youssefsarhan

A confirmation email would be sent to the user, when they click on the link contained within they'd be directed to a page that would ask them to define a password.

It's about simplifying the on-boarding. The password doesn't need to be defined during the first session. Plus the email encourages re-engagement later that day.

Tap Jupiter app was created by Apisit (http://twitter.com/imapisit) and I (http://twitter.com/ys) in our spare time. We're happy to take any questions or help you try out the app. Just add the username: sayhello

Thanks guys!

Also, http://blog.sefsar.com/post/42926069438/bangwithfriends-is-n...

The hype around this Facebook redesign is a testament to the fact that the user never knows what they want. He neglected revenue, typography, balance, rhythm and purpose, but that's obvious, I guess, I hope. Frozen within the current paradigm of Facebook, bickering with itself, it fails to push the argument in any direction. Good man for trying, but we have to think higher. Does Facebook even need to be a website or an app? If we're going to design so recklessly, why not commit to it? What if the solution was no Facebook?

Thanks. Updated. I'd like to credit him, if he has a preferred link.

That doesn't sound right. Advertisements should not be charged for if they are not visible. Advertising online is horrendously bad, and this is just one of the problems with it.

Hide content and just show ads? What? Who ever suggested anything like that? If other sites are doing this, then they're messing up too. So I've no idea what are you talking about.

They are loading ad impressions that aren't visible. That's a major problem, because it's preventable. Why don't they track scroll –which I'm sure they do already– and load ads accordingly. Their only defense would be that they load the ads, but don't charge for them unless the user scrolls.

"here I was being schooled by a homeless person". Get off your fucking high horse.

Nice story otherwise.

I understand your intent, but it reminds me a little of Ford's "... any colour so long as it is black" remark. The kudos button only caters to a single form of opinion, and at that it's a little vague. I appreciate the effort at simplifying the gauge of sentiment, that should be continued, however I'm weary of loosing out on the nuances of personal interaction. This discussion we're having here is a good example of that.

I think the Kudos button is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it's the right one. Something a little more malleable, something that facilitates a broader spectrum of opinion while maintaining simplicity would be better, I feel.

What do you think?

I agree with the sentiment, however, I feel the Kudos button just can't communicate that. If you had given me a Kudos I wouldn't have known it was from you, I wouldn't have known what the intent was and it would just be another number. What's the difference between 23 Kudos and 24 Kudos? But the difference between 23 comments and 24, well, that could be life changing.

You comment here is a perfect example of this.

Gazrogers, I think I understand your point, perhaps this was never going to generate much discussion. However, I found the meaning of 'Rubbernecker' and the poor performance of $FB to be quite poignant or whimsical. Not everything needs to be controversial or incredibly eye-opening.

It could simply be, that it was too early for LiveJournal? Back then – admittedly, now in many ways – the idea of a social network was new. It's value had yet to be proven at that time. However, with almost 1 Billion people on Facebook the value of such a network has been proven.

However, while I say 'I want to pay for Facebook' I'm really saying I want to pay for a service that allows me to keep in touch with my friends and nothing else. Not a service that allows me to keep in touch with my friends while also selling my data, and the problems that go with that.

I wrote a very short thought on this idea:

http://sefsar.com/post/19716868388/the-last-word

Not sure about a Microsoft involvement.

Either way, I feel they will always have a conflicted product vision so long as their users and customers are separate entities. Imagine a feature that's brilliant for the user, but terrible for advertisers? Well, hard luck, it's off limits. It's strange that one party is using and another is paying. It profoundly limits the scope of the product.