In fact, what you've pointed out is that building an implementation to address the 3% case is straightforward which was the point of my post.
PS: My blog does have a commenting feature. In fact there are 3 comments in response to the post.
In fact, what you've pointed out is that building an implementation to address the 3% case is straightforward which was the point of my post.
PS: My blog does have a commenting feature. In fact there are 3 comments in response to the post.
With the new system, say user Foo writes "@Bar lol me too!". Then Twitter can take Foo's follower list, join it with Bar's follower list, and send the message to everyone in the resulting list. Relational databases are very good at joins.
On the other hand, with the old system, they'd have to do a deep inspection of the record for each of Foo's followers to know if they should send the message to that follower. Relational databases are much less good at this.
But, as you and others have pointed out, if the number of users that use the "all @-replies" feature is really so small, it would be fairly inexpensive to cache the list of all of Foo's followers who use that feature, and join them in as well. I don't know why they don't do that -- maybe it adds up (like, if only 3% of users use the feature, but those users follow a lot of other users, they'll each end up in a lot of other users' caches).
Person Y member of 97%
Person Z member of 3%
Person W member of 3%
________________________
Person_A_@_List: X, Y, Z
Person_B_@_List: X, W
________________________
Person_A writes: @Person_B you be cool!
Received by X and Z...not Y or W
Or if you're going to hide them, at least put the view comments link at the bottom of the post where I'd expect the comments to be.
(Following up: A trusted source confirms 3%)
Note, btw, that the number they seem to be going for is the above -- e.g., "according to the accounts database, only 3% of users ever changed this setting", _not_ "only 3% of users are claiming to care about this now that it's been removed".