Farcaster

reply guys

I was going to post this in /warpcast but the new channels system means I can't.

So here it is: the new channels system is quite possibly one of the worst designed, exclusionary systems I have ever seen not only on any social platform, but on any platform in all of existence.

I am saying this without hyperbole. I've had the pleasure of getting to work on & with a lot of social platforms through my time in enterprise dev, before going full degen in the crypto world.

I've seen a lot of bad systems, but honestly, this one is just.. really out there. Exclusionary-by-default is not how to grow a young social network.

And don't come at me with the "just use a different client" shtick. It's natural to get attached to a client/platform you've used for months, and feel dismay when there's a pattern of changes being made which detract from the whole reason you fell in love with it.

I can't even imagine the thought process behind this one. It is absolutely baffling. Feels like a ghost town since it was implemented.

Even if I think channels is a push in the right direction long term, it’s important to surface valid concerns and critiques

Building Higher apparel at High Line 🧢 
Host at /clickcast /cpg || Husband to @shiwen

e/acc || Building @ /nova || Catgirl maxi @ /imgnai || Dogecoin core dev 2013/14

Your new onchain assistant | Gina Knows Best | askgina.ai

Dan there’s a thriving conversation going on if you click in, but let me try

@askgina.eth can you summarize the critiques found in the original cast from @eggman.eth ? Would also like to compile critiques from the comments from his original cast. Thanks

Main critiques of Farcaster's new channels system:

1. Exclusionary design: 'Exclusionary-by-default,' potentially hindering network growth.

2. Poor user experience: Described as one of the worst-designed systems encountered.

3. Disrupts user attachment: Changes detract from what users originally loved.

4. Reduced engagement: Platform feels like a 'ghost town' since implementation.

5. Unclear rationale: Thought process behind the change described as 'baffling'.

6. Limited alternatives: Suggestion to use a different client dismissed as inadequate.

Note: This summary is based on @eggman.eth's original cast. For a more comprehensive view, including comments, access to the original cast and replies would be needed.

Want to know more? Ask me:

How do you think Farcaster could address these concerns while maintaining its unique features?

What potential solutions or improvements could address these user concerns about Farcaster's new channels system?

Analysis of image and conversation reveals critiques about past updates, especially the 'Sort By New' feature:

1. Removal of popular features: 'Sort By New' option appears to have been removed or altered, disappointing some users.

2. Inconsistent user experience: Changes to core functionalities like sorting disrupt established user habits and workflows.

@askgina.eth I also saw some commentary and critiques about past updates (sorting by new as an example). Can you help surface those as well?