![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(Originally tried to post this to Facebook, but FB said: "Your status update is too long. The maximum status length is 500 characters, but it is 1819 characters long." Therefore, screw you, Facebook. I will just post this here to LJ instead. Given that I'm ranting about Facebook here anyway, it's somewhat amusingly appropriate that Facebook would crap out on posting it.)
Original post:
So, how does Facebook go about determining what are "Only Important" updates or what should and should not be included in "Most Updates"? If I have someone in my f-list, I want to see "All Updates" by default, unless I make the conscious decision to change that (and in a few rare cases, I have). However, Facebook apparently has decided that "Most Updates" should be the default, for whatever reason.
Introducing the Subscribe Button
Why Facebook Subscribe Button Makes My Facebook Page Obsolete
Facebookâs New Friend-Sorting Features
Why, oh why, can't Facebook (and most other websites, for that matter) just follow the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" concept? But then, of course, whenever they "fix" something, they invariably end up breaking it or otherwise making it worse than it was.
You know, I had considered (and am still considering) maybe switching over to Google+ (or at least making one in addition to all the other crap I've got) at some point because I was (and still am) getting tired of Facebook's constant crap. But I just hadn't made the jump yet because A) despite everything I really don't want to sign up for *yet* *another* social networking thing and B) I'm just too lazy to bother or care all that much either way. <EDIT>Oh, it looks like I don't actually have a choice in the matter as to whether I switch to Google+ or not. I just checked into it out of idle curiosity, and they're apparently "still in beta" and are not letting any new people join right now. Oh well. Saves me the trouble.</EDIT> Well, in the end it may not matter, because apparently Facebook is stealing more and more features from Google+ and Twitter to make itself more like them (with the reverse also being true, of course). Thing is, if all social networking sites end up being exactly the same in the long run, then what's the point in having multiple different ones? And, worse, if they all end up sucking because they're trying too hard to be like the other guys, then what's the point in having one at all?
Original post:
So, how does Facebook go about determining what are "Only Important" updates or what should and should not be included in "Most Updates"? If I have someone in my f-list, I want to see "All Updates" by default, unless I make the conscious decision to change that (and in a few rare cases, I have). However, Facebook apparently has decided that "Most Updates" should be the default, for whatever reason.
Introducing the Subscribe Button
Why Facebook Subscribe Button Makes My Facebook Page Obsolete
Facebookâs New Friend-Sorting Features
Why, oh why, can't Facebook (and most other websites, for that matter) just follow the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" concept? But then, of course, whenever they "fix" something, they invariably end up breaking it or otherwise making it worse than it was.
You know, I had considered (and am still considering) maybe switching over to Google+ (or at least making one in addition to all the other crap I've got) at some point because I was (and still am) getting tired of Facebook's constant crap. But I just hadn't made the jump yet because A) despite everything I really don't want to sign up for *yet* *another* social networking thing and B) I'm just too lazy to bother or care all that much either way. <EDIT>Oh, it looks like I don't actually have a choice in the matter as to whether I switch to Google+ or not. I just checked into it out of idle curiosity, and they're apparently "still in beta" and are not letting any new people join right now. Oh well. Saves me the trouble.</EDIT> Well, in the end it may not matter, because apparently Facebook is stealing more and more features from Google+ and Twitter to make itself more like them (with the reverse also being true, of course). Thing is, if all social networking sites end up being exactly the same in the long run, then what's the point in having multiple different ones? And, worse, if they all end up sucking because they're trying too hard to be like the other guys, then what's the point in having one at all?
