The post is confusing and buries the lead (which is surprising coming from an editor), but I think what he is trying to say --despite the linkbaity title-- is p

The post is confusing and buries the lead (which is surprising coming from an editor), but I think what he is trying to say --despite the linkbaity title-- is precisely the opposite: that the homepage is not dead in the panicky sense of the general reaction to the leaked NYT report. Instead he seems to put forth a more nuanced claim about declining readership as a proportion of total viewer referrals, while explicitly acknowledging the legitimate editorial and branding role of the home page. I had to read until the very end though, so it's easy to miss. Here are the key excerpts: "I don't think that New York Times graph says what everybody thinks it says. (...) What we've been saying for years is that homepage traffic is going down as a proportion of your overall traffic. We started in a world where people navigated to a homepage (...) and then clicked links and found stories. Then we moved to an SEO-driven world where traffic started coming through the side-door via search. Now (...) Facebook and Twitter is a massive traffic driver. All these developments should have been pushing down the proportion of your users who ever visit the homepage. (...) You should be treating every article on your news site as a homepage. And homepages are still important as a brand statement –-you are visiting our site and this is what we have decided is important today. There's definitely still a place for that. Sadly it seems to me, it looks like this leaked graph is going to be taken for evidence that 'the homepage is dead' –-but for all the wrong reasons."