3 ms·

> Pinterest understands this well, creating a dynamic dialogue between its website and app worlds to improve the ‘stickiness’ of both. Stopped reading. Serious

by ethbro 9y ago

> Pinterest understands this well, creating a dynamic dialogue between its website and app worlds to improve the ‘stickiness’ of both. Stopped reading. Seriously, fuck Pinterest. Hit a random link here: https://www.pinterest.com/explore/wall-colors/ https://www.pinterest.com/explore/wall-colors/ Try and interact with the web version. Then tell me that's a UX we're lauding?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
LoonyBalloony 9y ago
I'm not a app making professional, but it is my understanding that web versions are deliberately sabotaged to coerce people into downloading the app. (so they can steal more data? Dunno)
- ethbro 9y ago
  That absolutely seems to be the case. Which is why I have such a problem with this article discussing the benefits of creating quality app and web experiences, then holding up one of the worst web-to-force-app-installs as a paragon of good design.
- shandor 9y ago
  This is so stupid. I mean, I don't need the apps, so any kind of coercion is pretty much doomed to fail. I don't usually need LinkedIn, and I definitely don't "need" Pinterest, ever. Making their websites suck more to encourage me to install some never-used app just means I use their whole product less, making it almost impossible that I'd ever get invested enough in it to install an app for it. Conversely, if their websites were awesome, it might make me use them more, which would only increase the likelihood of me wanting to go the extra mile to even install an app.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    I would guess that we see this because the folks with their hands on the levers aren't measuring failure: their metrics are all targeted at success (app conversions). So anything they do is calibrated to move that needle without awareness of (or caring) how many users they're losing. ... Or at least, that's the best explanation I can come up with for why some companies seem so deadset on shooting themselves in the foot.
dingaling 9y ago
And it's very frustrating that Google Images ranks Pinterest results so highly, usually in the first and second rows. What's the use of a search result when I can't actually click-through the result?

by ethbro 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

LoonyBalloony 9y ago

I'm not a app making professional, but it is my understanding that web versions are deliberately sabotaged to coerce people into downloading the app. (so they can steal more data? Dunno)

ethbro 9y ago
That absolutely seems to be the case. Which is why I have such a problem with this article discussing the benefits of creating quality app and web experiences, then holding up one of the worst web-to-force-app-installs as a paragon of good design.
shandor 9y ago
This is so stupid. I mean, I don't need the apps, so any kind of coercion is pretty much doomed to fail. I don't usually need LinkedIn, and I definitely don't "need" Pinterest, ever. Making their websites suck more to encourage me to install some never-used app just means I use their whole product less, making it almost impossible that I'd ever get invested enough in it to install an app for it. Conversely, if their websites were awesome, it might make me use them more, which would only increase the likelihood of me wanting to go the extra mile to even install an app.
- ethbro 9y ago
  I would guess that we see this because the folks with their hands on the levers aren't measuring failure: their metrics are all targeted at success (app conversions). So anything they do is calibrated to move that needle without awareness of (or caring) how many users they're losing. ... Or at least, that's the best explanation I can come up with for why some companies seem so deadset on shooting themselves in the foot.

dingaling 9y ago

And it's very frustrating that Google Images ranks Pinterest results so highly, usually in the first and second rows. What's the use of a search result when I can't actually click-through the result?