3 ms·

"Priority Inbox users spend 15 percent less time reading email than Gmail users who don’t have it turned on." This could of course be because priority inbox wo

by mixmax 16y ago

"Priority Inbox users spend 15 percent less time reading email than Gmail users who don’t have it turned on." This could of course be because priority inbox works. It could also be because users that have priority inbox turned on are correlated with users that spend less time reading emails. Or it could be that they never see non-important mails. Or it could be something else entirely. It's hard to draw bulletproof conclusions form statistics, but easy to use them in marketing.

ashleyw 16y ago
15% sounds perfectly reasonable to me. You've got to remember, while you may manage your inbox well (through being wary of who you give your email to and utilising email filters), not everyone does. A lot of people simply give their email to anyone who asks for it, whether it's a family member or a company offering them a 25p-off coupon. Now imagine if that type of person turned on Priority Inbox, and all their personal emails from family and friends instantly popped up to the top, they're quickly going to stop scanning the bottom "Everything else" section as well as they used to, aren't they. I know I did, I only check those email once or twice a day now.
- lsd5you 16y ago
  The issue is not whether the claim is plausible or not, but that in fact it is virtually impossible to verify. We know that statistics like this are not true on aggregate, otherwise we would be many times happier, more productive and more intelligent than a generation ago.
  - edanm 16y ago
    "otherwise we would be many times happier, more productive and more intelligent than a generation ago." Aren't we? I'd argue we're at the very least more productive.
crocowhile 16y ago
I suppose the comparison is between me and last year's myself, when priority inbox was not turn on. At least I hope so, otherwise it's obviously as you said. I do have priority inbox on but for me it makes no difference whatsoever because I work with an "inbox zero policy" anyway.

by mixmax 16y ago

ashleyw 16y ago

15% sounds perfectly reasonable to me. You've got to remember, while you may manage your inbox well (through being wary of who you give your email to and utilising email filters), not everyone does. A lot of people simply give their email to anyone who asks for it, whether it's a family member or a company offering them a 25p-off coupon. Now imagine if that type of person turned on Priority Inbox, and all their personal emails from family and friends instantly popped up to the top, they're quickly going to stop scanning the bottom "Everything else" section as well as they used to, aren't they. I know I did, I only check those email once or twice a day now.

lsd5you 16y ago
The issue is not whether the claim is plausible or not, but that in fact it is virtually impossible to verify. We know that statistics like this are not true on aggregate, otherwise we would be many times happier, more productive and more intelligent than a generation ago.
- edanm 16y ago
  "otherwise we would be many times happier, more productive and more intelligent than a generation ago." Aren't we? I'd argue we're at the very least more productive.

crocowhile 16y ago

I suppose the comparison is between me and last year's myself, when priority inbox was not turn on. At least I hope so, otherwise it's obviously as you said. I do have priority inbox on but for me it makes no difference whatsoever because I work with an "inbox zero policy" anyway.