I looked at the title and I just knew it was one of Steven's posts! :)  oh oh .. getting to predictable  Liked the piece Steven. I think there's more mainstream potential than you do. Commented on the blog.  Steven!!! Funny, I just did a Qik video about comment duplication and Kevin Fox stuff and it hits on this big time. FriendFeed needs a new UI. I keep trying to spread it and I keep getting pushback I never got with Twitter. The people who run FriendFeed aren't delivering noise-reducing tools, either, and insist that the noise is good (duplication from one micro-node of friends to another). I don't think they've done research with real users.  FF should steal some ideas from Digg on commenting. It should also steal some of Digg's recommendation features. I think an interesting addition would be to have most popular threads and discussions for the global FF network, among other types of recommendations.  Fragmentation and duplication are serious ills of FF - oh how I wish we could tag a conversation so we could have unified conversations around a topic; but just think how LONG the comment thread would be...wow. Rich convo but too long?!  Robert, you "don't think" Kevin's done user research, or you asked him and he told you he didn't? Kevin, what do you say?  I agree with Robert, Friendfeed needs a new UI if it wants to go mainstream. Maybe some sort of homepage like the new facebook profile. More noise-reductions tool would be good too.  Well, considering most people I talk to still wont use a feed reader, you may be right. I think part of the mainstream problem is that there are so many different services out there and friendfeed can potentially pull all of it together for them. For me, I want to be able to read blog posts, shared google reader items, digg articles, etc right here, I mean heck - there's an awful lot of screen real estate there to the right-hand side....let's have some AJAX-y fetching going on of the actual content.  I think you're incorrect, Robert: mainstream people are not as interconnected as people are in early adopter communities. I think Kevin's got a point: let's say you remove the early adopter audience. Do you think one person's friends really cares what you, or me, or potentially 50 to 100 strangers think about something? They care about what they're friends are doing. Just look to real world examples: not every social event is open to any stranger coming in off the street. So why would you expect that's wanted online? When you approach people outside of people like us, to try to stay connectd with 100, 500, 1000, or 10,000 people is absurd: how could you possibly interact with that many people substantively on a regular basis? It's dangerous to try to extrapolate user testing out of how we use it. We're abnormal.  To my point, I really don't care that 500 other strangers shared a story, or that there were 80 comments with people I don't know talking about it. I care about the people I'm following. I want to have a discussion with people I care about, not strangers. I think the reshare and fragmentation facilitates that. If say, James Ferguson shared a story, I'm interested in that, because it tells me more about him. Even if Mashable or you or whomever picked it up first: that's not interesting in and of itself. The fact that it's a piece of content AND my friend shared it comprises the total value of it. I think what'd be more useful for people is what was talked about a few months ago: prioritization or friend groups, so you can focus on different types of people. You touched a little on that in your Qik video, Robert.  well then we need a feature that locks out superconnectors who have, say, more than 50 friends. Or at least locks them out for, say, a day so that a micronode conversation can happen first.  I was watching Michael Arington's Stanford Startup School presentation and I think a good point he made was that after your site gets to critical mass, the comments start to become trolly and the community loses its close connection. I can foresee this being a huge problem for FF as it grows.  Robert, maybe even if there was a way for the content producer to say "Do not allow friend of friend on this post." So, it becomes sorta like an on-demand private feed. You can still see it, but your like and your comment doesn't expose it to 15,000 other people. And of course, there'd be some visual indicator: could even use the lock icon like it does for full private feeds.  Mark: point taken...I suppose what I was getting at, although not articulating quite well now that I read it again is that I think the key for taking FF beyond us abnormal folks is to make it a one-stop-shop to remove the confusion of so many social interactivity services and feed readers, etc. I think FF has the capacity to do that with some tweaks.  I agree with you Robert Neville; I apologize, my response was directed towards Robert Scoble. There's a few assumptions that I think we take for granted that's lost on most people: 1) privacy is an illusion, 2) we're all interconnected, 3) we spend an acceptably large amount of time online. No matter how true those sound to us, for most people, there's a lot of pushback. Which is why, when Facebook goes crazy with the privacy restrictions, we go "what the hell" when the rest of the world goes "thank god." So I think anything that appeals to privacy, close networks, and saving a person's time online is going to go over hugely with mainstream people. I think to ignore one for the sake of another is the wrong way to approach it.  I think Kevin (and FF as a whole) is correct in realizing the value of fragmented conversations. The issue here is that super-connectors with 20K subscribers are bound to expose those fragmented conversations (that otherwise would go unnoticed by the masses, as intended) quite often - all they need to do is 'Like' whatever random item that shows up in their feed. Not only that - super-connectors also appear to be mega-likers, which contributes to the "problem". And of course, it doesn't help that new users are being presented with such super-connectors immediately upon sign-up - I don't think it's good in the long-run.  Best two lines in this conversation: "We're abnormal" [Mark Trapp] & "we need a feature that locks out superconnectors" [Robert Scoble]. The rest is just noise. :P  a more compelling UI would truly elevate FF...but then, that could be said about many Web apps  on the contrary, i would much rather have a service that is up and running all the time than a fancy prettified site that is virtually useless. the past few days, facebook has crashed my browser SO many times, the only time i go on is via phone. myspace? every since their overhaul i NEVER go there anymore  some of my favorite services are niche!  I actually like the FF interface in its current form. It's lightning fast ( damn facebook is getting irritatingly slower these days ) and its UI is simple much more Googlesque. It's quite unique that its social graph is not bi-directional (like many other social networks), and it gives me tons of useful links and is gradually becoming where i come for personalized information discovery. I agree it needs some UI improvements, for eg; one of my pet peeves is that i cannot restrictively post/comment so that only my friends or Fof can view my posts. That said I see FF going past facebook within a year :) and becoming the most useful social network out there.  Friendfeed will go mainstream when the applications that fuel it go mainstream (which might be a while). Whoever mentioned that people don't even get feed readers was right. Even among tech-savvy types (non-web), concepts like RSS and Social Bookmarking are still completely foreign.  *sigh* niche tools are so important both digitally and in meatspace - why does everything need to become mainstream to be viewed as a success - the majority of businesses and products in the world would be considered niche and in aggregate far out weight the aggregate of what would be considered mainstream - no disrespect to you steve for writing this post but anytime i see "this will never be mainstream" sentiments i can't help but think that its a myopic view  FF depends on a whole lot of users using open services like Twitter Flickr etc. I know no one outside of tech who uses them. Most people are locked into the privacy world view and wouldn't dream of openly sharing their stuff. FF is SV/tech niche only. Sadly.........  The well rounded website is the weakest specialist. Why try to be all things to all people with mediocre success?
Steve Hodson discusses why social media site FriendFeed might remain a niche service for the Web 2.0 community with less appeal for mainstream Web users.