Disagree. I think they abused Twitter and made twitter feeds noticeably worse. All their tweets are essentially useless after a few moments and just litter feds. I may be naive but I think if Meerkat was closer to following the rules and respecting user feeds it wouldn't have been cutoff (i.e., Twitter's supposed competitor was not the reason).
Given that twitter is a stream of a whole bunch of tweets each one of which you can read really really fast, I've always been a bit confused by complaints about useless tweets. Some fairly big % of your stream is always going to be useless tweets. Has Meerkat really increased that percentage all that much?
I can see why people might disagree with me here though.
Some fairly big % of your stream is always going to be useless tweets. Has Meerkat really increased that percentage all that much?
Sounds like it. I unfollow people sending too large a % of useless tweets, even if I find some of their feed interesting. And those were hand-written tweets written without the benefit of spammy automation!
They have, by far, the shortest shelf-life of all the tweets in my feed. It would be one thing if they were published by Meerkat, quite another that they are "published" be people I follow.
And actually, I find the signal:noise ratio in my stream to be very high.
I still haven't managed to click on a stream that was still going on. (somehow even clicking on the streams that are happening in X minutes but didn't)
If feels like Meerkat could be an order of magnitude more powerful if streams were saved for at least some amount of time. That's gotta be on their roadmap somewhere.
Yeah. Could still be "ephemeral" but give us 5 or 10 or 30 minutes or 24 hours. I don't think that would compromise the live-ness" of it, whatever that really connotes.
Comments
Disagree. I think they abused Twitter and made twitter feeds noticeably worse. All their tweets are essentially useless after a few moments and just litter feds. I may be naive but I think if Meerkat was closer to following the rules and respecting user feeds it wouldn't have been cutoff (i.e., Twitter's supposed competitor was not the reason).
Given that twitter is a stream of a whole bunch of tweets each one of which you can read really really fast, I've always been a bit confused by complaints about useless tweets. Some fairly big % of your stream is always going to be useless tweets. Has Meerkat really increased that percentage all that much?
I can see why people might disagree with me here though.
Sounds like it. I unfollow people sending too large a % of useless tweets, even if I find some of their feed interesting. And those were hand-written tweets written without the benefit of spammy automation!
They have, by far, the shortest shelf-life of all the tweets in my feed. It would be one thing if they were published by Meerkat, quite another that they are "published" be people I follow.
And actually, I find the signal:noise ratio in my stream to be very high.
I still haven't managed to click on a stream that was still going on. (somehow even clicking on the streams that are happening in X minutes but didn't)
If feels like Meerkat could be an order of magnitude more powerful if streams were saved for at least some amount of time. That's gotta be on their roadmap somewhere.
Yeah. Could still be "ephemeral" but give us 5 or 10 or 30 minutes or 24 hours. I don't think that would compromise the live-ness" of it, whatever that really connotes.