Maybe I am wrong but I feel like my ideal Notes feed would be mostly posts or content that people have posted in their Substack. Also having a filter on the feed that could sort it into video, Notes, posts, podcasts, etc. would be nice. Thanks for all the work you guys are doing!
It's great what Substack is doing by connecting people to what they care about. Love this ❤️
One thing in my mind is that , what if it also ask them to let creators subscribe? For example, if one reader likes some creators posts very often, but haven't subscribed them, Substack after a while ask them, like showing a popup, in which it shows them number of creators, like a carousel, they interacted with.
It would be a great way to boost creators also.
Because many readers have liked my posts many times but they haven't subscribed. I wonder why.
Think about it, make it a feature request, if possible.
Yes, I agree to that. But they see the Subscribe button as well, by showing them a popup, we’re not damaging their free will, it just makes the consideration point more effective.
If not popup, but something that boosts this notion that, “hey, you’re interacting with this creator a lot, do you want to subscribe them?”
The free will is still active, but making the creators life easy, that’s the whole point of it.
And with Notes, writers and creators are probably want to increase their following and subscribers’ numbers.
If Substack starts poking or popping up to prompt me to subscribe to someone just because I occasionally enjoy the newsletter, I would be muting or blocking, because I already know that I have the option of subscribing.
Other readers are likely have the same visceral reaction.
You are not getting my point. Why are you fixated on the popup? It’s just about nudging. One reader doesn’t like all the creators' works, and if he/she is, then they are not liking anyone's.
"A friend to all is a friend to none" — Aristotle.
Secondly, you cannot talk on behalf of all the other readers. There are many people, with many views.
I just gave a suggestion; you should be supportive of that. You should try to improve it, like how else we can support the creators without harming the readers.
An idea should be treated like that, but reading your replies, it seems that you’re doing the opposite of what Substack is doing: building a better community.
I don’t expect any further replies from you on this note, and even if you do, I won’t respond. Thanks. 🙏
Normally, people do not need an algorithm to discover and connect with people they care about. They do that via other people they care about. You make it sound like Substack is a kind of intellectual Tinder. But I can get my own dates. I don’t need an app. The best recommender algorithm is simply conversation, it’s other users, it’s their “likes” and their restacks. No additional programming required. Ok, if you want to generate recommendations for the home feed, fine. But any algorithmic manipulation of the following feed and interaction should be avoided, including algorithmic ranking of replies. That’s what X does and it is heinous.
Why is your algo so bad? The algorithmic content in my feed is increasingly dominated by celebrities, political bullshit and miscellaneous stuff I that has nothing to do with what I follow, and I keep going away and coming back hoping it will improve but it's been worse every time over thenlast year and a half.
So I sat down and watched this and actually paid attention. I can see that the Algorithm is actually working...for me. I've been here for about 2 1/2 years, joining at the same time a lot of other up and comers did. But, not being very tech savvy, or understanding a lot about marketing, they quickly surpassed me. But I was here pre-Notes and pre-Followers, and slowly making my 'Stack into something. It took me 9 months to get 100 subscribers, and I celebrated. (And why not, right?) And when you brought in Notes, I could see that I could reach more people, and I did. But Followers, I didn't really understand what it was for; but then, it was like a lightbulb clicked. I started using Followers, and began literally following every writer I came across. I mean all of them.
I finally understood that by following them, they'd see my feed. I wasn't writing a lot of Notes, but the ones I did were geared more toward the Newbies, helping them. My subscriptions started to pick up, as did my followers. People were following me back, and subscribing. I started the year with 10 Paid subscribers -- five of whom were people I personally knew. I somehow managed to triple that without it even registering in my brain. It took me two years just to get 10! My Followers are now three times greater than my Subscribers, but that's where I'm getting my Subscribers from. I'm posting my serial THE SHIELD OF LOCKSLEY, and experimenting with the idea of marketing it in different ways. I'm teaching myself all sorts of new ways of reaching people by reading some of the other 'Stacks on how to make money on the market, and applying it to my 'Stack.
Because writing fiction is the hardest sell here, no matter how good you are.
I started the year with 520 Followers, and by actively pursuing them, have quintupled that amount. I'm 155 away from 1000 Subscribers. So I'm over the moon when I think that I literally started from zero. I'd decided, in coming here, that I was going to make something of myself. Having recently retired, I've made it my mission to succeed and rise up in the ranks based on my own merit. I started "reading" my stories out on videos by starting a Book Tube Channel and trying to figure a way I could synch the two platforms together. And now you've done that for me.
Substack, to me, is more than just a chance for me to play. Having been a Blue Collar worker who always dreamed of being a writer, Substack has allowed me to reach for the stars. I plan on being here for the next twenty years -- twenty-five if I'm lucky. That'll make me 85-90 years old. The question I have, is how far can I take this? My ambition is to become a best seller. My niche is Novellas and novelettes, as well as serial novels. I plan to introduce a "mock" video TV Channel. Let's see how far I can go with that!
So seeing this, and listening, I feel comfortable in the knowledge that you won't sell out. I take comfort in knowing that the creator/writer is the most important investment Substack can make, not only for itself, but for the Cultural development of upcoming generations. It can prove that becoming a giant conglomerate doesn't have to cost you your soul. The advertisers do not run the artists for profit, not when something like this allows the creator/writer to find his own worth and push his own limitations.
Having written and published on social media for nearly two decades, I am personally suspicious of algorithmic control of distribution in a general or discovery feed. Because algorithms inevitably embody the personal preferences, prejudices, and ulterior motives of their creators. Consequently, they almost always violate the prime directive of Volkspublishing — namely, #LETTHEAUDIENCEDECIDE. However, as a Substack writer/publisher, as long as you continue to assure 100% of my writing will be distributed to 100% of my followers and subscribers 100% of the time, I can live with some reasonable level of algorithmic interference with purely organic distribution in the general feed — although I will not be deluded into thinking that your algorithm will work fairly to give all writers on the platform an equal chance at reaching an audience. Cheers!
JAIRAJ got me feeling dem JOSEPH CAMPBELL HERO'S JOURNEY Vibes ..... SUBSTACK is giving PURPOSE to folks--via The ALGO. Heavy.
pimpfucius hath spoken 📠
An algorithm is a finite set of instructions carried out in a specific order to perform a particular task (eg. perform long division).
It's a neutral term. People have turned it into a pejorative term.
Without algorithms, people wouldn't even be able to do a simple web search and get a vaguely relevant result.
The walled gardens that keep people captive have made a business design decision, it's not an algorithm making that decision.
Still don't have any clue about the secrets of the Substack algorithms!! 🤣 🤔
I, too, was waiting for more detail, but I think the people they were focused on are asking questions at a certain altitude.
I know I lost altitude and oxygen when they started talking about what other platforms do. Then there was a hard landing. I was none the wiser.
I hear you. Maybe the next video will be called the Confidential Inner Circle Secrets of the Substack Algorithm?
Yes!
And they will show us how to create crop circles (bonus content).
Are you the person who secretly creates Chris's click bait headings? 👏
I’m not. Are they hiring for that? 😆🥳
haha right?
Great capsule definition.
Great hearing from the secret founder!
Maybe I am wrong but I feel like my ideal Notes feed would be mostly posts or content that people have posted in their Substack. Also having a filter on the feed that could sort it into video, Notes, posts, podcasts, etc. would be nice. Thanks for all the work you guys are doing!
“Secret founder” thank you for keeping up with the lore around here
Don't be afraid of sitting closer to the mike. Same problem with the previous discussion with Hamish. Thanks.
You all approach Stephen King yet? Sad seeing him on threads.
disappointingly low in raccoon content, I give this movie four out of five stars
😆
It's great what Substack is doing by connecting people to what they care about. Love this ❤️
One thing in my mind is that , what if it also ask them to let creators subscribe? For example, if one reader likes some creators posts very often, but haven't subscribed them, Substack after a while ask them, like showing a popup, in which it shows them number of creators, like a carousel, they interacted with.
It would be a great way to boost creators also.
Because many readers have liked my posts many times but they haven't subscribed. I wonder why.
Think about it, make it a feature request, if possible.
Because they don't want to commit. They're probably following you on Notes, and that's all they want to do for the time being. Free will.
Yes, I agree to that. But they see the Subscribe button as well, by showing them a popup, we’re not damaging their free will, it just makes the consideration point more effective.
If not popup, but something that boosts this notion that, “hey, you’re interacting with this creator a lot, do you want to subscribe them?”
The free will is still active, but making the creators life easy, that’s the whole point of it.
And with Notes, writers and creators are probably want to increase their following and subscribers’ numbers.
If Substack starts poking or popping up to prompt me to subscribe to someone just because I occasionally enjoy the newsletter, I would be muting or blocking, because I already know that I have the option of subscribing.
Other readers are likely have the same visceral reaction.
You are not getting my point. Why are you fixated on the popup? It’s just about nudging. One reader doesn’t like all the creators' works, and if he/she is, then they are not liking anyone's.
"A friend to all is a friend to none" — Aristotle.
Secondly, you cannot talk on behalf of all the other readers. There are many people, with many views.
I just gave a suggestion; you should be supportive of that. You should try to improve it, like how else we can support the creators without harming the readers.
An idea should be treated like that, but reading your replies, it seems that you’re doing the opposite of what Substack is doing: building a better community.
I don’t expect any further replies from you on this note, and even if you do, I won’t respond. Thanks. 🙏
Thanks for posting this! It was great to hear the chat live
thanks for this Chris and Jairaj. Really enjoy these
If Jairaj is leading the algorithm, then I think we are in pretty good hands - seems like a genuine and knowledgeable dude!
Great job, Jairaj! And also Chris!
Normally, people do not need an algorithm to discover and connect with people they care about. They do that via other people they care about. You make it sound like Substack is a kind of intellectual Tinder. But I can get my own dates. I don’t need an app. The best recommender algorithm is simply conversation, it’s other users, it’s their “likes” and their restacks. No additional programming required. Ok, if you want to generate recommendations for the home feed, fine. But any algorithmic manipulation of the following feed and interaction should be avoided, including algorithmic ranking of replies. That’s what X does and it is heinous.
Why is your algo so bad? The algorithmic content in my feed is increasingly dominated by celebrities, political bullshit and miscellaneous stuff I that has nothing to do with what I follow, and I keep going away and coming back hoping it will improve but it's been worse every time over thenlast year and a half.
So I sat down and watched this and actually paid attention. I can see that the Algorithm is actually working...for me. I've been here for about 2 1/2 years, joining at the same time a lot of other up and comers did. But, not being very tech savvy, or understanding a lot about marketing, they quickly surpassed me. But I was here pre-Notes and pre-Followers, and slowly making my 'Stack into something. It took me 9 months to get 100 subscribers, and I celebrated. (And why not, right?) And when you brought in Notes, I could see that I could reach more people, and I did. But Followers, I didn't really understand what it was for; but then, it was like a lightbulb clicked. I started using Followers, and began literally following every writer I came across. I mean all of them.
I finally understood that by following them, they'd see my feed. I wasn't writing a lot of Notes, but the ones I did were geared more toward the Newbies, helping them. My subscriptions started to pick up, as did my followers. People were following me back, and subscribing. I started the year with 10 Paid subscribers -- five of whom were people I personally knew. I somehow managed to triple that without it even registering in my brain. It took me two years just to get 10! My Followers are now three times greater than my Subscribers, but that's where I'm getting my Subscribers from. I'm posting my serial THE SHIELD OF LOCKSLEY, and experimenting with the idea of marketing it in different ways. I'm teaching myself all sorts of new ways of reaching people by reading some of the other 'Stacks on how to make money on the market, and applying it to my 'Stack.
Because writing fiction is the hardest sell here, no matter how good you are.
I started the year with 520 Followers, and by actively pursuing them, have quintupled that amount. I'm 155 away from 1000 Subscribers. So I'm over the moon when I think that I literally started from zero. I'd decided, in coming here, that I was going to make something of myself. Having recently retired, I've made it my mission to succeed and rise up in the ranks based on my own merit. I started "reading" my stories out on videos by starting a Book Tube Channel and trying to figure a way I could synch the two platforms together. And now you've done that for me.
Substack, to me, is more than just a chance for me to play. Having been a Blue Collar worker who always dreamed of being a writer, Substack has allowed me to reach for the stars. I plan on being here for the next twenty years -- twenty-five if I'm lucky. That'll make me 85-90 years old. The question I have, is how far can I take this? My ambition is to become a best seller. My niche is Novellas and novelettes, as well as serial novels. I plan to introduce a "mock" video TV Channel. Let's see how far I can go with that!
So seeing this, and listening, I feel comfortable in the knowledge that you won't sell out. I take comfort in knowing that the creator/writer is the most important investment Substack can make, not only for itself, but for the Cultural development of upcoming generations. It can prove that becoming a giant conglomerate doesn't have to cost you your soul. The advertisers do not run the artists for profit, not when something like this allows the creator/writer to find his own worth and push his own limitations.
Having written and published on social media for nearly two decades, I am personally suspicious of algorithmic control of distribution in a general or discovery feed. Because algorithms inevitably embody the personal preferences, prejudices, and ulterior motives of their creators. Consequently, they almost always violate the prime directive of Volkspublishing — namely, #LETTHEAUDIENCEDECIDE. However, as a Substack writer/publisher, as long as you continue to assure 100% of my writing will be distributed to 100% of my followers and subscribers 100% of the time, I can live with some reasonable level of algorithmic interference with purely organic distribution in the general feed — although I will not be deluded into thinking that your algorithm will work fairly to give all writers on the platform an equal chance at reaching an audience. Cheers!
Another interesting insight to SubStack lesson. Thanks!