2 ms·
It is the inverse of what engagement is supposed to be measuring, but it turns out that optimizing for engagement takes you down a darker path...
by kevindamm 2y ago
It is the inverse of what engagement is supposed to be measuring, but it turns out that optimizing for engagement takes you down a darker path...
- dylan604 2y agoWhen I see a site that's clearly over enthusiastic about this stuff, I just close the tab. So their focus on keeping engagement with shenanigans actually shortens the engagement ending in a lost potential.
- dredmorbius 2y agoThat depends on what's being measured, most especially by way of survivor bias. If the only people whose time-on-site is measured are those who 1) don't blacklist the site, 2) don't disable JS, and 3) don't immediately leave and never return, then annoyances may well give apparent measurement of longer time-on-site as the remaining readership is curated to those who will tolerate (or have no alternative to) such bullshit. Web metrics are very poorly understood even now. YouTube's infamous experiment where latency improvements degraded apparent site performance ... because people with exceedingly marginal connections could now actually use the site if even very poorly. (I can't find that story though it's from ~10--15 years ago. Both my DDG-fu and FastGPT-fu (Kagi) are failing me. I'm pretty sure HN has discussed this at least once.)
- nicbou 2y agoMy policy is "if it doesn't improve upon Reader Mode, don't add it".