Why “Simple” Websites Are Scientifically Superior

Re:Why “Simple” Websites Are Scientifically Superior by rmrfrmrf on Sunday January 26, 2014 @11:50PM (#7128883)

No; there are a lot of problems with Facebook, but I'm pretty sure it boils down to parents being on there. That, more than anything else, will keep kids away.

You could also argue that Facebook focuses too much on content consumption whereas Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat all focus much more on content creation.

Another problem I've seen a lot lately is the Newsfeed algorithm just being downright terrible. I've noticed a rash of comments on months-old photos lately where people are saying "how did I miss this photo?!" If you're going out of your way to create content and no one sees it, what's the point?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why “Simple” Websites Are Scientifically Superior by jmngomes on Monday January 27, 2014 @06:43AM (#7129850)

Agreed, and I think it's mainly because it gets hard to figure out what content to display when 1) people are following 300 friends + 300 pages; 2) advertisers are paying for their content to be seen.

The competition for a spot in the users' news feed makes it increasingly harder to present the user with quality content...I sometimes wonder how it's even possible to test the quality of their algorithms a such a large scale (kudos, btw), even with all that automated continuous learning.

[ Parent | on HN ]