Hey crew, welcome to bytenews.eu lab.
This week we’re cutting through the noise and focusing on what actually happens behind the scenes here at byte.
No buzzwords, just clear thinking.
Let’s dive in.
ProductThinking
Why I Removed Like/Dislike From My Product (And It Made It Better)
I added like and dislike buttons and then removed it, because it did not feel right for byte.
But why? Let me write how and why I took this decision
I think most products don’t have a feature problem.
They have a courage problem.
The default instinct of any builder is to add more, because the users want more.
When something doesn’t feel right, we add:
more buttons
more signals
more personalization
more control
That’s exactly what I did initially.
Having a preference indicator to a story seemed so obvious.
And it is rooted into a simple logic, users tell you what they like, show them that more. Everyone does it and so it made sense.
Did it work? Yes it did.
But thats the problem
The illusion of “better engagement”
People were tapping like and dislike.
The system was adapting and the feed was getting “personalized.”
On paper, everything looked right but the experience started drifting.
Result:
The feed became predictable
Certain topics started dominating
New perspectives disappeared
The product felt… narrower, restricted tbh
That was not my intention when I started building a reader experience. I have turned this into a reader bubble. It does not open your outlook any more, it confirms it.
Also technically this was adding overhead
Once I introduced feedback signals, I was being forced into:
preference storage
scoring systems
ranking logic
persistence across sessions
Now byte is no longer:
a feed
It becomes:
a constantly mutating model of the user
That’s a completely different product. Thats not byte
And it adds complexity everywhere
frontend logic
backend queries
data storage
edge cases
debugging nightmares
All for a signal that’s fundamentally noisy.
The mistake
Was in some underlying assumptions behind this signal.
Like/dislike assumes:
“Users know what they want.”
That might be true for other social or content sites. However that’s rarely true for news.
People don’t wake up thinking:
“Today I want 70% politics, 20% tech, 10% economy”
They want:
“Tell me what matters.”
Also understanding what the signal means is important. Is it really a signal of likeness, or just noise?
Because:
taps can be accidental
intent is unclear or assumed
context is missing ie what did you like, the topic, the content, the writing style?
behaviour ≠ preference
A “like” doesn’t mean:
“Show me more of this forever.”
It often means:
“This was interesting… right now.”
So I did something uncomfortable:
I removed it.
Completely.
What replaced it?
Two buttons:
Full Story
Share (I will change this to Share Story)
That’s it.
Why this works better
Because both actions are:
1. High intent
Clicking “Full Story” means:
“I care enough to go deeper.”
Sharing means:
“This is worth someone else’s time.”
2. Self-explanatory
No ambiguity.
No interpretation layer needed.
3. Aligned with product goals
Full Story → drives value to sources
Share → drives distribution
No vanity metrics.
This is what I feel from the improved result
The feed is better. Not because it became smarter. Because it became cleaner.
Also this required a mentality shift from me
Before I was thinking, “Let’s adapt the product to the user.” This appeases.
Now I think “Let’s make the product inherently useful.” This builds trust.
I am not a super technical person, but I think sometimes the best architecture decision is:
Delete the system.
Not refactor it.
Not optimize it.
Remove it entirely.
Reminder for me to KISS - Keep it simple, stupid!
Sometimes the best product decision is deletion.
If you want to experience the difference
Try Byte.
No likes. No dislikes.
Just news.
Until next week,
The Signal