Hacker News Reader

Just because Timeline shows fewer ads doesn't mean that net ad revenue doesn't come out ahead. Sponsored stories just need to make up for those 3 missing ads, which they almost surely will.

Optimizing for user engagement, when you make money off of ads, is optimizing for the bottom line by definition. To claim otherwise is disingenuous at best.

View on HN

> Optimizing for user engagement, when you make money off of ads, is optimizing for the bottom line by definition. To claim otherwise is disingenuous at best.

Well, optimizing for f(x) (revenue) is different than optimizing for g(x) (engagement), which is related to f(x), and claiming that we are objectively optimizing for f(x). Not sure if that makes sense, but you are right that it is to our long term interest to optimize for user engagement, not because it necessarily optimizes our revenue, but it optimizes our value for users.

That's not the same as optimizing for revenue directly, though, so calling that "disingenuous at best" is a little misguided.

I'll attest to this. When I worked for SourceForge.net we removed tons of ads only AFTER a/b testing showed that fewer more prominent (i.e., "engaging") ads increase click-thru and revenue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com