Now it ended up with me getting rid of Spotify, because of this and other frustrations.
Now it ended up with me getting rid of Spotify, because of this and other frustrations.
Spotify recommendation system is very bad in cases like mine apparently. It's so bad I keep listening to the same old songs instead of discovering something new, which is why I'm no longer a customer until they improve their AI.
It seems to differ wildly between people - I've heard plenty of people making the same case as you, but many that have the same as me. It never appears to be 'its ok', its either 'brilliant' or 'terrible'. I've been using Spotify for 10+ years at this point, so maybe that makes a difference?
No amount of skipping or "I don't like this artist" seems to convince Spotify to stop offering me variations of 8-bit Tetris themes or MULTIPLE 8-bit Cowboy Bebop Tank! theme variations per every single Discover Weekly. I'd be thrilled to even get a 2% hit rate on music I like.
Seriously Spotify: two separate "Tank!" versions per Discover Weekly is too many.
Rest of the week, much the same. Nothing in Discover Weekly.
This seems to be a problem with this general type of recommendation algorithms in general. YouTube suffers from it as well.
You could even do this maliciously. Send someone a Spotify link to a Steely Dan song and a Skrillex song, and now yacht rock and dubstep will follow them around until they delete their account (I'm assuming the intersection between those fan-bases is vanishingly small).
Profile > Private Session
Note: Anything you listen to in a Private Session may not influence your music recommendations, e.g. Discover Weekly.
But you’re not wrong.
By the way, I believe Spotify does have a private mode, which at least blocks your plays from showing up in the social pane and on your profile. But I’m not sure if it cuts them out of your recommendations.
Please, dear God, Spotify: just because I listened to the Hamilton soundtrack once does not mean that I want to hear it every week in Discover Weekly and multiple times per Duo playlist, because Lin-Manuel Miranda is apparently a genre of himself.
Similarly any app or website that pulls “top artists” from Spotify tends to include stuff I listens to a bit several years ago, but never stuff I’ve listened to nonstop for months.
In general, you had to be doing something to be getting recommendations so there is some action that when most customer's do demonstrates a high probability that you will like some genre and it just so happens you don't.
A feature does not need to be used often to be useful.
Take a fire extinguisher for example. Going by this logic, since most people will never even touch a fire extinguisher and most of them are never actually used, we should get rid of them because they're a cause of clutter.
Increased UI clutter due to a single extra icon is not a good nor sufficient argument for not including it.
While the general customer base might not be served by this feature, what if a subset of the customer base enjoys this feature to an extraordinary extent? Maybe it fixes a lot of problems they have with the service; and negates a lot of complaints they otherwise would have posted.
Would it still not be the correct choice to "clutter the UI" with this?
I don't think it's as easy of a choice like you're trying to make it.
But I could also be jaded by the fact that Spotify for years has trying to pull me into listening to all kinds of odd European folk music that I have no interest in what-so-ever.
It's probably fine to not have anything to appeal to power users, but those power users probably will be the sorts to be influencers to talk up your application to everyone they know.
I personally had these same complaints and acknowledged that I'm unusual and my needs are best served by my own hosted solution. I'd encourage people who are unhappy with major streaming services to roll their own if they truly feel strongly about it- I did and I'm happier for it.
Downvotes are way more "potent" than upvotes. If I'm listening to music that I like, I'd say I probably log over 100x upvotes than downvotes. But when I downvote, I usually want to nuke the site from orbit.
What is the ratio? What ratio of users use downvote? What ratio is that compared to users that interact in any way? How are you controlling for sampling bias? Berkson's paradox? How much utility are the users that downvote obtaining, vs the disutility of being unable to?
We need a name for this, personally I call it GNOME mentality but probably is bad name since most developers are not familiar with GNOME (though the file picker issue get on top HN a lot )
All is the flaw in your comment. One person does not imply all and data speaks for itself.
This type of bizarre logic makes me feel like I have to habitually use features even when they are not useful in order to protect them from UX designers in case I'm subject to some misguided A/B test.
What data are you referencing? I'm drawing conclusions based on data I have but I don't think you work for the same company as me so I'm not sure how you can speak to confidently about how wrong I am.
I'm a PO so feel sufficiently qualified to state that user analytics data is completely redundant for looking at small use high value features & undervaluing direct user feedback from your 'power users' is generally a bad move.
Again, just because not everyone needs/wants a feature does not make it useless or not worth implementing.
Data doesn't tell you how useful a feature is, it tells you how frequently it's used & how many people use it. They are not the same things.
That entirely depends on the the data set. On one hand you are claiming to be an expert and on the other making generalizations about what data can be used for. In reality you know that data is contextual and depending on the data set is what determines what conclusions and how confident you can be in those conclusions.
There's a difference between justifying your decisions with data, and letting data make your decisions for you.
What data would you use to justify not implementing a dislike feature that many users are asking for, for example?
I’ve done some work with a couple disaster organizations in the past and we continually get massive praise and thanks from the victims of these disasters. The actual victims have the same praise over and over again: Unlike the red cross, salvation army, and FEMA we actually ask them what they (the victims) need. We don’t assume they need water and and a tarp, we assume they know whether or not they already have those things. Often the victims need diapers, help with flood mold remidiation, a chainsaw to cut limbs from their street so they can get their cars out so they can go help the neighbors a few streets over etc…. They know what is prohibiting them from getting out to help others much better than we.
When people are telling us what they need, we should listen to them and we should actively try to avoid our tendencies towards “I know better what you need.”
I have a couple friends who work on recommendation algorithms full time and in their defense, they’re fully aware how terrible the recommendations are—I still get my music recommendations from friends, from the local music store employees, and friends who work in music venues—their recommendations are infinitely better.