Wednesday, May 13. 2009Is the Twitter #fixreplies incident a scaling issue?Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
I don't think it's a scalability issue, but it's certainly a massive storm in a teacup. As commenters have pointed out, as of last May, less than 2% of Twitter users had it turned on:
http://blog.twitter.com/2008/05/how-replies-work-on-twitter-and-how.html Given Twitter's growth since then the percentage will be even smaller - the vast majority of new users never touch that option. Ev actually stated at that time that his preference was to just take that feature out: "But my preference is to take out the setting altogether and just make it work like the default. That way, it works the same for everyone. (If you have strong opinions on this, leave a comment.)" In the comments, there were a few people who said that they would prefer to keep the "all @'s" option (notably, there were many more people who said "gosh, I didn't know that was how it worked") Ev then asked: "One quick note for all the people who really like the "all @ replies" setting because it helps you discover new people: What if discovering new people on Twitter wasn't so hard? It seems like there could be much more efficient ways to do that." So, from all this we can conclude two things: 1. This has been brewing for a year in Ev's head, and he's finally decided the time is right to do it. 2. It's not a scalability issue. If it were, Ev would have mentioned that it drained resources then. And, as so few users use it anyway, it's unlikely. It seems to me that it's just Ev wanting to make Twitter (the site) work consistently for all users, and introduce proper tools for doing stuff (like discovery) rather than discouraging little-known, counterintuitive hacks.
After the way that twitter dealt with the IM scaling problems (turning off IM), I'd be inclined to say that yes, it is a scaling thing. It's clearly something that's been on their radar for a while, and with the recent explosion in user numbers, I think that twitter are trying to reclaim server cycles from anywhere they can.
But Mat, don't forget that for new users, this option is off by default. And judging by the number of people who didn't even know it was an option in the comments to Ev's post last year, I can't see many people opting into it since then.
Ian, it's the fact that this option is off by default, and used by such a low number of people, that makes me think that the replies thing is a scaling problem.
An example - Stephen Fry, with roughly 500K followers. Assuming that the number of twitter users using the "all @ replies" option is now down to 1%, this is still an additional 5K messages that twitter needs to process, every time Mr Fry tweets. The fact that not many people use this option has given twitter the option to say that it's an "undesirable" option, and unilaterally turn it off. For me, twitter was no good until I discovered this option, and have found the vast majority of people I follow through this method. I wonder how many of my followers found me via one of their friends replying to me? Can you imagine if real life was like this? You'd be a party, and when your friend spoke to one of their friends that you don't know, everything went silent. Now that's a pretty poor party.
I think if it was a scaling/resources issue, they'd say that - after all, that's what they did with IM iirc.
@Ian it may be for "only 2%" but it annoys them - me - a lot. I follow Matt McAlister; I follow Mike Butcher. I want to see who they're talking to: those could be important people to know. But if they discuss, I'm cut out of the conversation.
That's stupid, to me: kills the network stone dead. It becomes a solipsistic network where you only know the people you know, and don't go any further. Mike B's just retweeted someone commenting that it's "awfully quiet.. like email!" It is. It's crap. Have you considered the possibility that that 2% might have been the leading edge - that after a while, people want to move out of their cosy little group, and see more of what's going on? If you're following a celeb - sure, seeing all @s is rubbish. Cure: don't follow celebs. Twitter, with all replies, democratises in that sense - brings you to a level where you link in manageable networks. This is just crap. It's the worst thing, bar none, that Twitter has done in the whole time I've been on it. They might have server issues? They should scale, and get working on that business model. Buying Tweetshirt might be a plan.
Let's not jump to the assumption that it's a scaling issue. Charles, you're a journalist - call them up and ask them outright. Isn't that what journalists do?
![]() If you want to know what Mike is talking about/to, set up a search: you use TweetDeck, it will take you a minute tops.
I am a journalist but I have other things to do right now. I don't use Tweetdeck any more. To follow all the responses of all the people I follow I'd need hundreds of saved searches in whichever app - so that's not useful. (Plus it would hammer Twitter's API much harder than just including all the things that get said.)
Again, though, the point is: some people liked it, a lot. Why not leave them even the option?
I wondered if possibly they'd had a look at their churn rate stats and found that a disproportionate number of quitters ticked that box. Certainly the option was never that well explained - when I switched it on first it was on a whim and I kept it when I found how useful it was for finding new people.
But I think a scaling issue is more likely. Why else do something that benefits nobody? And they've figured the 1-2% of people who do use it are small enough that their crossness may not matter in the long run. (And as has been pointed out, efficiency in discovery isn't the point - serendipity is)
Blimey - go offline for a few hours and pandemonium breaks out
![]() Despite's Ian's well reasned arguments I'll stick to scaling hypothesis a bit longer as I still don't understand why they'd do this if it was no big deal scale-wise. The only other explanation I can think of is that some of the new Sleb mega-users (or more likely their PR agencies) don't like the back-chat-channel, it gets in the way of their broadcast-o-rama but I can't see why Twitter would cater to a tiny minority like that
I don't really get your reference to the back-chat channel. After all, you don't think for one second they actually read their followers @'s, or anyone else's?
Good god no, of course they don't read the fanmail - no, my thought was it may get in the way of the analytical engines (or sully the manual analysis more like) they use to optimise twt broadcasting etc.
Its a weak case but its the only one I can think of, shooting yourself in the foot for pennies tomorrow doesn't make sense to me, and the fact they haven't just rescinded given the hue and cry makes me think there is an operational issue. |
QuicksearchMore Broad StuffFor More Information about Broadsight:
Contact us Broadsight website Articles To sign up for Broadstuff on other services: Broadstuff - the Twitter edition Broadstuff - the Jaiku edition Broadstuff - the FriendFeed edition Subscribe to Broadstuff via email Books we are reading: Poll of the WeekWill Augmented reality just be a flash in the pan?
Archives Popular Entries
Categories
Creative Commons LicenceBlog Administration |