Stop bitching about changes to The Book of Face

For many, the Book of Face has replaced actual interaction with other human folks.

This is truly a reflection of the sad state of the world today.  Social network provides a tidy and convenient forum for managing our relationships, without the hassle of face-to-face contact. 

Interpersonal interaction is now comprised sending virtual gifts, inviting friends to play Farmville and writing on one another’s wall.  These have replaced traditional, wholesome activities, such as going out for coffee, playing a rousing match of checkers or receiving a handjob in a 1992 Geo Metro while parked outside of a Denny’s at three in the morning. 

Statistics show that the average American teenager spends between five and 1,148 hours using The Book of Face each week.  The typical user of The Book of Face has hundreds of virtual friends and is a member of dozens of groups.  Since users devote enormous amounts of time toward cultivating their online persona, they are deeply invested in the site.

The Book of Face is an expansive and impressive software application, and the developers of The Book of Face routinely roll out changes to the site.  Inevitably, these changes cause some users to lose their fucking minds.

Within the past few weeks, significant changes have been made to the site’s interface.  The icons for notifications, new emails and friend requests were consolidated and moved to the top left corner of the screen.  The “News Feed” remained unchanged, but a series of links, such as “Messages,” “Events,” and “Photos” were added to the left side of the page, functioning as filters for the content of the home page. Links to the user’s profile and account setting made more prominent.

Users were notified of the changes as soon as they happened.  A bright box appeared on each user’s home page, outlining the changes and providing a link to detailed support documentation. 

Considerable interface tweaks were made to the site, but I was not bothered by the enhancements.  My daily activities on The Book of Face were briefly hindered. I soon grew accustomed to the new interface and nearly forgot that changes had been made.  However, my friends’ incessant bitching and ceaseless complaints provided a continual reminder that the developers of The Book of Face had, in fact, made changes to the site.  Those contemptible bastards.

“I hate when FB makes changes I am lost,” one user remarked.

“FUck facebook i cant use it anymore,” another user responded, without a tinge of irony.

boqueen found a note from her mother posted on her wall, explaining that she could no longer find her inbox, which has evaporated into the ether.

Then, the group invitations began to appear.

I was invited to the group “CHANGE FACEBOOK BACK TO NORMAL!!” which was clearly organized by an individual who is unfamiliar with the proper use of the caps lock key.  Days later, multiple invites to a group called “We Hate The New Facebook, so STOP CHANGING IT!!!” rolled in. 

A Mexican invited me to the group “COMO PONER EL FACEBOOK DE ANTES (APLICACION).”  Judging by the image that represents the group, I believe that this is a well-organized group of Mexicans that prefer the older version of the software.  Next, I was asked to join “1,000,000 AGAINST THE NEW FACEBOOK LOOK,” a group which, at the time, had less than 600,000 members. 

Each of these groups is connected by a common theme: they all represent individuals who believe, “Change bad. Old Book of Face good.” In addition, the organizers of each of the groups struggle with the use of capitalization and punctuation. 

The most notable of these groups is the uniquely-named “We Hate The New Facebook, So STOP CHANGING IT. 20,000,000 Users Required to Change Facebook.”  The group was organized by Khan and Shahid Afridi, who are presumably a formidable tag-team of terrorist brothers. 

The group is described as a “petition to tell the Facebook designers to stop making major changes [to] the interface and leave it alone.” 

::

The group’s page includes a list of 20 grievances with the site, submitted by group members.  This is reminiscent of when Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-five Theses to a church door in Germany, which served as the catalyst for the Protestant movement. 

“It seems kind of ‘big’ or something? Like for children,” Monica from Australia complained, forcing me to refrain from making a dick joke. 

“The fact that we can’t reorganize our immediate profiles,” an anonymous user incoherently remarked, without explaining what criteria makes a profile “immediate.”   

“For those with larger computer screens (I have a 20 inch screen), the site looks too empty on both the sides of the left justified content,” another user commented, illustrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the challenges of designing for the Interwebs.

“The new facebook eats bumper stickers!!” remarked Jessica from New York, who failed to note that the site also eats brains, much like a zombie. 

“It does not support old windows 98 systems,” noted Diane from Nova Scotia, who promptly returned to her brontosaurus at Mr. Slate’s quarry.

::

While I find the infantile complaints about the site entertaining, I am most intrigued by the title of the group itself.  For some reason, the Afridi brothers believe that a critical mass of 20 million users would compel the folks behind The Book of Face to revert the changes that have been made to the site.

20 million might sound like a large number of users, until it is compared to the size of The Book of Face as a whole.  Currently, more than 400 million users have accounts on the site.  The group’s goal of 20 million users represents merely five percent of users of The Book of Face.

Five percent is an insignificant number.  Organizations simply do not change their behavior based upon the feedback of five percent of members.

In comparison, Spanish is the primary language of over 28 million people, according to the 2000 census.  At the time, Spanish speakers comprised over 12 percent of the population.  Yet most signs produced by state and the federal government are not in English and Mexican. 

Likewise, approximately 20 percent of Americans are smokers.  Despite this large number, it is illegal to smoke cigarettes in virtually any public venue.

In addition, more than 20 percent of the American population is of German descent, but Jewish-Americans lead a persecution-free lifestyle, without having their skin carved up to become lampshades. 

This is the way the world works.  Rules are not bended to accommodate the needs of tiny minority, unless the minority is handicapped.  If you are handicapped, we will dozens of create parking spaces that you will never use.  Otherwise, we collectively do not give a shit about 20 percent of the population, let alone five percent.

Unfortunately, the “We Hate The New Facebook, So STOP CHANGING IT. 20,000,000 Users Required to Change Facebook” group does not claim 20 million users.  In fact, slightly more than half a million users are members of the group.   This represents far less than one percent of The Book of Face users and a pathetic attempt at organizing a social networking movement. 

In other words, Mormons in America are a larger minority than “STOP CHANGING IT” users.  It is more likely that the federal government will officially recognize and celebrate the beliefs of Mormons that it is that the developers behind of The Book of Face will revert the recent changes.  This fact is particularly striking because Mormonism is far more ridiculous than regular, unleaded Christianity. 

::

Those who whine about the changes made to the site must recognize that The Book of Face is, first and foremost, a business.  The company’s primary goal is to turn a profit, and the site’s main source of revenue advertising.  Each change made to the site is a carefully calculated measure to increase “conversion rates” – the percentage of users that click on advertisements on the site.

Surely, the site’s developer and designers also consider the impact that changes will have on the usability of the site, in hopes of creating a more engaging experience of the users.  Nevertheless, efforts to increase user engagement have a clear business driver: to compel more users to click on advertisements, depositing more cash in the company’s coffers.  It is implausible that the company would undo changes that could potentially lead to additional revenue, unless those changes proved to have a negative impact on the company’s bottom line. 

In making these changes, the designers of the site must maintain a precarious balance between exposing more users to advertising and becoming blatantly commercial.  This design mistake was made by the company’s once-formidable competitor, the Space of My.  MySpace.com quickly evolved into looking like a sprawling advertising site, with social networking features sprinkled in as an afterthought. 

In its heyday, nearly 50 million users owned MySpace accounts.  Aggressive advertising alienated many users, causing them to abandon the site.  As a result, between eight and 12 unique users now visit the site each day.

The Book of Face has carefully avoided the same pitfalls by enhancing, but not interrupting, the user experience.  While advertising plays a prominent role on the site, the site is far from becoming the flashy, garish temple to consumerism that MySpace evolved into. 

Furthermore, the developers of The Book of Face have shown that they are not content with resting on their laurels.  The site is already a truly impressive web application, interpreting massive amounts of user data to provide a personalized experience. 

At times, I am mesmerized with The Book of Face’s capabilities.  The software is smart enough to recognize that I am interested in reading posts by boqueen and my coworkers, yet the site filters out data from the smelly kid from fifth grade and the wigger kid from gym class freshman year.

Yet the folks behind The Book of Face are not content with these remarkable data mining capabilities.  They continue to deploy new features and functionality and tweak the user interface.  This reflects another lesson learned from the follies of the company’s former rival.  Under the tutelage of famed antichrist Rupert Murdoch, MySpace focused on generating revenue and neglected the product itself.  This shift in focus was premature for the startup.  The software stagnated, causing even more users to become disenchanted and flee the site. 

Again, The Book of Face avoided these same mistakes. 

The millions of disgruntled users that join the groups protesting the changes made to The Book of Face should be thankful that the company has maintained a progressive business model.  The company continues to pay attention to its product and carefully implements enhancements.  Company leadership has not lost sight of what makes their software engaging and entertaining, despite the demands of running a profitable business.  Users should be thankful for this.

I fail to understand why members of these groups are so incredibly passionate about their grievances.  Ultimately, changes to The Book of Face have no impact on one’s livelihood.  The site is little more than a recreational endeavor, and only a tiny share of users find a way to generate a profit from the site.  If an ill-advised interface change is applied to the site, millions of users must relearn their web surfing behaviors, but no one’s children will be starving.

::

My intention is not to devalue well-organized social media campaigns; in the right circumstances, they can be highly effective.  Last year, The Book of Face instituted a new privacy policy which would potentially make more user information public.  The company eventually relented from their gestapo tactics in the face of an uproar by users.

However, the “STOP CHANGING IT” campaign fails to provide compelling, rational arguments that support their cause. 

In a previous life, I was an Interwebs designer, so I feel that I write from a position of authority on this topic: designers hate ambiguous criticism.  It is the bane of their existence.  It makes them want to listen to emo music and take up self mutilation.

The organized masses of disgruntled users offer criticism such as “it seems kind of ‘big’ or something,” or the infuriatingly nondescript “the site looks too empty.”  These comments are not constructive.  They provide the designer with no guidance whatsoever. 

In comparison, this sort of criticism is akin to me emailing Steve Jobs to explain that the iPhone “is either too heavy or too light to carry in my pocket or backpack or something or elsewhere.” If I were to do that, Jobs would charter a jet to my front lawn, and then proceed to forcibly sodomize me with a prototype model of the iPad.  There’s an app for that, and I would deserve it.

If one is so adamant about their hatred for a web site, he or she should also be able to summon enough brainpower to craft detailed, constructive criticism.

I implore the “STOP CHANGING IT” users to use the site’s suggestion system to submit feedback, rather than mindlessly complaining in a group forum.  Instead of expressing your fear of change, offer workable suggestions for better solutions.  Provide detailed guidance, not irrational objections.

Failing that, these users must recognize that The Book of Face is a form of entertainment that is provided free of charge. They must realize changes to the site are of little consequence to one’s life outside of a virtual world.

Then, they must get a fucking life. 

one response to 'Stop bitching about changes to The Book of Face'

subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Stop bitching about changes to The Book of Face'.

1. “This is the way the world works. Rules are not bended to accommodate the needs of tiny minority, unless the minority is handicapped.” I think you could argue that that this segment of the population is clearly handicapped because they are idiotic enough to be angered, confused or dumbfounded by a few simple changes on an already, very simple site.

   CC

   03.03.10 08:03 PM

    

respond/react

name (required)

email address (required; will not be published)

website