Tweetbot Removes Timeline Streaming, Activity and Stats Tab, and Push Notifications for Some Features Ahead of Twitter Changes [Updated]

[fairuz]

Good, bots should never exist on social media. Kill all the API methods allowing for automated posting.
[doublepost=1534368582][/doublepost]

Because you simply can't see everything posted in your timeline with a chronological. Facebook has PILES OF DATA proving this. The average user would have more than 1,500 updates to view a day. No one is going to scroll through all that.

They studied the data extensively. By moving to an algorithm-based timeline, they were able to increase engagement significantly. That shows that people were seeing more of what they were interested in. When they had the old chronological timeline, they'd see a bunch of garbage posts from just a few users and stop browsing because they weren't seeing what interested them.

Argue all you want but until you can run your own study of millions of users and data points to prove otherwise, you're simply wrong that people want the chronological timeline.

Facebook are the ones losing users, so I don't care what they say anymore. I open Facebook and see the same few posts every day for a week. Everyone is bored of it now.

 

[sshambles]

And with that... I’m out. Tweetbot has been great, but without full functional use, Jack just lost a user. I’m sure I’m not the only one. Good luck with the share price — not.

 

[dannyyankou]

I used the app the other day out of interest and omg it is HORRIBLE. Everything just mixed together of stuff I don’t even follow, stuff I may like, stuff I might have missed and ads. It’s like someone threw up over my feed

I like Tweetbot just for something as simple as searching the timeline.

 

[BradWI]

Because you simply can't see everything posted in your timeline with a chronological. Facebook has PILES OF DATA proving this. The average user would have more than 1,500 updates to view a day. No one is going to scroll through all that.

They studied the data extensively. By moving to an algorithm-based timeline, they were able to increase engagement significantly. That shows that people were seeing more of what they were interested in. When they had the old chronological timeline, they'd see a bunch of garbage posts from just a few users and stop browsing because they weren't seeing what interested them.

Argue all you want but until you can run your own study of millions of users and data points to prove otherwise, you're simply wrong that people want the chronological timeline.

Then make their algorithm the default but give us power users the option to get the firehose of data. When IG switched formats my usage and engagement dropped dramatically. If there was an option it wouldn’t have happened.

 

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

Then make their algorithm the default but give us power users the option to get the firehose of data. When IG switched formats my usage and engagement dropped dramatically. If there was an option it wouldn’t have happened.

Because they've seen that those that switch to the old chronological view then engage less. By even offering the option at all it hurts engagement.

Your usage of Instagram may have dropped but that doesn't represent the majority of users. Their increased. You'll always have outliers. Instagram will be just fine losing you, as they've more than made up for your leaving by making millions more spend more time on their network.

 

[macduke]

Who cares? Twitter is dying anyway. SAD.

I'll give you one guess why I think it's dying.

 

[farewelwilliams]

And official Twitter app still sucks!!! I will keep on using Tweetbot because I love how my timeline is organised with no stupid ads, 'in case you missed', promoted tweets, likes from friends and other ********!

no stupid ads?
you do know that Twitter needs to make money somehow.

i'd gladly have ads/promoted tweets in Tweetbot if it meant I can keep the other features.

 

[S.B.G]

Because you simply can't see everything posted in your timeline with a chronological. Facebook has PILES OF DATA proving this. The average user would have more than 1,500 updates to view a day. No one is going to scroll through all that.

They studied the data extensively. By moving to an algorithm-based timeline, they were able to increase engagement significantly. That shows that people were seeing more of what they were interested in. When they had the old chronological timeline, they'd see a bunch of garbage posts from just a few users and stop browsing because they weren't seeing what interested them.

Argue all you want but until you can run your own study of millions of users and data points to prove otherwise, you're simply wrong that people want the chronological timeline.

I disagree and I don't care what studies say about it. I prefer the chronological ordering of tweets. I easily keep up with all of them each day by limiting myself to a minimal amount of followed accounts and a few curated topical lists of accounts. I prioritize who or what I follow based on my interests and the quality and substance of the tweeted content.

 

[scottishwildcat]

Since neither of us have any empirical data, I would disagree
I don't know anyone who uses the Twitter app and they all use a 3rd party, typically Tweetbot
I haven't heard anyone extol the virtues of the native Twitter app

Well, that's partly because there isn't a native Twitter app for the Mac any more...

Back in 2012, shortly before Twitter's first 3rd-party crackdown, Benjamin Mayo found that of a 1 million tweet sample, 77% were posted from first-party apps, with the website being the largest source of tweets by a significant margin. That was obviously a few years ago, but since the number of 3rd party apps has decreased since then (many developers having given up when they ran out of user tokens), I doubt the percentage of 3rd party users will have increased significantly, if at all.

 

[AZhappyjack]

I disagree and I don't care what studies say about it. I prefer the chronological ordering of tweets. I easily keep up with all of them each day by limiting myself to a minimal amount of followed accounts and a few curated topical lists of accounts. I prioritize who or what I follow based on my interests and the quality and substance of the tweeted content.

This right here. If you follow thousands of users, of course you can't keep up, but who really needs to follow 1,000 accounts? Follow the people/entities that interest you, limit it to 50-100 users and it's totally manageable in a chronological feed.

 

[scottishwildcat]

no stupid ads?
you do know that Twitter needs to make money somehow.

The vast majority of Twitter users read and post from first-party apps. I'm quite happy to let their ad-viewing subsidise our 3rd-party, ad-free experience

 

[hank moody]

We should move to mastodon.
I am starting to HATE twitter.

 

[CloudSpeaker]

After joining in 2008 and tens of thousands of tweets, I'm on Day 5 off of Twitter cold turkey.

Reasons:

1. Crazy negative, ugly stuff, often upsetting to see... Even though you know logically that none of it matters. And...
2. Nobody cares what I think. It's like Abe Simpson seeing the newspaper headline "Old Man Yells at Cloud."

12-steppers, do I get a chip after I complete a week?

 

[farewelwilliams]

The vast majority of Twitter users read and post from first-party apps. I'm quite happy to let their ad-viewing subsidise our 3rd-party, ad-free experience

well, obviously too many people were using 3rd party apps which were causing a dent in Twitter's revenue.

 

[teaneedz]

Because you simply can't see everything posted in your timeline with a chronological. Facebook has PILES OF DATA proving this. The average user would have more than 1,500 updates to view a day. No one is going to scroll through all that.

They studied the data extensively. By moving to an algorithm-based timeline, they were able to increase engagement significantly. That shows that people were seeing more of what they were interested in. When they had the old chronological timeline, they'd see a bunch of garbage posts from just a few users and stop browsing because they weren't seeing what interested them.

Argue all you want but until you can run your own study of millions of users and data points to prove otherwise, you're simply wrong that people want the chronological timeline.

1. The problem with tech today is data interpretation. Engagement does not equate to interest. Clicks, taps, comments, ect. are actions that *can* signify interest. My lack of action when reading a post/tweet does not mean I'm less interested in a post though. The fact that I choose to read it in my TL is an interest signal. Tech is simply defining this though from the myopic framework of ad tech.

2. The use case that this works for are accounts that follow thousands of others. That's a fandom approach—not really what social is though. I'd argue that quality engagement occurs, and benefits a platform more, when users consume and/or engage with discussions in smaller and real follower groups.

3. Face it, ad tech and marketing is driving most of the algorithmic hoopla, not good UX. Real users (excluding advert and marcom) prefer chronological—proven over and over again.

I'm treating Twitter now as just another place to automate posts to. It will no longer receive live updates from me. I'm looking at Mastodon now for my real engagement.

 

[nburwell]

if anyone is listening from tweetbot, i'd pay for those features to come back.

Agreed. I have been using Tweetbot for years, and I’d have no issue paying $10 or $20 for the features that were removed. Tweetbot is by far my favorite iOS app.

 

[kilimanjaro]

Twitter official app and TweetBot works well, in tandem for me.
When I check Twitter, I go the Twitter app - THEN, I spend the rest of my time of TweetBot.
Sports - nothing better..
News and slower moving items, Twitter is ok.

 

[teaneedz]

Because they've seen that those that switch to the old chronological view then engage less. By even offering the option at all it hurts engagement.

No. When given the option, most will pick chronological. Don't believe that? Make an algorithmic feed opt-in (if it's the better experience, users will pick it). Algorithmic feeds cater to missing desired content but worse, shapes a platform in divisive ways. Bad actors, given a platform voice, thrive on the engagement these feeds produce. False news, hate speech, echo chamber effects feed on algorithms.

Again, ad tech and marketers (historically clueless when it comes to UX) push for algorithmic feeds.

Twitter made its call. I'm gone.

 

[iAdam1n]

Twitter's trying to get me to switch over, but it won't work.

Me neither. They even removed the Mac app so that isn't even an option on Mac. Their site is just terrible. I only used it for a few minutes and found 4 issues:

1. I don’t want to see if someone I follow likes x tweet (didn’t look for option to disable).
2. I don’t want to click the bar to see new tweets. Just show me them.
3. I do not have 2 unread messages as you claim (I did open them before it told me that and didn’t receive a message since).
4. It claims my browser (Google Chrome) does not support web notifications when it clearly does. I use them for Facebook and Reddit and it works fine.

 

[AZhappyjack]

No. When given the option, most will pick chronological. Don't believe that? Make an algorithmic feed opt-in (if it's the better experience, users will pick it). Algorithmic feeds cater to missing desired content but worse, shapes a platform in divisive ways. Bad actors, given a platform voice, thrive on the engagement these feeds produce. False news, hate speech, echo chamber effects feed on algorithms.

Again, ad tech and marketers (historically clueless when it comes to UX) push for algorithmic feeds.

Twitter made its call. I'm gone.

If the feed is chronological, and I miss a post, that’s on me. If you go farting around with the feed, that’s altering the data, and not at all what I signed on for. I’d be pissed that you did it. Period.

One more reason to say “buh-bye” to @Jack’s sparrow. (See what I did there?)

 

[supercoolmanchu]

tell that to the stock market who literally reacts to the american tweeter in chief

tell that to james gunn who lost a movie over old tweets


i would say twitter, as a service, is more relevant than ever.

Corrections below:

The stock market reacts to stuff... period.
Every little thing Trump says is poured over by all of the mainstream media, Twitter isn’t unique or instantly irreplaceable in either case.

James Gunn lost a movie because over several months he’s spent more time alienating potential audience than working on said movie. The fact that he picked a new petty political slap fight, and then embarrassingly lost that stupid fight before it began, was the final straw.

Twitter continues to lose users and traffic, that alone shows their shrunken relevance.

 

[stoopkidblues]

Updated (since I assume we won’t have a choice :rolleyes but I can’t see much of a difference so far with the TL refresh. I mean unless you’re constantly scrolling/refreshing then sure, but if you check to get caught up and then come back later, it’s virtually the same. Will have to see with time but I refuse to use the official app so hopefully Tapbots can come up with a reasonable compromise.

EDIT: Well I suppose Tweetbot is still auto-fetching until tomorrow so maybe that’s why I don’t notice anything.

 

[rtr1985]

Garbage move by Twitter. It could have benefited more by compromising with developers and users versus just crippling the apps.

 

[TheRealByter]

Because you simply can't see everything posted in your timeline with a chronological. Facebook has PILES OF DATA proving this. The average user would have more than 1,500 updates to view a day. No one is going to scroll through all that.

They studied the data extensively. By moving to an algorithm-based timeline, they were able to increase engagement significantly. That shows that people were seeing more of what they were interested in. When they had the old chronological timeline, they'd see a bunch of garbage posts from just a few users and stop browsing because they weren't seeing what interested them.

Argue all you want but until you can run your own study of millions of users and data points to prove otherwise, you're simply wrong that people want the chronological timeline.

Did they control in their study for fact that, if you barrage people with the same links over and over again some will click some to make them go way. That kind of quick click and exit counts as engagement too I bet.

 

[ErikGrim]

It was time to quit Twitter anyway. It was a fun ten years.