There may be room for A/B testing the above-the-fold copy. As you remember, the thing that really got me using Readup was the promise of helping with my ADHD.
('tis funny, it was exactly the phrase 'designed for people with ADHD' that got me sucked in. Of course that's a really small demographic, so this is not a note on constricting the audience, but about personalizing it for everyone.)
In terms of the content hierarchy, it seems intuitively correct - consumers first, and journalists/or writers further down the bottom (demand needs volume, supply will follow).
I agree with what someone in the replies said about letting long-form user reviews live in a section of the website. A sort of 'case studies' section - will really help cement the perspectives and help communicate value with social proof.
Well done, Bill and Jeff, and I look forward to the (re)launch!
People who interact with me long enough understand I have an academic interest in porn (in the production, consumption but especially in the distribution - which is where Pornhub comes in).
There's something fundamentally curious about how something designed to be secretly consumed often applies some of the best techniques for its creation and its dispersal (if you're an engineer, you'll find articles about Pornhub's web optimization for video quite entertaining).
Pornhub's Instagram live is often wholesome, with porn stars coming online to speak about their lives, effectively humanizing them and endearing them to you. Then there's the end-of-year statistics where they tell you how the world consumed porn that year. Combine that with Pornhub's giving efforts and you're mostly in love with the brand.
This...this was very disturbing and horrifying. I am grateful it was published, and while it took me a few days to steel myself to read, I'm glad I read it. It has offered me a balanced and better view of this company, and of porn, and I am happy to see the light.
this article is secretly a commentary on bad actors.
there is benefit to 'installing' (via social recommendations) consideration for all cultures in all of humanity. it will allow us cooperate more and lower the interaction energy (and biases) that have kept us destructive for ages. the problem, of course, is that it's still humans at the helm, so at the end of the day, something that should ostensibly help us design a safe habituation for all of humanity has ended up becoming a viciously divisive tool. And it's all because of bad actors.
Bad actors will always exploit loopholes in a system's design to create negative outcomes.
In other words, I support the direction to introduce sensitivity to humanity (whether it be considered 'coddling'). It just needs methodical debugging, and this could go on for a pretty long time.
Something that struck me while reading this is how I've never considered Git to be 'difficult' until the author posed examples where complexity is hidden under simple language.
Many people - like myself - never realize how difficult it is because we mostly get by using a small list of commands daily. The first time I had to do a git rebase, I nearly lost it. Not even sure I can replicate that process.
Although written specifically about the tech industry, I find that this applies in a much broader work context.
I started this piece snorting derisively, commenting that anyone who takes on a job and strays from their job description without prior discussion with their superiors deserves whatever they get, but I'm a lot more sympathetic now, especially given human biases and inclinations.
Great advice all 'round, and the recommended attitudinal shifts - both for glue people, attitudes towards glue work, and managers - are worth implementing.