3 ms·
Lifehacker's numbers are conspicuously absent. I've read through other sources that their pageviews took at a bit of a hit but remained relatively steady. I gue
by patrickk 16y ago
Lifehacker's numbers are conspicuously absent. I've read through other sources that their pageviews took at a bit of a hit but remained relatively steady. I guess that piece of information didn't fit nicely with the story.
http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/17/gawker-redesign/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/17/gawker-redesign/
EDIT: link
- eli 16y agohttp://lifehacker.com/stats-month http://lifehacker.com/stats-month shows lifehacker pageview declining pretty significantly this year and a dramatic decline in "new visitors." (Somewhat fittingly, the buttons on the stats pages don't work quite right for me)
- patrickk 16y agoI stand corrected. Not sure what TC were referring to, their graph ranges from mid-January to mid-February and the trend should have been noticeable by then.
- TillE 16y agoI said at the time that the redesign would hurt Gawker, especially when they responded to the backlash with "well, everybody complains when Facebook changes" - not realizing the power of Facebook's social stickiness. But that's quite shocking even to me. Their own stats show visitors cut to a third of what they were in January. I guess UI matters, huh?