Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Whatever goes up, that’s what we do

dcurt.is

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 231 posts

Re: Whatever goes up, that’s what we do

#71

Post by colechristensen »

modeless wrote: post #37

This article makes one big unstated assumption: that users wanted the news feed to change. In fact, users didn't want the news feed to change. Users hate change. And when I say that I don't mean that users are stupid and hate good things. Users have good reasons for hating change that's forced on them: it reduces the value of their previous experience and requires extra time and effort on their part; effort that they…

I can say that I have disliked more or less every change Facebook has made since I joined. I, like a large section of early adopters, only keep my account around because of an attachment to old social connections.

Re: Whatever goes up, that’s what we do

#72

Post by gavinflud »

erbo wrote: post #69
modeless wrote: post #37

This article makes one big unstated assumption: that users wanted the news feed to change. In fact, users didn't want the news feed to change. Users hate change. And when I say that I don't mean that users are stupid and hate good things. Users have good reasons for hating change that's forced on them: it reduces the value of their previous experience and requires extra time and effort on their part; effort that they…

Are the users' opinions even relevant to Facebook? Remember, the users aren't their "customers," they're their product. Their actual "customers" are the advertisers. If the new news feed is making their advertisers happy (and bringing revenue into Facebook), then that's what they optimize for. Harsh, I know, but that's the reality.

Not entirely true though. Yes the advertisers are their customers, but their customers need a large supply of the product (the users). In order to keep a consistently large supply of the product, Facebook has the difficult task of finding that middle ground where users are happy using the site and advertisers are happy with the revenue they are making from it.

Re: Whatever goes up, that’s what we do

#73

Post by xg15 »

If we assume that the "UI design by metrics" approach actually works, I wonder, why would we need designers at all?

Shouldn't then the most rational choice be to start with a crude initial design an use a reinforcement learning algorithm to optimize it according to the metrics?

Re: Whatever goes up, that’s what we do

#74

Post by eldude »

bqe wrote: post #68
eldude wrote: post #65

This is the result of placing the burden of proof on vision and innovation. Companies optimize for local maxima at the expense of global maxima because proving that both the mountain exists in the distance and that you can reach it, turns out to be extremely difficult. And so, in companies like Facebook and Google, it doesn't matter what you know, it only matters what you can prove. Meanwhile your competitors in the…

I also thought of local maxima and hill climbing algorithms. How do you encourage finding a global maxima within your company?

I think the human subconcious mind is capable of levels of pattern-matching and intuitions that manifest as vision: aka something you "know" but can't necessarily explain.

Visions aren't always correct, but they're enhanced by immersing yourself in the relevant context and data to provide your subconscious mind ample time and information to make those connections to generate those "Aha" moments called inspiration.

Richard Feynman described in one of his books the best way to appear like a genius is to always be actively learning at least 3 new unrelated topics, and you will glean patterns and details from everywhere to constantly increase you understanding of these topics, leading to inspiration.

Re: Whatever goes up, that’s what we do

#75

Post by greyskull »

Mz wrote: post #43
modeless wrote: post #37

This article makes one big unstated assumption: that users wanted the news feed to change. In fact, users didn't want the news feed to change. Users hate change. And when I say that I don't mean that users are stupid and hate good things. Users have good reasons for hating change that's forced on them: it reduces the value of their previous experience and requires extra time and effort on their part; effort that they…

You make me think of QWERTY keyboards and how they remain the most common format globally in spite of being intentionally designed to be inefficient. Some people seem to believe in an "ideal world" and let that interfere with interacting with actual reality in a practical way. Things need to be backwards compatible with user experience to succeed. New designs sometimes simply are not that.

QWERTY was intentionally designed to be inefficient? I thought it was based on statistics of common letters or something. Care to shed some light?

Re: Whatever goes up, that’s what we do

#76

Post by aryastark »

Mz wrote: post #43
modeless wrote: post #37

This article makes one big unstated assumption: that users wanted the news feed to change. In fact, users didn't want the news feed to change. Users hate change. And when I say that I don't mean that users are stupid and hate good things. Users have good reasons for hating change that's forced on them: it reduces the value of their previous experience and requires extra time and effort on their part; effort that they…

You make me think of QWERTY keyboards and how they remain the most common format globally in spite of being intentionally designed to be inefficient. Some people seem to believe in an "ideal world" and let that interfere with interacting with actual reality in a practical way. Things need to be backwards compatible with user experience to succeed. New designs sometimes simply are not that.

There is no evidence that points to QWERTY being designed to be inefficient.

http://www.economist.com/node/196071

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/fact-of-fiction-t...

Re: Whatever goes up, that’s what we do

#77

Post by coppolaemilio »

higherpurpose wrote: post #16

It seems Facebook really is going through the Google phases, and they've always wanted to "be Google" anyway. Right now they're in the Google phase of 5-7 years or so ago, when Google was still doing everything by the numbers, even at the expense of UI and UX. Just like Google of 5-7 years ago, they're also spreading their focus on many projects, and in a few years probably forgetting about them and ignoring them, if…

The've already killed the mailing service :(

Re: Whatever goes up, that’s what we do

#78

Post by selectout »

akamaka wrote: post #29

Nice theory, but I think Dustin's conclusions are wrong. I got to use this alternative design on my second Facebook account that I used for app development, while my personal account didn't have it enabled. I really disliked like the new sidebar design. The concept was similar to what GMail has done lately, with text links replaced by only graphical icons. I found it really difficult to remember what each icon linked…

It wasn't stuck at just the icons, it let you expand to see words as well. It was much better in my opinion and I rarely had it at the collapsed state like his screenshot shows.

Re: Whatever goes up, that’s what we do

#79

Post by steven2012 »

This is essentially what happened in my group when I was at Yahoo. Our group spent several months on a redesign that made it significantly more modern and easier to use. After it went live, though, this decreased the number of ad clicks by a significant number, and the people in charge hurriedly reverted all the changes back, since they needed to make their revenue numbers in order to make their bonus.

When you are stuck in a company that can't innovate because a shitty site leads to more money due to inertia, then you know you are on your way down. This leads to your best developers thinking "what the fuck did I waste all my time for?" and they will leave in no uncertain terms.

Re: Whatever goes up, that’s what we do

#80

Post by pyrocat »

duaneb wrote: post #57
akamaka wrote: post #29

Nice theory, but I think Dustin's conclusions are wrong. I got to use this alternative design on my second Facebook account that I used for app development, while my personal account didn't have it enabled. I really disliked like the new sidebar design. The concept was similar to what GMail has done lately, with text links replaced by only graphical icons. I found it really difficult to remember what each icon linked…

I already never leave my feed—and all they've done by streamlining it is make ads a full third of the screen. Ads for me, a 22 year old, to bulk up, grow my hair back, certain for any male over 55 to like.

So your complaint is that the ads don't know more about you?
Post reply on HN