless [and] less space than a nomad" would be a market leader. No metrics, as far as I'm aware, showed that there was a huge demand for Unix-like stability and command line tools but without the need for tinkering just to get a great UI and commercial software support.
It's difficult, certainly, and requires a nearly pathological drive to make your product as good and polished as possible - a drive that most people don't have today, including Tim Cook. But it can be done.
Not everyone can, but great products often have a bit of genius or perfect timing in their creation. Snapchat - disappearing picture messages! - wouldn't have been arrived at by analytics alone.
Quantifiable metrics can amplify good instincts, but it can't replace them, and most of Facebook post-newsfeed, or Snapchat post-stories, has been just the metrics-driven iteration part.
It's about control over what you get to watch, when. No more waiting around for a particular time, no forgetting to set the DVR. This has always been a nuisance.
There's evidence that this has been an evolution rather than a revolution.
Yep, my condo just cut a deal with our collective internet+cable provider that includes a Tivo for everyone.
Having metrics is important, but thinking that metrics - any set of metrics - capture the whole of reality is delusional. And anyway, in the end you can always quantify your ROI in terms of money.
WARNING: Mild spoilers if you've not seen the Matrix films
The analytics led social media platforms are evolving towards the early versions of the Matrix created solely by the Architect and ultimately rejected by the humans within:
"The first Matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect, it was a work of art, flawless, sublime. A triumph equalled only by its monumental failure. The inevitability of its doom is apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being.
Thus, I redesigned it based on your history to more accurately reflect the varying grotesqueries of your nature. However, I was again frustrated by failure.
I have since come to understand that the answer eluded me because it required a lesser mind, or perhaps a mind less bound by the parameters of perfection. Thus, the answer was stumbled upon by another, an intuitive program, initially created to investigate certain aspects of the human psyche.
If I am the father of the Matrix, she would undoubtedly be its mother." Architect - The Matrix Reloaded (via Wikiquote)
As an industry (and engineers) we have a tendency towards being led by logic and there has been a cultural focus (e.g. DevOps) on being led by metrics...we can sometimes miss or downplay the squishy yet equally important emotive side of systems ;)
_Exactly_ this. Rather than understanding their users as real humans, having unique insights about them, and building something that meets their real needs, everything has been about maximizing hollow engagement metrics. And guess what? That's good for short term revenue but not long term trust. If you're running a startup and the main way you learn about your users is through statistical tracking and A/B testing, you're missing an important opportunity to get to know them properly. They will lead the way and although you can't simply ask them what they want, if you understand them deeply you'll know what to do.
I'm excited about the next wave of platforms, which are tapping into enormous unmet needs. It's early days, and I can't stand the "web 3" label, but there's definitely going to be a sea change.