[ianbicking]

I kind of like NPS: it doesn't try to make sophisticated distinctions, and distinguishes between enthusiasm and acceptable mediocrity. It's oriented towards growth because of that emphasis on enthusiasm. The very low end of the scale doesn't really matter, as many of the people who score the product very low have already stopped using the product, so grouping 0 responses with 5 responses seems reasonable to me.

But the NPS number is more a number for executives than people working directly on the product. NPS doesn't give UX people anywhere near enough information to do their job. None of these top-line numbers have enough information for that.

I found myself thinking about this: http://www.ianbicking.org/blog/2016/04/product-journal-data-... – there is a real dysfunction that the author is seeing, and is common. Top-down process design means that executives design the work process and give it to their managers, and managers design the process and give it to their reports, and you end up with processes that aren't designed to help individuals do their own jobs, instead everyone is supporting someone else's job. Executives make broad decisions: is this product succeeding? If we continue our current approach where will that take us? Are the teams performing well? Someone who is doing UX shouldn't be worried about these questions, they should be concerned about specific details, because those specific details are what a UX designer can change.