Six Ways Twitter’s Direct Message System Could Be Radically Improved
If you're new here, you may want to check out the archives. You can also subscribe to my RSS feed, or follow me on Twitter. Thanks for visiting!
Twitter’s direct message (DM) system is, quite frankly, rubbish. An inbuilt messenger is a handy and convenient feature on any social network, but what we have on Twitter is so basic and limiting to be almost useless. Here are six ways in which it could easily be improved.
1. Direct Messages MUST Be Two-Way
As it stands, the direct message system on Twitter isn’t really fair – if I follow somebody this affords them the right to send me a direct message, which many do, certainly if they want to keep something private. However, unless they follow me back, I do not have the same luxury. I cannot reply to their DM. This is ridiculous for two reasons: one, it gives them an immediate advantage, and two, the only way for me to respond to their ‘private’ message is to make it public with an @reply.
I say: you should only be able to send a direct message to another user if you’re both following each other. Otherwise, you have to send a reply. This would encourage mutual following and cut down on unnecessary and one-way direct messaging. No mutual follow, no direct message. You’ll have to send me a reply instead.
2. Mass Marking/Deletion Of Direct Messages
Twitter needs to add a series of checkboxes next to each delete message so that you can quickly mark and delete any you want to remove and/or move somewhere else en masse (see ‘Folders’, below). There also needs to be a one-click ‘select/unselect all’ – as it is, I can remove all my direct messages using a service like DM Whacker, but that should be a basic feature on Twitter, surely?
3. Search
If you’re on Twitter long enough, pretty soon you’ll build up a lot of direct messages. Some of these will contain useful links and information – I stress the word some, as relatively it’s going to be very few. Right now, the only way to find that data is to scroll back through page after page of direct message, and hoping that CTRL+F and the right keyword will find what you want. A search feature built in to the DM system would make this a very simple process.
If this ran in real-time – i.e., the results changed/updated as you typed, like in TweetDeck – it could also operate as a really cool filter. For example, typing in “http” would quickly show all the DMs you have that contain links; entering a question mark would allow you to quickly respond to queries.
It would also be nice to be able to instantly pull up a list of all the DMs sent by one person.
4. Folders
I don’t think it’s too much to ask for some folder options in the direct message system. Even just one folder where you could save the DMs that you wish to keep would be very useful, as this would allow you to maintain a neat inbox. Something similar to the favourites feature already in Twitter work well – you simply star any message you wish to move to your folder. This would also allow you to mark messages you want to reply to later.
5. Spam
A spam folder would also be useful – using software similar to Askimet or that used by Gmail, Twitter could filter out the obvious spam DMs and move them to your spam folder, where you could peruse/delete at your leisure. After 30 days, all messages in the spam folder would auto-delete. I doubt Twitter monitors users who maintain a ‘clean’ account in the public side of the network but send a lot of spam out via direct messages. This would be one way to take care of this problem.
6. Failsafe Mechanism
We’ve all done it – you’re typing away at your very private direct message, you click the submit button, and then realise it’s a reply. Or worse, an open tweet to your entire network. Suddenly, everybody knows about your business deal – especially your competitors.
DMs could use a failsafe mechanism – something to let us know that what we’re typing is a certain kind of tweet. One way to get around this would be for the colour of your text to change when you’re doing different things on Twitter – for example, once you hit the ‘d’ key followed by the spacebar, Twitter realises you’re sending a direct message and makes the text of that tweet turn red, say. And when you start a text with @, indicating a reply, the text could be blue. The colours are irrelevant – it could be bold or inversed or whatever – but by changing the way the text looks your brain would say, “Hey, this is definitely a direct message…” and you’d move along quite happily. External clients that have one-click button access to DMs and replies could easily replicate this feature.
Conclusion
Lots of folk don’t like the idea of complicating Twitter and there is definitely some advantage in keeping the front-end relatively simple. However, there’s nothing to stop Twitter revamping the back-end of the network to provide a lot more functionality, and the direct message system is seriously in need of an overhaul. I’d like to see all of these features added.
What about you? What features would you like to add to direct messages?
Related posts:
- “I Wanted To Send You A Direct Message, But You’re Not Following Me…”
- Why Send A Dozen Direct Messages (Or Tweets) When One Email Will Do?
- Here’s A Radical Suggestion: If You DM Me, I Should Be Able To DM You
- Why Replies On Twitter Are Far More Damaging Than Direct Messages
- HOWTO: Delete All (Or Lots) Of Your Direct Messages On Twitter… Including The Ones You’ve Sent
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Loading ...
“I say: you should only be able to send a direct message to another user if you’re both following each other.”
I’m not sure I’d say that. I prefer to follow less people – if I get too many DMs, I get annoyed by the service.
Here’s my proposal, and this was a “feature” (bug) that they had in place last year. (When I requested it again, I was told that it’s not something they want to address.)
If someone is following me and I DM them (but I am not following them), I want my DM initiation to be a “window” where I can have an ongoing private conversation offline without this DM/@reply/DM/@reply conversation happening.
I have no problem with allowing people I do not follow to DM me back if and only if I DM them first. However, it shouldn’t happen for a long time. It should only happen for a short while — when we discuss whatever it is privately. Twitter should make a 24 hour window of open communication via DM from the first DM I sent to the other person.
It should be easy to do, right? I’m not sure why Twitter won’t enable it. If I’m DMing you, it’s BECAUSE I want that communication to be private!
Yeah, that could work. You don’t even need 24 hours (which for celebrities could be a disaster) – it could operate like the ’sales’ window on a website, and when you close it, the two-way nature of the conversation is over. This would mean a revamp of the system, but would have benefits.
That said, the etiquette of the one-way DM system would still be an issue, because only I, the privileged person being followed, could initiate that discourse. I could have 10,000 followers and follow nobody, and it’s a little too much like being Buddha on the mountaintop. Part of me still thinks if you want to discuss something privately, have the courtesy to follow each other. Or find another way to communicate (email, MSN etc).
You make a good point — etiquette comes into question. But keep in mind that if you choose to follow me and I don’t choose to follow you, you already are allowing me to DM you. It’s an implicit authorization for a DM. On the other hand, if I don’t follow you, it’s because I don’t want those DMs (unless I initiate).
The frustrating thing is that with apps like Seesmic Desktop and Tweetdeck, I *want* to follow more people. I just don’t want DMs from most of them. Right now, you kind of have to opt in for DMs if you follow people, which is also limiting.
It’s really hard to address this issue. Maybe the window for open private communication can be user-defined. Maybe you can turn off DMs from certain people you follow (but that totally ignores the etiquette concern). Maybe there should be more granular settings for DMs. Twitter’s staff knows that users want it, but they’re not delivering it.
Tamar Weinberg´s last blog ..Announcing the Newest Social Media Prince
Most people aren’t aware of how DMs work when they join Twitter and wouldn’t know that following a person opens them up to a private message; following that, the majority seem to act surprised when they can’t then reply back. From the perspective of both the newcomer and veteran the system is flawed.
As you say (and I suggested elsewhere in these comments), perhaps the user needs to be granted more control on an individual basis. Other networks offer this without issue. I wonder if the next step for Twitter is greater privacy controls on a micro-level (replies, DMs, mentions etc).
Another thoughtful and interesting article. I think much of what you mention here could (and perhaps should) be addressed at the client end, providing the API calls could be upped a little. Certainly the mass deletion, spam and failsafe options should be possible to add to a decent client program.
The one thing I’d like to see above all is direct messaging to be two way. I was recently DMed by someone who wanted to tell me they were unfollowing me. She was explaining her action in a reasonable way, but, because she then unfollowed me, I couldn’t send an acknowledgement, even to say “no worries”, unless I made the conversation public. It’s hardly the end of the world, but frustrating to be unable to reply in confidence.
Joe´s last blog ..Twub Quiz 30th June
I’ve had that happen a couple of times as well, Joe – I’ve ended up having to either contact them with an @ or ignore their message completely, neither of which is particularly appropriate in the circumstances. Again – it makes me wonder if the user needs full control over what they think is acceptable private message limitations, like on Facebook.
Thanks for another bang-on post, Shea.
I would love to see the threads of conversation between myself and the other person. Right now, if they respond, say, a day later, I have to go back to my sent message to remind myself the context.
Also, did you know that if the sender deletes a DM they sent, it gets deleted from the receiver, as well?
A few simple tweaks could make Twitter so much better. Steve Jobs, please buy Twitter and fix it!
@sherrynoik
Yep – being able to delete sent messages is something I don’t think I’ve seen in another other private communications portal. Of course, it does give you a little extra control over the things you’ve said, but beyond that doesn’t actually make a lick of sense.
How about if I delete DM’s from my inbox it doesn’t delete them from the sent box of the person who sent them?
When I clear out my sent email, my emails don’t disappear from my friends’ inboxes. But currently if I delete any DM – sent or received – it deletes that DM from the other person’s inbox or sent box as well.
Crazy.
Shannon´s last blog ..craftygirl7: @trivia Rodin
Yeah, this is a silly thing that Twitter have done that as you say makes absolutely no sense. It really exposes the limitations of the DM system and proposes that for it to be anything like what we would want it probably needs to be re-coded from scratch.
I disagree with the notion of requiring both users to follow each other in order to DM. I, like many, do not follow everybody who follows me, and frankly, I don’t want to be required to do so. However, since any user can DM any follower, then the recipient of a DM should be able to REPLY to any received DM regardless of whether the recipient follows the sender. I’m not suggesting that the recipient be able to create new DMs targeting the original sender, but they should be able to REPLY to those sent.
But, the way it is now, I strongly dislike it. I am annoyed by DMs sent that I cannot reply to, except on the public timeline.
DMs are really like an internal micro-email between two users. Why not allow them to be a little longer than the 140 character limit?
I like Tamara’s idea of an ongoing conversation window, however, that only works if both users are online at the same time. Twitter is to online chat, as handball is to juggling silk handkerchiefs.
This could work, and I agree that you shouldn’t *have* to follow everybody in order to have private conversations with them, but etiquette again is an issue here. I’m not sure if we can raise valid objections to following people with whom you *want* to have private conversations. It’s a simple courtesy. But the facility to reply to any sent DM from anybody would also seem courteous, so it’s one way this could work, at least in part.
Of course, other networks – Facebook, say – let anybody message anybody – unless the user has turned this feature off. Perhaps Twitter gives us too much protection from the start? Maybe the user should decide what’s acceptable to them: DMs from anybody; DMs from people in our network; DMs from a group we pre-select.