|
|
|
|
|
by toss1
1508 days ago
|
|
Excellent approach - I hope it is part of a trend. I also wonder if after decades of VCs pumping trillions of dollars into apps and platforms seeking shallow 'engagement' user metrics, and at least the vanguard of the population starting to get sick of it, and it becoming a zero-sum-game, the landscape has fundamentally changed. E.g., iirc Google originally used the metric of short user time on their site to indicate success - the users who quickly found a useful result would navigate away from Google sooner. They grew rapidly with this approach because people found G actually useful, not engaging, and came back. I wonder (hope) if development & funding will more focus on abandoning superficial 'engagement' metrics in favor of actual utility metrics - such as briefer and repeated usage vs your competitors' products. |
|
A user bouncing off a website immediately shows that it's probably a bad choice for them, but unfortunately not bouncing off it sometimes means that the website is gaming the metrics by wasting people's time through whatever means.
In particular there are websites that are automatically generated in a way so you don't figure that out immediately. They look like they might answer your question, but under closer inspection it's nonsense.
Videos that look like they might answer your question are another example of a time-waster.
In a way, websites where you can see immediately that it's not what you're looking for are better than the ones where it's unclear. Best would be actually finding an answer. That can't be judged by screen time, though.