Instagram Will Shift From Chronological to Algorithm-Based Feed

[MacRumors]

Instagram today announced that it will introduce a new algorithm-based feed in the coming months, shifting from its current chronological-based feed. The move follows Twitter's announcement that it was moving to an algorithm-based feed. Instagram parent company Facebook has used an algorithm-based news feed for years.

You may be surprised to learn that people miss on average 70 percent of their feeds. As Instagram has grown, it's become harder to keep up with all the photos and videos people share. This means you often don't see the posts you might care about the most.

The photo sharing company says that the new feed will be re-ordered to show moments Instagram believes users will care about the most. The algorithm will largely be based on a user's relationship to the person posting and the timeliness of their post. For instance, Instagram says if a user's favorite musician posts a video from the previous night's concert or a best friend posts a picture of a puppy, the new algorithm will ensure that the user does not miss it.

Instagram stresses that, as they begin on this process, the company only wants to optimize the order of posts. All the posts in a person's news feed will still be there, but in a different order. While it's unclear exactly when in the coming months users' feeds will begin to change, the company says that it wants to take its time to "get this right" and that they'll listen to user feedback along the way. Instagram did not mention whether the new feed will be an optional feature that allows users to opt out.

Instagram can be downloaded from the App Store for free. [Direct Link]

Article Link: Instagram Will Shift From Chronological to Algorithm-Based Feed

 

[impulse462]

so revolutionary. game changing. world defining.

 

[Rychiar]

ugh no one wants this. no one wanted it on FB either...

 

[AppleFan91]

Just like how they started destroying the FB app a few years back. Not showing the most recent but showing what they think I'd like, even if it's from 4 days ago

 

[0098386]

I like reading my new info in order, thanks.

 

[Sirious]

Hope we can choose to use the current setting

 

[garirry]

I don't use Instagram anymore, but if I was, it looks like it would be time to stop using it.

Seriously, are these companies ****ing out of their mind? NO ONE likes algorithm-based feed, except the ones that don't have enough of a brain to decide themselves what they want to see.

 

[r-m]

Of all the features they could've brought from Facebook, they decided to go with the feature that's possibly one of the most hated thing s about Facebook?
It's the reason I use the Facebook app less, because of their insistence on shifting you back into the newsfeed if you left the app on most recent.
It'll probably be the reason I use Instagram a lot less, too.

 

[Lukkee24]

I also hope we get a choice; I much prefer chronological ordering and I don't follow many people so it's not too hard for me to keep up. I like to see posts from everyone I'm following.. hence I'm following them.

 

[MacCubed]

WTH Instagram?!? All these crappy updates to social media apps are really REALLY pissing me off now... First it was the whole "Video statistics" gimmick, then the date got moved to the bottom of posts, it's all just so unnecessary! What are the users getting out of it? Nothing! It seems like the companies are just running out of real ideas, and putting this crap in their apps... Don't even get me started on the topic of the new Snapchat update, which changed the font to some annoying unfriendly to the eyes crap, and even before that update, the one where the story section got rearranged with the addition of Discover, which by the way, NO ONE USES! Then there's the Twitter update where favorites got changed to likes.... Will it ever stop! Establish a look and keep it!

Also, theres the fact that the social media companies are literally forcing customers to update by changing their API and killing older versions of their apps. This means you will eventually have to update to a newer version of the app or if you are on older hardware, upgrade your device....

 

[Porco]

Chronology provides context. If you jumble it up nothing really matters.

.up you really Chronology provides nothing context jumble it matters If.

 

[budselectjr]

They really thought this was a good idea after the extreme outrage when Twitter proposed this? I will enjoy watching the death of all these companies.

 

[imola.zhp]

I hate FB's algorithm, I always miss important stuff.

 

[Pagemakers]

Wake me up when you can zoom in on an image.

Wow. Imagine that, being able to zoom in on a photo!

 

[stanman64]

Ugh. I can't wait for this "we just want to make sure you see what you care about the most!" fad to die.

Companies better catch on before their user base dies first.
[doublepost=1458089892][/doublepost]

Chronology provides context. If you jumble it up nothing really matters.

.up you really Chronology provides nothing context jumble it matters If.

So glad the ".up" was the first thing I saw! Thank heavens I didn't miss that! I would have never saw it had I not just kept reading until the end of the sentence... In order...

 

[pat500000]

Insta-who?

 

[CFreymarc]

This is a huge business opportunity for an Instagram alternative to move into this market.

 

[jclardy]

Well, I already pretty much slowed down my IG browsing to a few times a week total, now it looks like it is done. Time for the next platform?

 

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

Saw this coming for a long time. Many scream about it but it's great. It means not missing 70% of the pictures in your feed. Now you'll see more of the stuff from the accounts you engage with most and less of the 100 pictures a day from that one guy you never engage with but still follow anyways.

This doesn't mean you can't still view things in chronological order anymore. It only means that some of the accounts you engage with most will show up at the stop. Stop crying babies.
[doublepost=1458093927][/doublepost]

ugh no one wants this. no one wanted it on FB either...

Did you really believe you would sit there and go through the 1500 updates every day that the average Facebook user would see if it wasn't for the Facebook algorithm showing you more of the stuff you engage with most? Not a chance. You would have stopped using Facebook long ago when it turned into nothing but updates all day long from those same 5 people that update their status every 20 minutes.

 

[garirry]

Saw this coming for a long time. Many scream about it but it's great. It means not missing 70% of the pictures in your feed. Now you'll see more of the stuff from the accounts you engage with most and less of the 100 pictures a day from that one guy you never engage with but still follow anyways.

This doesn't mean you can't still view things in chronological order anymore. It only means that some of the accounts you engage with most will show up at the stop. Stop crying babies.
[doublepost=1458093927][/doublepost]

Did you really believe you would sit there and go through the 1500 updates every day that the average Facebook user would see if it wasn't for the Facebook algorithm showing you more of the stuff you engage with most? Not a chance. You would have stopped using Facebook long ago when it turned into nothing but updates all day long from those same 5 people that update their status every 20 minutes.

I think it should be the responsibility of the user to unfollow people they don't like seeing their content.

 

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

I don't use Instagram anymore, but if I was, it looks like it would be time to stop using it.

Seriously, are these companies ****ing out of their mind? NO ONE likes algorithm-based feed, except the ones that don't have enough of a brain to decide themselves what they want to see.

Actually people really like it. Do you honestly believe a multi billion dollar company like Facebook did this if it wasn't something people liked? They surveyed several million users on what they liked and found that this is what the majority likes.

On top of that they have billions of hours of engagement data showing how people interact with content and guess what smart guy, it shows that people prefer to interact and engage with content in the way they do now with the algorithm, not the silly chronological timeline. There's a reason that almost no one (less than 0.01% of Facebook users) set their timeline to most recent from the standard setting.

 

[73b]

Actually people really like it. Do you honestly believe a multi billion dollar company like Facebook did this if it wasn't something people liked? They surveyed several million users on what they liked and found that this is what the majority likes.

On top of that they have billions of hours of engagement data showing how people interact with content and guess what smart guy, it shows that people prefer to interact and engage with content in the way they do now with the algorithm, not the silly chronological timeline. There's a reason that almost no one (less than 0.01% of Facebook users) set their timeline to most recent from the standard setting.

On sites like Twitter and Instagram chronology is much more important.

 

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

I think it should be the responsibility of the user to unfollow people they don't like seeing their content.

But people don't Check for yourself. Go and look at the pages you follow on Facebook. How many do you not care about? Most likely there are a good number. But since you obviously didn't take the time to unfollow them, Facebook has done it for you by not showing their updates. If you don't engage with a brand, they won't show you updates from that brand (yes you can still see ads and sponsored posts because brands can target people that like them but that's a different deal).

It'd be great if people unfollowed users they didn't care about, but the data makes it clear that they will not do so. To make the user experience positive, Facebook removes posts from those you don't engage with.

This is where the fun comes in. Lots of people complain and cry about seeing baby pictures or other silly stuff non-stop on Facebook but guess what, it's being shown to them because they engage with it. They stop and look at it, they Like it, they comment on it. If they scroll by (don't stop because that's an engagement signal too), don't like it, don't comment on it and you won't see more of it (yes it does take a bit of time before that changes). The truth is, those that cry about seeing too many baby pictures are the people that comment and 'Like' every baby picture they see.

If these algorithms were as bad as some people complain, Facebook would have driven their users off long ago, instead of having 1.44 billion active monthly users.
[doublepost=1458094580][/doublepost]

On sites like Twitter and Instagram chronology is much more important.

You may believe so but that's only because that's how you've used it until now. Men with horses believed they were superior even when the automobile was first introduced.

Every time there's an update to any social network we see people crying like crazy that they've ruined it. But give them a month and try to take away that update and they'd cry 10x as hard. Look at this thread. There are a ton of people crying about this even though they've never used it. They somehow know better than a social network with piles of user surveys, test groups, and million/billions of data points supporting the opposite argument.

 

[garirry]

But people don't Check for yourself. Go and look at the pages you follow on Facebook. How many do you not care about? Most likely there are a good number. But since you obviously didn't take the time to unfollow them, Facebook has done it for you by not showing their updates. If you don't engage with a brand, they won't show you updates from that brand (yes you can still see ads and sponsored posts because brands can target people that like them but that's a different deal).

It'd be great if people unfollowed users they didn't care about, but the data makes it clear that they will not do so. To make the user experience positive, Facebook removes posts from those you don't engage with.

This is where the fun comes in. Lots of people complain and cry about seeing baby pictures or other silly stuff non-stop on Facebook but guess what, it's being shown to them because they engage with it. They stop and look at it, they Like it, they comment on it. If they scroll by (don't stop because that's an engagement signal too), don't like it, don't comment on it and you won't see more of it (yes it does take a bit of time before that changes). The truth is, those that cry about seeing too many baby pictures are the people that comment and 'Like' every baby picture they see.

If these algorithms were as bad as some people complain, Facebook would have driven their users off long ago, instead of having 1.44 billion active monthly users.

You're greatly mistaken. The reason people like this is because THEY ARE LAZY. They're too lazy to unfollow who they don't like and instead ask to be serviced like a king. I don't want to be serviced like a king, I want to be responsible for what I get to see. If Facebook was a company designed to help people, then they would not make algorithms; they would just say "screw you, it's your business to see what you follow" and let the lazy and dumb die in vain. It's because this society is full of lazy, uneducated, brainwashed asshats that this results in businesses taking advantage of it. And because of that people like me can't enjoy most social networks.

Also, there have been MANY reports of completely irrelevant content appearing on people's feeds.

 

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

For those saying this update is bad, answer this; why would you rather not see all the posts from those accounts you love the most rather than miss them and 70% of all pictures posted to your feed (that number if fact so don't argue that)?