>Persuading someone to read an article which is irrelevant to them is likely a bad thing.
You're conflating content targeting with headline writing. Those are two separate points.
>Just because you don’t have a good metric for something doesn’t mean that what you can measure is better.
Certainly, if a metric is 'bad' in that it is not producing results, nobody wants to waste their time and keep using it. However, the engagement metric is producing results for many folks. Do you disagree with that?
>A metric can simply lead to bad results, and thefore be a bad metric.
Anything "can" lead to anything. That doesn't really make for much of a discussion without data to examine.
> You're conflating content targeting with headline writing. Those are two separate points.
No.
>Just because you don’t have a good metric for something doesn’t mean that what you can measure is better.
Certainly, if a metric is 'bad' in that it is not producing results, nobody wants to waste their time and keep using it. However, the engagement metric is producing results for many folks. Do you disagree with that?
This is meaningless to agree with or disagree with since the value of the results is what is in question.
>A metric can simply lead to bad results, and thefore be a bad metric.
> Anything "can" lead to anything. That doesn't really make for much of a discussion without data to examine.
>This is meaningless to agree with or disagree with since the value of the results is what is in question.
How are you judging the value of the results? I am not understanding your point here. Again, back to my original question, please propose alternate metrics, otherwise we're just arguing over minutia that misses the meat of the discussion.
I much rather steer the conversation towards solutions rather than engage over abstract "good" and "bad" terms which you don't seem to want to define. In any event, we have reached a point of disagreement, which is fine with me, so lets leave it at that. Have a nice day.
> I much rather steer the conversation towards solutions rather than engage over abstract "good" and "bad" terms which you don't seem to want to define.
That’s not really how it looked earlier in the thread.
You seemed to be strongly defending the idea that engagement is good, and not even accepting that there could be a problem.
You're conflating content targeting with headline writing. Those are two separate points.
>Just because you don’t have a good metric for something doesn’t mean that what you can measure is better.
Certainly, if a metric is 'bad' in that it is not producing results, nobody wants to waste their time and keep using it. However, the engagement metric is producing results for many folks. Do you disagree with that?
>A metric can simply lead to bad results, and thefore be a bad metric.
Anything "can" lead to anything. That doesn't really make for much of a discussion without data to examine.