I like this piece because it cuts against the triumphalism you so often see when writers on substack write about substack. In this sense it links to Gasda’s recent article on the new Romanticism. As someone who has lived through endless tech hoopla only to see each iteration eventually show its darker, insufferable or just irrelevant and boring sides, I appreciate Gasda throwing a bit of a cold water on the self-congratulation fest that generally reigns on the platform. At the end of the day, it’s never going to be true manna from above; just a digital platform. It’s only through sober takes like Gasda’s that the platform can ever properly mature.
- I click through to many posts based on Notes, but your point stands;
- Just this morning I found myself annoyed and accosted how many selfies were in the Notes; I began on a little tirade to unsubscribe from selfie posters but then got annoyed with myself for being reactive - and one account is a writer I really like so I didn’t unsubscribe even though I don’t want selfies.
Algorithms here are really banal and I would love more control in the settings. I want to hunt and gather, not feast on a trough within an information bubble.
Notes can be good fun, can lead one to very interesting pieces of writing outside one’s bubble, can just be a good place to exchange “notes” as it were, as even Twitter was once was. But I gave up Twitter years and years ago because precisely that began to feel too shallow and attention-draining to me, and Substack by contrast was a brilliant and exciting place to read some of the most interesting pieces out there. Substack still is that to me, given how much I enjoy the people I follow. But if this hits one nail especially hard on the head, it’s that Notes is draining my attention as Twitter once did, and often exhausting my enthusiasm for the writing on Substack proper. That’s not at all the way it should be.
Notes reminds me of the little advertisements you used to see at the top of every website, that seem to be disappearing as ads get integrated into the content itself.
Whatever the notes algo is doing isn’t working for me. I find myself going back to X time and again. Then I’ll try Notes, look at a few posts and go back to X.
Perhaps I just haven’t trained my Substack algo as well as I’ve trained my X algo.
I would really like one of these platforms to add the feature where you can dip into someone else’s feed/algo.
I think we’ve been « post-texte » for some time now. Even though people still be reading and writing, the truly exciting part is arguing about it after the fact. The upshot being that our works have taken on a sort perfunctory aspect, something we have to have in our bio, to be referenced only as needed for argument’s sake.
Loved this! Lots of extremely interesting and useful observations, and I shared it internally too. I should note one thing, though: it’s not the case that the feed trades off against posts; post discovery and post reading dramatically increased with the feed and continues to do so, and that’s the main reason we introduced it. It’s an exploration / discovery surface of the only kind people use anymore. We only make money when people subscribe, and people only subscribe for posts, so we don’t play around with that stuff.
The notes feed defaulting to following (at least for me) was the greatest update but also enforces the silos that I came here to avoid, so it's a bit of win-lose situation. It has made it easier to focus on reading and writing (or researching, in my case). The living nature of algos is definitely fascinating though. Good read.
Very interesting post. Honestly I find notes pretty thoroughly uninteresting and rarely scroll it. And since I write a local news substack, it’s not very useful to me from a discoverability aspect, so about the only time I scroll it is on a Sunday morning when I’ve run out of new posts to read. (My theory is that more substackers should schedule for Sunday morning as it’s a prime time for coffee and reading.)
I like notes. I also think it's tough to find distribution after X deboosted links. I can't seem to bring myself to cultivate a following on BlueSky or Instagram.
Yeah I totally agree on the distribution. I guess I understand the play Elon is going for but distribution is now pretty much gone from the social ecosystem and that sucks. I think it's a short term gain and long-term loss. I used to read a lot of my news on Facebook, but once they cut that, I spend very little time there. It's a search engine for local businesses and, to some degree, events.
About the magazine bit, one of the things I like when substackers do are posts about the most interesting links they found. I'd say most of the new substackers I find come from that, with some coming from podcasts.
Socmed algorithms hide as much as they show, maybe more. Remember the fever and excitement on Notes in summer '24, then early autumn? It's already a way different place—and changing so much faster than Twitter etc ever did. I like their willingness to experiment & continually improve, but the fact is it's extremely buggy, support is nearly nil, if there isn't shadowbanning already there's definite glitches that lock people out of the flow, and it's not open source so we'll never have real control of the interface. Twitter took 15 years to change in the way Notes has changed in little more than a year. There was the 140 character generation which went on for over a decade but most don't even remember that anymore, but Twitter pre video and even pre image had its own distinct flavor (and influence), and as it evolved all of that was lost. The net is so toxic & tired these days because it's a noise overlay on top of everything that nobody can really control, and it doesn't go away unless you unplug.
In-person browsing is an amazing alternative, if you live near a place you can do it at. The physical world is being rediscovered & feels more effective, and is really more fun. I sell more books from fellow Substack authors in the record store, by hand selling them & featuring them on our Substack wall, than they do here on the actual platform. And these are hardcopy books, tangible objects, physical media. The net is so transient but physical media you can own and control, and not worry about it being changed or even pulled from under you. Also, I like the distance that the physical world provides—with the net, there is no space. Everything is happening right here, everyone is breathing right down your neck, and I'm sick of it.
Given the mind-blowing amount of online content I don't think there's any other option for the autodidact.
It's the design (intent?) that feels intellectually constraining. Liking a meme or reading a post doesn't mean that I want a deluge of peripherally related content. Schlock-bombing my feed isn't helpful,
Instead of a black-box algo in the cloud give users more control other than block or mute.
On the physical world coming back...
I'm not clear on what that means. People that live online discovering life beyond the screen?
Ahh, I see. Books instead of e-readers, LPs instead of streaming.
Practicality led me to e-readers. I grew tired of periodically schlepping books to the local library because the shelves were full at home. I buy physical copies of books that I really enjoyed e-reading.
Another argument for physical media is the ephemeral nature of online content.
Hi Katherine, in the post-editor (of a post), to the right, in the "More" dropdown, there's a "footnote" generator (it has worked well for me). Meaning, no need to manually create footnote links
Yeah, it all seems like a subscriber game. I think people shouldn't care too much about subscriber counts and just do it for fun and any promotion you can get out of it. And also to meet like-minded people, if you don't live in an area where there are any. I'm actually grateful to the political commentators. It's my only source of news. I also like the inter-generational mix, the attempt to not blame other generations for stupidity, etc. (boomers, millenials, gen-Z'ers, etc.)
I think a lot of people get attached to subscriber count because it's a tangible measure of success, especially as an adult, when you may not have other ways to measure "how you're doing." (Not to mention all the usual reasons -- feeling important or special or receiving validation.)
We never got a lot of FB followers for our multimedia productions till I paid for some boosts and then collected hundreds of people I never ultimately interacted with. Interesting article though! Joey, my partner, is working on one like it -- he's very cynical of social media in general. To get subscribers, you really have to devote more time than most people have--unless of course you're already famous and, if that's the case, people will subscribe and even pay to read you, even if they're not getting any real personal benefit.
Great article. The awfulness of substack notes makes me appreciate twitter, even with all its post-Musk slop, even more. There does indeed seem to be an inevitable draw to degenerate into Medium.
I prefer Substack Notes, personally LOL. I also, weirdly, find myself enjoying BlueSky? Though I very much stay in my corner. It feels like Tumblr before I knew how to properly use it.
I find substack notes serves me up so much stuff that is technically related to who I follow/read, but is actually dull, irrelevant, repetitive, cringeworthy, stupid etc. Twitter's Musk-slop outrage porn feels more manageable.
I will say, I had to mute a lot of people to start liking it. I really didn't like it when it was nonstop Phone Bad content. To the extent that it like... tricked me into thinking I had different opinions than I did? I mean, that's on me and my own contrarian streak I guess.
My Substack Notes seem like a collection of people grousing that they aren't more successful on Substack, which is probably a consequence of my lack of effort to curate/invite specific topics in there. It's a bit depressing to see endless "why aren't I one of the big creators!? why doesn't Substack promote the little guys!?", and it reminds me of /r/Twitch, which had the same problem. Endless "I want to do everything but do the thing that would help me grow."
Unfortunately, also, writers often want to write about writing, or being a writer, more than they want to write posts "about the thing they write about." It's navel-gazing and perhaps a more clear reward structure. This is partially why "the big guys" tend to maintain their momentum: there's less "inside baseball" with shared frustration and the associated guilt inflicted on the reader, intentional or not.
Yeah, it's interesting. It's something I struggle with too-- am I someone with a hobby, a delusion, a failed writer, or a successful writer? I suspect many people feel the same way. The problem with democratization is, I suspect, it holds a mirror up to one's own failure a bit too clearly.
Yeah, it’s all a pursuit of feedback, and what qualifies as useful feedback is different to everyone. A share from someone you know personally could feel like they’re pitying you or that you “begged” them, when it’s the exact same mechanism as someone you don’t know sharing you (which someone may weigh as more valuable, since there’s a lack of attachment involved).
Some people might make money, but it might not be “enough.” I don’t know if a site like Substack can really provide an objective metric because it comes back to individual confidence and self-esteem.
I think an underrated but extremely important metric for people who aren't relying on writing for their livelihood, also, is social network AND social proof. IMO that makes or break writers. Social network can help you make money; social proof helps you become popular. You really need both.
Yeah, it’s the “are you being advocated for without playing heavy social games that undermine your authentic growth”, but in a lot of cases you can’t plan OR force it. If you do, it’s no longer as authentic. It’s “someone bought me this from my Amazon Christmas list” vs “someone knows me well enough to think I’d like it, and I really wanted it, too.”
It’s a reward of “genuine” connection with an audience (or friends/family, with the Christmas gift example), but everyone gets to decide individually how much that matters or how much they “need” it. “It’s nice that this happened” vs “I need this, in this specific way, for me to believe I deserve to share my writing.”
I like this piece because it cuts against the triumphalism you so often see when writers on substack write about substack. In this sense it links to Gasda’s recent article on the new Romanticism. As someone who has lived through endless tech hoopla only to see each iteration eventually show its darker, insufferable or just irrelevant and boring sides, I appreciate Gasda throwing a bit of a cold water on the self-congratulation fest that generally reigns on the platform. At the end of the day, it’s never going to be true manna from above; just a digital platform. It’s only through sober takes like Gasda’s that the platform can ever properly mature.
A few thoughts:
- I click through to many posts based on Notes, but your point stands;
- Just this morning I found myself annoyed and accosted how many selfies were in the Notes; I began on a little tirade to unsubscribe from selfie posters but then got annoyed with myself for being reactive - and one account is a writer I really like so I didn’t unsubscribe even though I don’t want selfies.
Algorithms here are really banal and I would love more control in the settings. I want to hunt and gather, not feast on a trough within an information bubble.
Notes can be good fun, can lead one to very interesting pieces of writing outside one’s bubble, can just be a good place to exchange “notes” as it were, as even Twitter was once was. But I gave up Twitter years and years ago because precisely that began to feel too shallow and attention-draining to me, and Substack by contrast was a brilliant and exciting place to read some of the most interesting pieces out there. Substack still is that to me, given how much I enjoy the people I follow. But if this hits one nail especially hard on the head, it’s that Notes is draining my attention as Twitter once did, and often exhausting my enthusiasm for the writing on Substack proper. That’s not at all the way it should be.
Notes reminds me of the little advertisements you used to see at the top of every website, that seem to be disappearing as ads get integrated into the content itself.
Whatever the notes algo is doing isn’t working for me. I find myself going back to X time and again. Then I’ll try Notes, look at a few posts and go back to X.
Perhaps I just haven’t trained my Substack algo as well as I’ve trained my X algo.
I would really like one of these platforms to add the feature where you can dip into someone else’s feed/algo.
I think we’ve been « post-texte » for some time now. Even though people still be reading and writing, the truly exciting part is arguing about it after the fact. The upshot being that our works have taken on a sort perfunctory aspect, something we have to have in our bio, to be referenced only as needed for argument’s sake.
Loved this! Lots of extremely interesting and useful observations, and I shared it internally too. I should note one thing, though: it’s not the case that the feed trades off against posts; post discovery and post reading dramatically increased with the feed and continues to do so, and that’s the main reason we introduced it. It’s an exploration / discovery surface of the only kind people use anymore. We only make money when people subscribe, and people only subscribe for posts, so we don’t play around with that stuff.
i had a nice phone call with a substack engineer yesterday, its not an easy job and you guys have a thoughtful team
oh that rules, I’m glad someone reached out! i think a ton of us enjoyed the post a lot
The notes feed defaulting to following (at least for me) was the greatest update but also enforces the silos that I came here to avoid, so it's a bit of win-lose situation. It has made it easier to focus on reading and writing (or researching, in my case). The living nature of algos is definitely fascinating though. Good read.
Agree. They do feel like an artform in and of themselves.
Very interesting post. Honestly I find notes pretty thoroughly uninteresting and rarely scroll it. And since I write a local news substack, it’s not very useful to me from a discoverability aspect, so about the only time I scroll it is on a Sunday morning when I’ve run out of new posts to read. (My theory is that more substackers should schedule for Sunday morning as it’s a prime time for coffee and reading.)
I like notes. I also think it's tough to find distribution after X deboosted links. I can't seem to bring myself to cultivate a following on BlueSky or Instagram.
Yeah I totally agree on the distribution. I guess I understand the play Elon is going for but distribution is now pretty much gone from the social ecosystem and that sucks. I think it's a short term gain and long-term loss. I used to read a lot of my news on Facebook, but once they cut that, I spend very little time there. It's a search engine for local businesses and, to some degree, events.
About the magazine bit, one of the things I like when substackers do are posts about the most interesting links they found. I'd say most of the new substackers I find come from that, with some coming from podcasts.
I've considered doing a link round-up myself
Great piece, bad illustration, a whale lacks a shark fin
:( Should I change it
Likely nobody else is bothered ha ha
I lightly edited it
Easy!
Great article.
Late to the game on algo mediated feeds. Not loving this tech at all. For me it's a curiosity disincentive.
You're a good writer, I find the posts thought-provoking. That's why I'm on Substack.
This was by Matthew Gasda, he's great. What do you see as an alternative to algorithmic discovery? Do you think the physical world is coming back?
Socmed algorithms hide as much as they show, maybe more. Remember the fever and excitement on Notes in summer '24, then early autumn? It's already a way different place—and changing so much faster than Twitter etc ever did. I like their willingness to experiment & continually improve, but the fact is it's extremely buggy, support is nearly nil, if there isn't shadowbanning already there's definite glitches that lock people out of the flow, and it's not open source so we'll never have real control of the interface. Twitter took 15 years to change in the way Notes has changed in little more than a year. There was the 140 character generation which went on for over a decade but most don't even remember that anymore, but Twitter pre video and even pre image had its own distinct flavor (and influence), and as it evolved all of that was lost. The net is so toxic & tired these days because it's a noise overlay on top of everything that nobody can really control, and it doesn't go away unless you unplug.
In-person browsing is an amazing alternative, if you live near a place you can do it at. The physical world is being rediscovered & feels more effective, and is really more fun. I sell more books from fellow Substack authors in the record store, by hand selling them & featuring them on our Substack wall, than they do here on the actual platform. And these are hardcopy books, tangible objects, physical media. The net is so transient but physical media you can own and control, and not worry about it being changed or even pulled from under you. Also, I like the distance that the physical world provides—with the net, there is no space. Everything is happening right here, everyone is breathing right down your neck, and I'm sick of it.
I'll drop by his place to share my appreciation.
On algorithmic discovery...
Given the mind-blowing amount of online content I don't think there's any other option for the autodidact.
It's the design (intent?) that feels intellectually constraining. Liking a meme or reading a post doesn't mean that I want a deluge of peripherally related content. Schlock-bombing my feed isn't helpful,
Instead of a black-box algo in the cloud give users more control other than block or mute.
On the physical world coming back...
I'm not clear on what that means. People that live online discovering life beyond the screen?
Return of physical media
Ahh, I see. Books instead of e-readers, LPs instead of streaming.
Practicality led me to e-readers. I grew tired of periodically schlepping books to the local library because the shelves were full at home. I buy physical copies of books that I really enjoyed e-reading.
Another argument for physical media is the ephemeral nature of online content.
Not sure if this is just a "me" problem, but the footnote links aren't working because the anchor elements are missing id attributes.
I had some trouble copying and pasting them from word. I’ll fix when I’m back at my computer - thanks for the heads up
Hi Katherine, in the post-editor (of a post), to the right, in the "More" dropdown, there's a "footnote" generator (it has worked well for me). Meaning, no need to manually create footnote links
I know, was just arduous to go through one by one
Yeah, it all seems like a subscriber game. I think people shouldn't care too much about subscriber counts and just do it for fun and any promotion you can get out of it. And also to meet like-minded people, if you don't live in an area where there are any. I'm actually grateful to the political commentators. It's my only source of news. I also like the inter-generational mix, the attempt to not blame other generations for stupidity, etc. (boomers, millenials, gen-Z'ers, etc.)
I think a lot of people get attached to subscriber count because it's a tangible measure of success, especially as an adult, when you may not have other ways to measure "how you're doing." (Not to mention all the usual reasons -- feeling important or special or receiving validation.)
We never got a lot of FB followers for our multimedia productions till I paid for some boosts and then collected hundreds of people I never ultimately interacted with. Interesting article though! Joey, my partner, is working on one like it -- he's very cynical of social media in general. To get subscribers, you really have to devote more time than most people have--unless of course you're already famous and, if that's the case, people will subscribe and even pay to read you, even if they're not getting any real personal benefit.
Totally agree
Great article. The awfulness of substack notes makes me appreciate twitter, even with all its post-Musk slop, even more. There does indeed seem to be an inevitable draw to degenerate into Medium.
I prefer Substack Notes, personally LOL. I also, weirdly, find myself enjoying BlueSky? Though I very much stay in my corner. It feels like Tumblr before I knew how to properly use it.
I find substack notes serves me up so much stuff that is technically related to who I follow/read, but is actually dull, irrelevant, repetitive, cringeworthy, stupid etc. Twitter's Musk-slop outrage porn feels more manageable.
I will say, I had to mute a lot of people to start liking it. I really didn't like it when it was nonstop Phone Bad content. To the extent that it like... tricked me into thinking I had different opinions than I did? I mean, that's on me and my own contrarian streak I guess.
Muting, good idea, I'm going to try that.
My Substack Notes seem like a collection of people grousing that they aren't more successful on Substack, which is probably a consequence of my lack of effort to curate/invite specific topics in there. It's a bit depressing to see endless "why aren't I one of the big creators!? why doesn't Substack promote the little guys!?", and it reminds me of /r/Twitch, which had the same problem. Endless "I want to do everything but do the thing that would help me grow."
Unfortunately, also, writers often want to write about writing, or being a writer, more than they want to write posts "about the thing they write about." It's navel-gazing and perhaps a more clear reward structure. This is partially why "the big guys" tend to maintain their momentum: there's less "inside baseball" with shared frustration and the associated guilt inflicted on the reader, intentional or not.
Yeah, it's interesting. It's something I struggle with too-- am I someone with a hobby, a delusion, a failed writer, or a successful writer? I suspect many people feel the same way. The problem with democratization is, I suspect, it holds a mirror up to one's own failure a bit too clearly.
I think you’re a successful writer but most metrics, especially when you consider the bottom-heavy amount of people who’ve never made money.
(Neither of my comments have any subtext or sarcasm, to be clear).
I think it's hard for people to evaluate themselves is my point. I wonder if part of that is the amorphous nature of the Internet, too.
Yeah, it’s all a pursuit of feedback, and what qualifies as useful feedback is different to everyone. A share from someone you know personally could feel like they’re pitying you or that you “begged” them, when it’s the exact same mechanism as someone you don’t know sharing you (which someone may weigh as more valuable, since there’s a lack of attachment involved).
Some people might make money, but it might not be “enough.” I don’t know if a site like Substack can really provide an objective metric because it comes back to individual confidence and self-esteem.
I think an underrated but extremely important metric for people who aren't relying on writing for their livelihood, also, is social network AND social proof. IMO that makes or break writers. Social network can help you make money; social proof helps you become popular. You really need both.
Yeah, it’s the “are you being advocated for without playing heavy social games that undermine your authentic growth”, but in a lot of cases you can’t plan OR force it. If you do, it’s no longer as authentic. It’s “someone bought me this from my Amazon Christmas list” vs “someone knows me well enough to think I’d like it, and I really wanted it, too.”
It’s a reward of “genuine” connection with an audience (or friends/family, with the Christmas gift example), but everyone gets to decide individually how much that matters or how much they “need” it. “It’s nice that this happened” vs “I need this, in this specific way, for me to believe I deserve to share my writing.”