Not convinced that people using social media less with a chronological feed indicates users don’t prefer it, as compared to the idea that the algorithm generates much more “exciting” content so people feel compelled to interact with it. But are those interactions negative or positive? The time users spend on those posts are good for the company’s bottom line, but are they good for those users? I feel like a common effect of non-chronological feeds is disguising when you’ve run out of content—its a never ending feed of things to feed into your brain because it keeps pulling stuff for you to see, instead of letting you catch up on a days worth of posts, then log off.
There is also the hypothesis that people who prefer chronological timelines have drifted away from services that don’t offer them or make them hard to use—as one of the six remaining tumblr users, its my one remaining social media platform precisely because it is chronological and I hate that other platforms aren’t.
I'm one of the people who only use the chronological feed. I won't use the algorithm feeds. I want to know how much new stuff there is since last looked. That helps me gauge how long want to spend going through it. Occasionally, I either run out of content or there's too much content to catch up with. In both instances, my likely reaction is to go do something else.
don't see that as a service failing to provide a good service, the opposite in fact.
Algorithm sorted feeds exist to trap the user in an infinite stream with no way to reasonably gauge how much they've consumed or how much is left. That doesn't serve me. I think there's a good case to be made that it doesn't serve the platforms either. At least, it's not solely positives for them.
Yeah strong disagree on "people just don't like chronological feeds". Most platforms that make it "optional" don't make it easy to switch, and they don't advertise its existence - and they've often disabled the ability to use it for periods of time, or insisted on doing things like "mostly chronological, but we're shoving random promoted content and things your friends looked at in the middle" with no way to disable. Or they just completely disable chronological feeds for varying periods of time before being forced to walk it back.
PLATFORMS like not using them because you can game the engagement metrics when people have to dig harder to find the things they're actually useful for but that's the furthest thing from indicating users actually prefer inability to use chronological feeds.
You know back in the days before Facebook went all the way up its own ass with recommendations on the feed, it was so easy and simple to catch up on the people I mostly interacted with through facebook. Because I didn't have to use it as long to do so, like that was the whole concept of social media, that you could check up on people you knew and kinda knew quickly. The longer they made that take sure the longer their stupid metrics showed, but that wasn't a benefit to any users! And then it got long enough that I stopped using the site except to look at something I was explicitly told about, and then that turned into just plain not using it at all.
Maybe it's partially just semantics, but it's not surprising that people are more likely to compulsively use an app with an algorithmic feed. In fact, that is specifically why many people actually hate the algorithmic feed.
Whereas I see no evidence that anyone hates the chronological feed. It's less addictive so people use it less, but I think that's a feature, not a bug.
I find my usage of a chronological feed to be much more "productive" (such that social media can be), whereas algorithmic feeds always leave me feeling like I just wasted a bunch of my life.
It was eye opening to me to find out that my friends, even my wife, used the algorithm feeds. I definitely know that I'm in the minority here and I totally believe the stats you've outlined about what people's preferences are on this topic.
your post on bluesky about this article sure got ratio'd to hell with a bunch of evidence to the contrary.
the premise of the argument you're trying to make is false. spending more time on a social media app is not indicative of a "preference" of feed. with a chronological feed, I am able to log in, read the newest things my friends (you know, my social network) have posted, interact with them, and then when I reach things that are no longer new, I stop. perhaps in the days before Elon rendered Twitter completely useless, I might investigate a trending topic or two, or search for something that's been going on. trying to accomplish this with an algorithmic feed means I spend more time on the app, yes, but that's because the app is showing me the things I want to see in between a whole bunch of useless crap I don't want to see. do I prefer the algorithmic feed to the chronological one because of this? absolutely fucking not. it just means the company has succeeded in fudging its metrics.
I spend much more time on bluesky than any other app these days, because a) the primary feed is chronological, and b) you can actually create your own feeds! instagram also offers a chronological feed (though they sure don't try very hard to make anyone aware that it exists). twitter's following tab was good but it no longer includes all of the tweets from the people I follow (some tweets only show up in the "for you" tab, which is insidious), and besides, Elon is turning that into 4chan at an alarming rate.
Not convinced that people using social media less with a chronological feed indicates users don’t prefer it, as compared to the idea that the algorithm generates much more “exciting” content so people feel compelled to interact with it. But are those interactions negative or positive? The time users spend on those posts are good for the company’s bottom line, but are they good for those users? I feel like a common effect of non-chronological feeds is disguising when you’ve run out of content—its a never ending feed of things to feed into your brain because it keeps pulling stuff for you to see, instead of letting you catch up on a days worth of posts, then log off.
There is also the hypothesis that people who prefer chronological timelines have drifted away from services that don’t offer them or make them hard to use—as one of the six remaining tumblr users, its my one remaining social media platform precisely because it is chronological and I hate that other platforms aren’t.
It might depend on why you use the platform.
Use it to keep up with real-life friends & family? --> chronological
Use it to kill time or generate excitement? --> non-chronological to maximize engagement
I'm one of the people who only use the chronological feed. I won't use the algorithm feeds. I want to know how much new stuff there is since last looked. That helps me gauge how long want to spend going through it. Occasionally, I either run out of content or there's too much content to catch up with. In both instances, my likely reaction is to go do something else.
don't see that as a service failing to provide a good service, the opposite in fact.
Algorithm sorted feeds exist to trap the user in an infinite stream with no way to reasonably gauge how much they've consumed or how much is left. That doesn't serve me. I think there's a good case to be made that it doesn't serve the platforms either. At least, it's not solely positives for them.
Yeah strong disagree on "people just don't like chronological feeds". Most platforms that make it "optional" don't make it easy to switch, and they don't advertise its existence - and they've often disabled the ability to use it for periods of time, or insisted on doing things like "mostly chronological, but we're shoving random promoted content and things your friends looked at in the middle" with no way to disable. Or they just completely disable chronological feeds for varying periods of time before being forced to walk it back.
PLATFORMS like not using them because you can game the engagement metrics when people have to dig harder to find the things they're actually useful for but that's the furthest thing from indicating users actually prefer inability to use chronological feeds.
You know back in the days before Facebook went all the way up its own ass with recommendations on the feed, it was so easy and simple to catch up on the people I mostly interacted with through facebook. Because I didn't have to use it as long to do so, like that was the whole concept of social media, that you could check up on people you knew and kinda knew quickly. The longer they made that take sure the longer their stupid metrics showed, but that wasn't a benefit to any users! And then it got long enough that I stopped using the site except to look at something I was explicitly told about, and then that turned into just plain not using it at all.
Are you saying that user engagement indicates user interests? That might be a mistake.
For example, the more time I spend on google search pages, the more effort I'm spending trying to find an answer.
Engagement time can be a counter-indicator of user interests.
Users mostly hate chronological feeds?? 🤡
Feel free to offer evidence to the contrary!
You first. 😝
Maybe it's partially just semantics, but it's not surprising that people are more likely to compulsively use an app with an algorithmic feed. In fact, that is specifically why many people actually hate the algorithmic feed.
Whereas I see no evidence that anyone hates the chronological feed. It's less addictive so people use it less, but I think that's a feature, not a bug.
I find my usage of a chronological feed to be much more "productive" (such that social media can be), whereas algorithmic feeds always leave me feeling like I just wasted a bunch of my life.
It was eye opening to me to find out that my friends, even my wife, used the algorithm feeds. I definitely know that I'm in the minority here and I totally believe the stats you've outlined about what people's preferences are on this topic.
your post on bluesky about this article sure got ratio'd to hell with a bunch of evidence to the contrary.
the premise of the argument you're trying to make is false. spending more time on a social media app is not indicative of a "preference" of feed. with a chronological feed, I am able to log in, read the newest things my friends (you know, my social network) have posted, interact with them, and then when I reach things that are no longer new, I stop. perhaps in the days before Elon rendered Twitter completely useless, I might investigate a trending topic or two, or search for something that's been going on. trying to accomplish this with an algorithmic feed means I spend more time on the app, yes, but that's because the app is showing me the things I want to see in between a whole bunch of useless crap I don't want to see. do I prefer the algorithmic feed to the chronological one because of this? absolutely fucking not. it just means the company has succeeded in fudging its metrics.
I spend much more time on bluesky than any other app these days, because a) the primary feed is chronological, and b) you can actually create your own feeds! instagram also offers a chronological feed (though they sure don't try very hard to make anyone aware that it exists). twitter's following tab was good but it no longer includes all of the tweets from the people I follow (some tweets only show up in the "for you" tab, which is insidious), and besides, Elon is turning that into 4chan at an alarming rate.