Yeah, maybe it's better than Twitter, but it's not as good as it was a month ago. They have removed the organizational features which brought me back to the site after several years of avoiding it.
I can't see why they would want to "catch up" with Twitter, a distant second place in the social networking race.
Yeah, it is kind of weird to copy someone less successful than you. On the other hand, it seems more addicting now with a more constant stream of updates.
Yeah, it is kind of weird to copy someone less successful than you.
Good general principle.
On my part, Facebook is less addictive to me than it was before the change. I could easily forget that I'm a member, as nothing interesting is happening there.
it is indeed weird to copy someone less successful than you, but very often in software and web services, the simpler service wins - think wordpress over the bloated CMSs of a decade ago, or SalesForce over SAP, or Adwords over Doubleclick - so maybe it makes sense.
The new "constant stream of updates" does not work as well as the previous Live Feed feature. I personally find the new design not just less "addictive" but also quite repulsive. Seeing a stream of fifteen "Jane Doe just gave Joey Someshit a Green Beer! Click here to give a Green Beer to someone!" notifications makes me avoid a site, not hammer on the Reload button.
Facebook has always told users to learn how to filter stories. Filter out people you don't want to hear from and especially filter out applications.
Perhaps that's why I don't get a lot of these complaints. I block apps as a matter of reflex, so the only app stories I get are from Digg or Last.FM or Google Reader - those I can appreciate.
I can't see why they would want to "catch up" with Twitter, a distant second place in the social networking race.
Another good article is "Facebook's Lousy Facelift" here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-willman/facebooks-lousy-...