It’s been quite a few days for social networking site Twitter.
Many users are up in arms about a recent change that Twitter implemented regarding replies to other users.
I’ll be the first to admit that, originally, I thought it was a major overreaction on the part of the users who were complaining the loudest. After all, the problem stemmed from something that was never a part of Twitter’s original toolset.
So, to take the stance that a lot of users were taking (abuse and bile directed at the Twitter team being just part of the response) seemed an ineffective way to try and make a point.
There are still people doing that, and I don’t think it helps the situation. But that’s by the by. What is clear now is that there are two very distinct sides to this situation, and both have merit.
Twitter Is Right
The reasoning behind Twitter’s “meddling” with the reply system is that it can be confusing. They discussed this very topic over a year ago on their blog – unless you’re up to speed on Twitter’s kinks and terminology, it can be a very confusing place. Hashtags, @’s, RT’s and tweetchats are just some of the idiosyncrasies that await users.
As Twitter looks to find the model it needs to succeed from a business point of view – and it is still primarily a business model in progress – it needs to be as accessible and as easy to use for the majority as possible. This means having less confusion, which Twitter thought the reply system caused.
Cue the amendment and subsequent Twitter user backlash.
Twitter is Wrong
One of the effects that the new Twitter reply system has had is that it’s effectively blacked out the feed of many Twitter users. Whereas before you could see a friend’s conversation to another user even if you weren’t following that other user, now you no longer have that luxury.
So this means that users that only follow a small amount of other users will have a very barren feed. This was pointed out really well to me by one of my closest people on Twitter, and something I may not have realized initially (sorry, Freddly!).
So, instead of seeing all the conversations that I’m having with everyone I’m connected to (and possibly checking them out as well), Freddly can only see the conversation if it’s to someone she mutually follows. This is where the new Twitter reply option is letting users down.
Those of us with a lot of connections will be fine – others, not so much.
Endgame
So, what’s the solution? There are a lot of angry people around, and this is leading to a lot of friction on both sides. The pro-change camp say that you can still find new people using the search option, and if you don’t hit the Reply button then everyone following you will see the message.
The anti-change camp suggest that it’s nothing less than censorship and that Twitter is bowing down to the celebrities and post-Oprah crowd. They suggest boycotting Twitter until the old reply function is reinstalled.
Twitter, for their part, are listening to the criticism (constructive and otherwise) and trying to appease users with halfway house solutions.
Bloggers are sharing their views, some calmly and sensibly, others not so much. It’s a touchy subject and one that’s causing a lot of heat in the Twitter feeds.
From my own perspective, it doesn’t affect me as much as it may others. The people I’m connected with and converse with are mostly mutual connections to others, so the conversation hasn’t really been affected on my feed.
But, I can see why this isn’t the case for people like Freddly, and on that count, Twitter seems to have messed up a key part of the user experience. It’s clear to see that there’s some major work ahead for Twitter to try and satisfy both camps.
In the meantime, though, I’m not sure if the mob mentality will help or hinder this process. And seeing some of the Twitter power users asking “Social Media or Social Control?” seems sensationalist.
How about you? What’s your take and where does Twitter go from here?
photo credit: Archie McPhee Seattle
If you enjoyed reading this post, please feel free to share with your networks. You can also leave your thoughts in the comments below and/or subscribe to danny brown to ensure you receive the latest updates.








While I think the post is great Danny, I have to say, your entire paragraph about why Twitter did this is not correct.
“The reasoning behind Twitter’s “meddling” with the reply system is that it can be confusing.” – Twitter admitted their full of it and they just made this up because they were scared and lazy.
The reason Twitter did this is because it’s overloading their servers and they are having major growing pains.
Other than that great blog post.
Twitter: DannyBrown
Cheers Joel, although if you check the link to the Twitter blog post from last year, this was long before server issues and there was confusion reigning then.
And it can be confusing to new users – this is where Twitter does shoot itself in the foot, by not having a bona fide FAQ section. A lot of the ire could have been easily dispelled before it even begun.
It saddens me that twitter has done this. I am mostly a follower. I enjoy being ‘the fly on the wall’. I hope they will correct this.
Danny, once again, you shed reasonable light on a “sensitive” subject. I’m so glad you called it as it is, with the sensationalist remark — in the end, that’s all it is when you don’t take a balanced view and report it from a fair perspective without “traffic motivations.” Good stuff!
Thanks for the link share. Love the Angry Mob pic. Captures the spirit of the post extremely well. Lol.
Regardless of perceived right or wrong it happened and now we all have to deal with it. The faster we adapt to the new circumstances the better off our experiences will be. I just wrote about how social network users go through the 5 stages of grief when confronted with change: http://tr.im/socialcomplaints.
We need to change the way we react. Adding extra noise doesn’t help solve anything- it only alerts and allows us to vent.
Twitter: DannyBrown
I think extra noise can help, if done properly. Look at Facebook (which you mention in your post) – they adapted because of the noise (or at least offered a choice to users). So, noise can add greatly to the argument. It’s only when it’s white noise that it misses the target.
Twitter: CTK1
This is wonderfully written and I love how you cover both sides of the argument. Fair and Balanced. I feel bad for your friend Freddly. I have the same situation with my page. Keep up the great work Danny. And thanks for posting this piece.
Twitter: DannyBrown
Thanks CT – the post was written after seeing Freddly’s side. She’s a good ‘un and the new set-up really has hit her usage.
Thank you Danny for your perspective. It’s probably the best one I’ve read so far on this. I do like the @reply features, as it does allow us to check out who certain @names are if we choose and often times we have the same likes, interests and makes for a very quick convenient connection.
@duongsheahan
Twitter: DannyBrown
Hey there Duong,
Great to see you around these parts, always a pleasure.
Thanks, glad you enjoyed the post. I can see why both sides reacted the way they did and are doing – I just feel that there’s merit to both arguments which many on each side are conveniently ignoring.
It’s like Maria said earlier in the comments – it makes you wonder if a lot is being said just for traffic.
Great post, it’s always good to have both sides of a situation. I have a hard enough time keeping up with the people I know so the problem hasn’t bugged me yet. But I want the situation resolved so the conversation can move on!
Twitter: GlobalPatriot
I can understand the outrage by those who feel a vital function was altered, especially if they built their habits around that functionality. It seems the best choice would have been to allow users the option of what they want to see – though I’ll admit that I can’t say this would be an “easy” solution on their part to implement. Still I’m left with the feeling that the potential for conversation and discovery has been limited in some way – and that’s not a desirable outcome.