I can't remember seeing a website redesign in my entire life that didn't make the site worse. Many sites have gone down the tubes due to redesigns while always blaming the failure on something else. Kudos for at least having the self-awareness to realize that your redesign didn't help.
To first order, there's (usually) only one site metric that really matters, and that's page load speed. Craigslist still thrives despite having no features and looking prehistoric, because it's so fast. Google.com homepage looks almost empty. Meanwhile the also-rans with busy pages (remember Yahoo leading the search space? Digg leading link aggregation?) are now near forgotten.
> Craigslist still thrives despite having no features and looking prehistoric, because it's so fast. Google.com homepage looks almost empty.
Craigslist and Google's site speed enhances their success, it isn't the cause of their success. Their content is what the user wants. Giving it to them fast is a huge bonus.
I don't want to see shit fast. I want to see good stuff fast. If I have to, I'll wait to see really good stuff.
> Meanwhile the also-rans with busy pages (remember Yahoo leading the search space? Digg leading link aggregation?) are now near forgotten.
Yet Amazon, with an incredibly busy page thrives. Because the content is what matters.
We're talking about the site design. The stuff actually in the site is a separate issue. Most redesigns afaict make the site slower, which is the wrong direction. The content presumably stays the same either way.
Case in point: plenty of HN readers click on the comment thread but not TFA. I believe that a lot of the time, that's due to dread of some godawful slow loading page contaminating their browser with tracking cooties and who knows what.
> Craigslist still thrives despite having no features and looking prehistoric, because it's so fast. Google.com homepage looks almost empty.
Yes, you were talking about site design and you were wrong.
Craigslist doesn’t thrive because it’s a fast site. It thrives because it has great content and is also fast. Craigslist with awful content would not thrive.
If you can give me super content medium fast, I'll take that over medium content super fast. It's really only at the extremes do things start to differ (ie shit content or snails pace slow & glitchy).
Of course, the ideal setup is super content super fast, which is why Craigslist is probably never going to do a major rebrand. They already have plenty of startups constantly nipping at their heels, so they may as well maintain the super fast advantage they have over them to cement their status. Their only real threat would be a super speedy, super pretty, site that somehow launches full of good content.
I think Facebook Marketplace is thriving but mainly because it inserts itself into people's other behavior, maybe not because people think it's the best platform for exchanging goods. In fact, it could really use some of the moderation features of Craigslist.
After much creative destruction, we're back to inserting classified ads next to the stuff people are reading to pass the time.
To first order, there's (usually) only one site metric that really matters, and that's page load speed. Craigslist still thrives despite having no features and looking prehistoric, because it's so fast. Google.com homepage looks almost empty. Meanwhile the also-rans with busy pages (remember Yahoo leading the search space? Digg leading link aggregation?) are now near forgotten.