4 ms·
The author says "is it worth it for 2% of people?" thus implying that 2% is a small number. Then later he says "it's 1% of people! that's a LOT of people!" T
by msandford 12y ago
The author says "is it worth it for 2% of people?" thus implying that 2% is a small number.
Then later he says "it's 1% of people! that's a LOT of people!"
The point is that 1-2% of people is either a LOT of people and worth caring about, or it's not. If so, keep the options and make it harder to break. If not, delete it all and don't worry about it. It's self-contradictory to do otherwise.
- wodenokoto 12y agoWhen a minor inconvenience hit 1%, I think it is fair to call it few, when I major breakage hit 1% of users I think it is fair to call that a lot.
- msandford 12y agoThe only way that makes sense to me is if you're talking about the magnitude of the problem rather than strictly speaking the number of people affected. 1% * 10% problem severity = 0.1% people-problem severity 1% * 50% problem severity = 0.5% people-problem severity If you do the math that way, sure. Here's the thing, though: you don't (nor does the author) get to say "it's a minor inconvenience" because you're not the person being inconvenienced! Only the people who want the functionality and won't have it anymore can tell you the magnitude of the problem. And the guy writing the article clearly didn't ask any of the people who use the feature either. When your revenue comes from people using your product so that you can collect advertising and search revenue, every percent counts. How much would the business side people be willing to spend to grow the user base 1%? Ask yourself that before you do something to alienate 1% of your users and then think "is there a way we can make this better without causing people to switch?"