5 ms·

it’s 10-15%. if you moderate a sub you see where people come from

user_7832 5y ago
Honestly that is an order of magnitude higher than I expected. Is this statistic for a tech-focused sub if I may ask?
ZephyrBlu 5y ago
That's a lot lower than I expected. I can't stand the new UI. I guess most traffic is from people without accounts though.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  One of the most important lessons about mass-use computer tools is that overwhelmingly people use defaults. I first realised this back in the 1990s when shitty default monitor resolution and refresh rate would literally inflict pain (headaches and eyestrain). MS Windows 95 / 98 shipped with a default of 800x600@60Hz. This was on CRTs, many viewed under office flourescent lighting, which gave rise to a bloody awful flicker that people mistakenly attemtped to correct with "glare screens" and other useless crud. The solution was simply to crank up refresh rate slightly. Bumping up resolution also gave more useful area and clearer, easier-to-read fonts. (This was also before Cleartype / sub-pixel rendering.) And yet something like 90-95% of systems monitored ... somehow (possibly an early Web tool) revealed 800x600, and I believe 60 Hz refresh. This on systems which could easily be bumped to 1024x768 or better. And this was literally a click away off the desktop. Lesson Younger Me learned: users won't change any default. So: - Pick really good defaults. Autoconfigure for best experience if possible. - If you want to cram things down users' throats, you can just change the default experience, especially on a SAAS app.
  - acid__ 5y ago
    Yeah, 10-15% of users opting out of anything is incredibly high.
  - mr_toad 5y ago
    > This on systems which could easily be bumped to 1024x768 or better. Well, on a 14 inch CRT with no DPI scaling it’s debatable whether a higher resolution was ‘better’.
    - dredmorbius 5y ago
      On Windows, system fonts could be scaled. Even set independently for different screen elements. https://web.archive.org/web/20130321082317/http://www.bbc.co.uk/accessibility/archive/win/language/text/os/win98_style.shtml https://web.archive.org/web/20130321082317/http://www.bbc.co... Font selection dialogue: https://www.bbc.co.uk/staticarchive/0c3b043fb25425d17444ff8e99bc711131b25cdc.jpg https://www.bbc.co.uk/staticarchive/0c3b043fb25425d17444ff8e... https://neurologicexam.med.utah.edu/adult/cases/windows_display_font_size/html/windows_display_fonts.html https://neurologicexam.med.utah.edu/adult/cases/windows_disp... The effect would still be finer resolution AND readable fonts. Less eyestrain. Unlike, say, on present-generation MacOS, which does effectively limit upper-end display resolution.
  - ggreer 5y ago
    I agree with your general point, but the specific example isn't as egregious as you make it out to be. In the mid-90s, protocols for determining supported monitor resolutions were just coming out. The first widely-adopted protocol was DDC2, which wasn't standardized until mid-1996. Had Windows 95 or 98 defaulted to 1024x768@72Hz, a significant fraction of users would upgrade and find their display didn't work. To get a usable system, they'd have to figure out how to boot into safe mode and manually tweak the display settings.
    - dredmorbius 5y ago
      I'm pretty sure this was 1999--2000 or thereabouts. It's possible that standards were still too rough, but the statistic left a strong impression on me. I believe the general concept is validated elsewhere as well --- I'm pretty sure Jacob Nielsen has a similar finding.
- Brybry 5y ago
  If it's only showing old.reddit.com traffic then it might not reflect everyone who is using the old UI. You can have the old UI with the base site given the correct settings/cookies.
  - ZephyrBlu 5y ago
    That's how I browse, but I think you need to have an account to be able to set the old theme. I was assuming that scenario was included in old.reddit.com traffic. If it's not, then 10-15% of traffic hitting the old.reddit.com domain seems really high.
- tayo42 5y ago
  Or the app. They push it hard. Or apps on general? I still use rif
PenguinCoder 5y ago
All of the moderators I know of, use old.reddit and Mod toolbox. Not the slow as hell redesign.
- bobsil1 5y ago
  Redesign also loses your place when you tap back. Unusable.
  - Gareth321 5y ago
    This is a feature, not a bug. Can't have you choosing which content you'd like to see.
SquareWheel 5y ago
It varies greatly by sub. For desktop users, I see closer to 45% using old reddit.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Honestly that is an order of magnitude higher than I expected. Is this statistic for a tech-focused sub if I may ask?

That's a lot lower than I expected. I can't stand the new UI. I guess most traffic is from people without accounts though.

dredmorbius 5y ago
One of the most important lessons about mass-use computer tools is that overwhelmingly people use defaults. I first realised this back in the 1990s when shitty default monitor resolution and refresh rate would literally inflict pain (headaches and eyestrain). MS Windows 95 / 98 shipped with a default of 800x600@60Hz. This was on CRTs, many viewed under office flourescent lighting, which gave rise to a bloody awful flicker that people mistakenly attemtped to correct with "glare screens" and other useless crud. The solution was simply to crank up refresh rate slightly. Bumping up resolution also gave more useful area and clearer, easier-to-read fonts. (This was also before Cleartype / sub-pixel rendering.) And yet something like 90-95% of systems monitored ... somehow (possibly an early Web tool) revealed 800x600, and I believe 60 Hz refresh. This on systems which could easily be bumped to 1024x768 or better. And this was literally a click away off the desktop. Lesson Younger Me learned: users won't change any default. So: - Pick really good defaults. Autoconfigure for best experience if possible. - If you want to cram things down users' throats, you can just change the default experience, especially on a SAAS app.
- acid__ 5y ago
  Yeah, 10-15% of users opting out of anything is incredibly high.
- mr_toad 5y ago
  > This on systems which could easily be bumped to 1024x768 or better. Well, on a 14 inch CRT with no DPI scaling it’s debatable whether a higher resolution was ‘better’.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    On Windows, system fonts could be scaled. Even set independently for different screen elements. https://web.archive.org/web/20130321082317/http://www.bbc.co.uk/accessibility/archive/win/language/text/os/win98_style.shtml https://web.archive.org/web/20130321082317/http://www.bbc.co... Font selection dialogue: https://www.bbc.co.uk/staticarchive/0c3b043fb25425d17444ff8e99bc711131b25cdc.jpg https://www.bbc.co.uk/staticarchive/0c3b043fb25425d17444ff8e... https://neurologicexam.med.utah.edu/adult/cases/windows_display_font_size/html/windows_display_fonts.html https://neurologicexam.med.utah.edu/adult/cases/windows_disp... The effect would still be finer resolution AND readable fonts. Less eyestrain. Unlike, say, on present-generation MacOS, which does effectively limit upper-end display resolution.
- ggreer 5y ago
  I agree with your general point, but the specific example isn't as egregious as you make it out to be. In the mid-90s, protocols for determining supported monitor resolutions were just coming out. The first widely-adopted protocol was DDC2, which wasn't standardized until mid-1996. Had Windows 95 or 98 defaulted to 1024x768@72Hz, a significant fraction of users would upgrade and find their display didn't work. To get a usable system, they'd have to figure out how to boot into safe mode and manually tweak the display settings.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    I'm pretty sure this was 1999--2000 or thereabouts. It's possible that standards were still too rough, but the statistic left a strong impression on me. I believe the general concept is validated elsewhere as well --- I'm pretty sure Jacob Nielsen has a similar finding.
Brybry 5y ago
If it's only showing old.reddit.com traffic then it might not reflect everyone who is using the old UI. You can have the old UI with the base site given the correct settings/cookies.
- ZephyrBlu 5y ago
  That's how I browse, but I think you need to have an account to be able to set the old theme. I was assuming that scenario was included in old.reddit.com traffic. If it's not, then 10-15% of traffic hitting the old.reddit.com domain seems really high.
tayo42 5y ago
Or the app. They push it hard. Or apps on general? I still use rif

PenguinCoder 5y ago

All of the moderators I know of, use old.reddit and Mod toolbox. Not the slow as hell redesign.

bobsil1 5y ago
Redesign also loses your place when you tap back. Unusable.
- Gareth321 5y ago
  This is a feature, not a bug. Can't have you choosing which content you'd like to see.

SquareWheel 5y ago

It varies greatly by sub. For desktop users, I see closer to 45% using old reddit.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]