Thanks for the thoughtful writeup, Jake. We are really happy to see how many people are getting immediate value from the search feature. Better appealing to consumers of this content as well as producers has been a top priority of ours since launch, so it makes me really happy to see posts like this :)
Jake
· 1 year ago
@Bret: Thanks, I've enjoyed seeing FriendFeed evolve since its inception. You guys are doing cool stuff.
For those of use who contribute, it would be nice to have a "hide all" option for services like Twitter, rather than individually hiding each person's tweets:
I too have been puzzled by Google's linkage of Google Talk with Google Reader Shared Feeds, especially since I never use Google Talk for its intended purpose.
One major benefit of the search function is its ability to find related conversations. Because FriendFeed doesn't necessarily link conversations (the conversation for your post is separate from the conversation linked to someone's Google Reader share of your blog post), search offers a way to find other conversations about the same topic.
Jake
· 1 year ago
@OE: Yeah, I wonder how long before they have some grouping by URL that hangs the Reader post together with the FF share?
I guess it really doesn't matter, since the conversation alone bubbles the item up to the first page. It's probably fine that people have fractured conversations about the same functional item.
On Google, the automatic GMail-GTalk-Reader flow is a bit creepy. Should be easy to add the folks that use all of them, but not automatic.
Andy C
· 1 year ago
I like FriendFeed and am still playing with it. Originally, I thought it was just a lifestream, aggregating all my puerile outpourings in a single feed.
But now I increasingly use it for discovering new content (bloggers, twits, people with shared interests).
Like others, I feared 'information overload' but the clustering of items seems to make this manageable (although I only follow 10 people - quality not quantity).
As Louis Gray pointed out, until you participate (comment, like, follow), you are barely scratching the surface.
Initially, I was aghast at the fragmented commenting system but now I am coming round to believe this is a positive advantage.
Search is a great addition too.
Jake
· 1 year ago
@Andy C: I noticed you were out there commenting. We share several of the same experiences. When I started with FriendFeed, it didn't seem to have much appeal, aside from the lifestream, which it turns out, isn't that key for me.
A few things I like: 1) the new features come quickly and are seamless 2) the founders are actively engaged on FF and elsewhere (like here!) 3) it's the same old voices (Scoble, Arrington, etc.), plus a bunch of new ones that are interesting (Voyagerfan5761) 4) the commenting system rules because I no longer have to keep track of my comments on various blogs or use a third party
I was a bit worried that it would overwhelmed by a surge of new members, raising the noise level, but the controls seem pretty good so far.
FriendFeed augments other stuff I already use, too, which is good. I've stopped using Facebook because Twitter is more dynamic with essentially the same network. FriendFeed doesn't make me want to stop using Twitter.
christophe
· 1 year ago
One thing that make me a little uneasy is the commenting: this mean that on an article you publish, you start to have two conversations: one on your blog and on the FriendFeed. And the last one is out of your blog, so does not necessarily bring traffic to your site.
Jake
· 1 year ago
@christophe: Both valid. From my own experience, the value of FF comments comes from extending my readership to include people who don't already read here. I'm happy to maintain two comment streams (and maybe cross-populate them) if I can get more people to read my posts.
I don't concern myself with driving traffic here, for traffic's sake. I prefer engaged readers to pageviews. Blogging about FF did cause a mini-spike though the last couple times. I think this is due to FF users clicking through. FF only shows the title, so you have to click through to read the content. That drives traffic.
In both cases, you get the network effect of an expanded readership, which is gravy.
christophe
· 1 year ago
Got your point: so you see the conversation on FF as a "teaser" to read the article. But, in the case of blog posts, I guess the user will first read the article before commenting, so he will comment on the blog itself, rather to come back to FF to comment.
Jake
· 1 year ago
@christophe: Does it really matter where people comment? If you blog and want to engage discussion, you'll do so where ever you can, in your comments, in comments of blogs that trackback to your posts, in FF. Personally, I don't care where the comments are, as long as they are :)
Blogging into silence is depressing.
christophe
· 1 year ago
:-) Totally true: a blog article without comments is not good for the publisher, but also for readers (I personally like to read the comments as it often contain some other point of view that really helps). And this is not only for blog article: media sites that provide commenting on news are for me much more valuable. Ok: more garbage to filter, but also so much ideas.....
Now, having this content (the comments) in multiple places does not make that so easy as a valuable comment might not be linked with the article.
I do see commenting as a conversation: a good comment without an answer is also depressing.....
Jake
· 1 year ago
@christophe: I'm waiting for you to mention how you do it better/differently at coComment :)
I haven't used it for months, but I don't recall coComment doing anything more than tracking my comments, which still means the discussion happens in multiple places. So, it seems like fractured discussion is a necessary evil.
Did I miss something?
christophe
· 1 year ago
Yes, we do track the conversation, so you know when someone post a comment (this is why I can answer you quickly ;-)). But we never duplicated the conversation: our links are always pointing to the original post and we do not enable commenting from our site. If I follow you on coComment, and see a conversation you have that interest me, I will be able to participate, on the blog. And the link to the post is available directly from coComment web site, or from my RSS feeds.
christophe
· 1 year ago
By the way, I was not suggesting we do something better ;-) We just do something else. My interest was more on the subject of multiple conversations on the same article. But I do see an added value if FF would integrate our tracked conversation to: - Enable you to show your friends what you say - Display the blog conversation with the item.
Jake
· 1 year ago
@christophe: FF has the network already, so I can see what people whose feeds I subscribe to are saying in comments.
As for multiple conversations, I honestly don't care. It was nice to have Bret comment here, but if he had commented on the feed item instead, I wouldn't care. Some people will engage here, directly or clicking through from a reader or other source (FF, Twitter, emailed link, whatever). Others will engage on FF. As an author, I want to extend my reach, even if it means more work for me.
As FF grows, the evolution of their commenting system is going to be interesting to watch for you and the rest of us.
christophe
· 1 year ago
Interesting: in FF, do you also see comments they do not write on FF ? I tried to get my comments in my FF profile but didn't find a way to do it.
The way you mention multiple conversation works for you. But I'm also interested on the comments people are leaving on your post. So I will end up tracking two conversations :-(
And, although I'm not a blogger, I'm a big reader and sometime commenter, and, as I mentioned, I read the post and comments. So tracking conversations is very important for me. Maybe you should display the FF conversation also in your post page so I can read both without searching for the item in FF.
Jake
· 1 year ago
@christophe: No, you can't see what people write in comment off FF. What I meant was FF has a network already, and I can see what people in that network are doing, including their comments within FF.
You make a good point about a FF widget, and I'm hoping that will be coming soon when they release an API.
For me it is actually quite frequently - comments quite often provide alternatives to the original content that offer improvements.
A large part of blogging is engaging your audience in conversation"
Jake
· 1 year ago
@christophe: There's discussion at FF about this topic and how the API could support widgets to bring comments from FF into your blog and/or bring blog comments into your feed.
christophe
· 1 year ago
Just an idea for now......
What if we, in coComment, give you the possibility, as the owner of this site, to do the following: - We track the conversation on the original post - The site owner have the possibility to attach to this conversation any other conversations related to this post - Someone tracking the conversation on your post will automatically track all related conversations - The main link is still to your post - We have "sub-links" to the related conversations so people can choose where they want to comment. - Someone tracking just a related conversation will also see the link to the post.
What do you think ? Would you see this as helpful to follow more efficiently fragmented conversations and to keep people coming to your site ?
Thanks for your comments
Jake
· 1 year ago
@christophe: I suppose that would be helpful. Sounds complex, frankly coComment holds value for serial commenters more than casual commenters like me.
One great effect of FF for small blogs is that it puts your content into the feeds of people who wouldn't see it otherwise. For example, I doubt Scoble reads here or subscribes and why would he? But since he subscribes to me on FF, he'll see my posts there, and if he wants, he can comment, no mess, no fuss.
Plus, if he comments, my post bubbles up, and others see it and comment.
In the end, fragmentation doesn't matter to small fish. Attention does.
Jake
· 1 year ago
Dawn Foster has hacked together a Yahoo Pipe that tracks items in any user's FF that have garnered likes or comments:
@Jake: yes, true. The initial value is more for your readers/commenters. But at the end, this is also value for you if you make your reader's life easier.
I would be surprised that Robert follow you on FF but do not track your blog. If he is interested by what you say, he should read your blog. But I'm probably wrong ;-)
christophe
· 1 year ago
By the way: you mention the value of coComment to serial commenters. I would also add serial readers like me.
Jake
· 1 year ago
@christophe: FF is aggregation and discovery, too, in addition to the commenting and network effects. That's why it's successful, at least so far.
I say feed readers are for serial readers.
christophe
· 1 year ago
"I say feed readers are for serial readers." Yes, if a comment feed is available on the blog. But still, managing so many feeds is a nightmare (for me) ;-)
All Comments
For those of use who contribute, it would be nice to have a "hide all" option for services like Twitter, rather than individually hiding each person's tweets:
http://friendfeed.com/e/6717fa0f-78b3-fe83-f278...
One major benefit of the search function is its ability to find related conversations. Because FriendFeed doesn't necessarily link conversations (the conversation for your post is separate from the conversation linked to someone's Google Reader share of your blog post), search offers a way to find other conversations about the same topic.
I guess it really doesn't matter, since the conversation alone bubbles the item up to the first page. It's probably fine that people have fractured conversations about the same functional item.
On Google, the automatic GMail-GTalk-Reader flow is a bit creepy. Should be easy to add the folks that use all of them, but not automatic.
But now I increasingly use it for discovering new content (bloggers, twits, people with shared interests).
Like others, I feared 'information overload' but the clustering of items seems to make this manageable (although I only follow 10 people - quality not quantity).
As Louis Gray pointed out, until you participate (comment, like, follow), you are barely scratching the surface.
Initially, I was aghast at the fragmented commenting system but now I am coming round to believe this is a positive advantage.
Search is a great addition too.
A few things I like:
1) the new features come quickly and are seamless
2) the founders are actively engaged on FF and elsewhere (like here!)
3) it's the same old voices (Scoble, Arrington, etc.), plus a bunch of new ones that are interesting (Voyagerfan5761)
4) the commenting system rules because I no longer have to keep track of my comments on various blogs or use a third party
I was a bit worried that it would overwhelmed by a surge of new members, raising the noise level, but the controls seem pretty good so far.
FriendFeed augments other stuff I already use, too, which is good. I've stopped using Facebook because Twitter is more dynamic with essentially the same network. FriendFeed doesn't make me want to stop using Twitter.
I don't concern myself with driving traffic here, for traffic's sake. I prefer engaged readers to pageviews. Blogging about FF did cause a mini-spike though the last couple times. I think this is due to FF users clicking through. FF only shows the title, so you have to click through to read the content. That drives traffic.
In both cases, you get the network effect of an expanded readership, which is gravy.
But, in the case of blog posts, I guess the user will first read the article before commenting, so he will comment on the blog itself, rather to come back to FF to comment.
Blogging into silence is depressing.
Now, having this content (the comments) in multiple places does not make that so easy as a valuable comment might not be linked with the article.
I do see commenting as a conversation: a good comment without an answer is also depressing.....
I haven't used it for months, but I don't recall coComment doing anything more than tracking my comments, which still means the discussion happens in multiple places. So, it seems like fractured discussion is a necessary evil.
Did I miss something?
But we never duplicated the conversation: our links are always pointing to the original post and we do not enable commenting from our site.
If I follow you on coComment, and see a conversation you have that interest me, I will be able to participate, on the blog. And the link to the post is available directly from coComment web site, or from my RSS feeds.
We just do something else. My interest was more on the subject of multiple conversations on the same article.
But I do see an added value if FF would integrate our tracked conversation to:
- Enable you to show your friends what you say
- Display the blog conversation with the item.
As for multiple conversations, I honestly don't care. It was nice to have Bret comment here, but if he had commented on the feed item instead, I wouldn't care. Some people will engage here, directly or clicking through from a reader or other source (FF, Twitter, emailed link, whatever). Others will engage on FF. As an author, I want to extend my reach, even if it means more work for me.
As FF grows, the evolution of their commenting system is going to be interesting to watch for you and the rest of us.
The way you mention multiple conversation works for you. But I'm also interested on the comments people are leaving on your post. So I will end up tracking two conversations :-(
And, although I'm not a blogger, I'm a big reader and sometime commenter, and, as I mentioned, I read the post and comments. So tracking conversations is very important for me. Maybe you should display the FF conversation also in your post page so I can read both without searching for the item in FF.
You make a good point about a FF widget, and I'm hoping that will be coming soon when they release an API.
FYI: Here's a link to the item in FriendFeed.
http://friendfeed.com/e/f7b7ec41-3343-4ab3-15a6...
And I would like to quote:
"How many times have you found the answer to a question by reading a blog comment?
For me it is actually quite frequently - comments quite often provide alternatives to the original content that offer improvements.
A large part of blogging is engaging your audience in conversation"
What if we, in coComment, give you the possibility, as the owner of this site, to do the following:
- We track the conversation on the original post
- The site owner have the possibility to attach to this conversation any other conversations related to this post
- Someone tracking the conversation on your post will automatically track all related conversations
- The main link is still to your post
- We have "sub-links" to the related conversations so people can choose where they want to comment.
- Someone tracking just a related conversation will also see the link to the post.
What do you think ? Would you see this as helpful to follow more efficiently fragmented conversations and to keep people coming to your site ?
Thanks for your comments
One great effect of FF for small blogs is that it puts your content into the feeds of people who wouldn't see it otherwise. For example, I doubt Scoble reads here or subscribes and why would he? But since he subscribes to me on FF, he'll see my posts there, and if he wants, he can comment, no mess, no fuss.
Plus, if he comments, my post bubbles up, and others see it and comment.
In the end, fragmentation doesn't matter to small fish. Attention does.
http://fastwonderblog.com/2008/03/20/solution-t...
I would be surprised that Robert follow you on FF but do not track your blog. If he is interested by what you say, he should read your blog. But I'm probably wrong ;-)
I say feed readers are for serial readers.
Yes, if a comment feed is available on the blog. But still, managing so many feeds is a nightmare (for me) ;-)