1) Who are these "people"? I enjoy DW (and LJ before it) because it has a chronological feed, and I was appalled when I learned that this is not FB's default. B. is on FB, and uses an add-on that forces a chronological feed. Without one, she'd been missing posts by friends that she'd most have wanted to see. The secret is, limit your feed to people you actually want to read. The guy who posts photos of every meal he eats - out. The one who's friendly enough in person but turns out to be a right-wing ranter online - out.
I do have multiple filters on here, and that helps me keep up with the people I really want to vs the people who I like, but don't need to read every post of.
But I agree that I want to see everything in order.
In my experience, it is really dependent on how many people you follow in the site and whether you read your whole feed regularly.
If you follow a small group and want to hear everything that they say, then a chronological feed is unbeatable.
However, if you are an occasional user or follow a lot of people or follow lots of people/orgs that you don't know personally, then the algorithmic feed can be better, because in theory, you see interesting posts immediately. (Obviously, depends on how good the algorithm is.)
Unfortunately FB forces you to use the algorithm and actively prevents you from reading back far (posts start repeating, infinite scroll means you lose your place and refreshing sends you a whole different set of posts) which is why I spend about 5% of my Social Media time on FB.
Your second group sounds like people who don't really care what they read, so long as it interests them. Us first-group types join social media primarily to keep in touch with our friends. And then when we find interesting new people online (I have no connection with Andrew other than DW), we want to follow them too.
With the facebook "algorithm" users spent longer in facebook. That is not the same measure as "enjoy". I want to see what my friends are/have been up to and then go and read something else.
Yes - spending more time there and/or interacting more doesn't necessarily equate to enjoyment. It's probably good for the company, but not necessarily for me! I may be more frustrated, more annoyed, rather than happier!
They are saying "don't enjoy" means "do not stick around and scroll endlessly." I would argue that not spending more time than necessary on a site means that it is serving the correct purpose in my life.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
The secret is, limit your feed to people you actually want to read. The guy who posts photos of every meal he eats - out. The one who's friendly enough in person but turns out to be a right-wing ranter online - out.
no subject
But I agree that I want to see everything in order.
no subject
If you follow a small group and want to hear everything that they say, then a chronological feed is unbeatable.
However, if you are an occasional user or follow a lot of people or follow lots of people/orgs that you don't know personally, then the algorithmic feed can be better, because in theory, you see interesting posts immediately. (Obviously, depends on how good the algorithm is.)
Unfortunately FB forces you to use the algorithm and actively prevents you from reading back far (posts start repeating, infinite scroll means you lose your place and refreshing sends you a whole different set of posts) which is why I spend about 5% of my Social Media time on FB.
no subject
no subject
That is not the same measure as "enjoy".
I want to see what my friends are/have been up to and then go and read something else.
no subject
no subject
no subject