replied to:
Nice. Profile pages are much cleaner now.
replied to:
That actually sounds like a very good reasoned choice. Love it
replied to:fold or unfold replies
The rationale is clear. However, I have found it useful in other arenas to have a total-post-count of the user on show as it easily enables me to avoid following people who favour quantity over quality. Even a posts-per-day number would do the same job.
replied to:fold or unfold replies
The numbers simply confuse, create bias and competition. Now you simply go to their profile, read their notes and decide by their content if that person is interesting to you. Having no place else to judge the focus necessarily turns to the content. That’s what matters most.
replied to:fold or unfold replies
It is, up to the point that you accidentally follow someone who posts 300 times a day and totally swamps your timeline :-)
replied to:
We’ll see, if it becomes an issue then we deal with it :) Plus when you unfollow their messages are removed from the tab.
replied to:
Interesting... So if I scan through the feed and reply to some interesting posts, you will see like maybe a dozen of my posts back to back without even following me though 🤔
continued:fold or unfold replies
Also removed the relative timestamps and reply counts. We’re number-free. Numbers introduce unnecessary bias. Now the focus is on the content.
replied to:fold or unfold replies
No reply counts I could get used to, but no timestamps? Now we're in uncharted waters...
replied to:fold or unfold replies
Why do you need it? It’s just for stalking when someone was online and might bias to ignore older posts that could still be in —not knowing the time also makes it easier to reply whenever you feel, less pressure. I don’t have time on my desktop either, hate time :p
replied to:fold or unfold replies
Hm idk, various things. If someone finds posts from months/years ago, timestamps put them in context (what "current events" are on their mind &c). Also hints if it's still fresh in mind when you reply, or if it'll be a blast from the past. (Arg for YYYYMMDD, perhaps not HHMMSS.)
replied to:
That’s what I’m hoping for! Resurrecting old interesting discussions based on their content. And also not ignoring posts that are not fresh, e.g responding to a “good morning” post. If you see “5h” you would ignore it. Now you don’t know. Let’s see how it goes for a few days.
replied to:
+1. The timestamp is critical context for a tweet. Microblogging is fundamentally a chronological log of messages. Removing timestamps from logs makes them unusable and inherently breaks the medium.
replied to:
Thank for keeping it cool . Unfortunately this is a message that doesn’t add much to the conversation, but I still want to express my appreciation for avoiding things that leads to a strive for more, more, more.
replied to:
I love this.
replied to:
love this. makes me think what other “default/normal” features we can remove
replied to:
this became the catalyst to join! I can already see that this is the type of place I at least want to lurk.
Instagram Engineering
Shopify Engineering