Aren't these all vanity metrics? [1] Features are swell, and registered users are nice, in that it indicates somebody was at least curious. But how many of those 1,627,557 registered users are, say, active at least once a week for the last 3 months? What's the NPS of Mastodon users after 7, 30, and 90 days?
I'd love to see them succeed. But I think it's dangerous for programmers to focus on building a thing rather than serving their users.
> I think it's dangerous for programmers to focus on building a thing rather than serving their users.
It seems Mastodon is an example of programmers actually building something with real ambitions rather than just trying to make big money by trying to form an addiction for their users.
Sure, and that influences the choice of metrics. I think chasing things like user active minutes (UAM) can lead to pathological development. But for a social product, "real ambitions" must include people a) using it, and b) being happy they are using it. But my point is that features and signups can't be ends in themselves, as those are not real ambitions.
I understand what you're saying. The only counter point I'd put forward is it's purposefully playing to the ego mind for attention - arguably deserved or otherwise - to draw more people to trying it out. Likewise, you have to start somewhere. Hopefully over time they can start measuring and reporting on metrics with more meaning to them, which will require them also explaining that meaning to educate people - which will give us all an understanding as to what their understanding is. I still don't feel I understand the ecosystem well enough to say if I like it or not, I do like observing different models though to see how and if they work, what problems they solve or don't - so I am enjoying Mastodon seemingly gaining traction; it at minimum leads to discussion on HN.
Sure. Vanity metrics can be great for marketing or generating reasons to celebrate. There's nothing wrong with saying, "Wow, we have a million registered users!" as long as they also recognize that registration is only the first step. In a retrospective like this, I want to see them doing both.
>But I think it's dangerous for programmers to focus on building a thing rather than serving their users.
Dangerous for whom?
Mastodon isn't a product, it's an open source project. More active users is nice, but isn't fundamental to the project; it will continue as long as there are people interested in working on it.
Your theory here seems to be that usage isn't the point, that people writing code is all that matters.
I think that's a fair measure for a repository of code golf examples, or something where it's just a bunch of people scratching their own itches. But Mastodon is an inherently social product. I don't believe it has any meaning without usage. And clearly, the Mastodon people know that, which is why they talk about the number of registered users.
But the danger with vanity metrics is that a lot of effort can get wasted. That wasted effort can snowball. If a product has a lot of features that nobody uses, it can make future additions and product evolution harder. That can also discourage adoption. And I think the additional danger for Mastodon is that as the most prominent of the open-source social network alternatives, its success or failure will be seen as the success or failure of alternatives to Twitter, etc.
Sure, at a certain point it doesn't mean anything without usage. But I'd argue Mastodon passed that threshold a long time ago. There's a decent community around it at this point, and people seem to enjoy it.
>But the danger with vanity metrics is that a lot of effort can get wasted.
What makes someone's effort "wasted"? IMO, if the developers enjoy working on it, their effort wasn't wasted. Not every project (even if it's a social network!) needs to appeal to everyone in the world, not everyone needs to be out for world domination, and that's okay.
If the developers enjoy working on it and they have consciously chosen that as their only intent then the effort isn't wasted. But I don't think the Mastodon developers see the purpose of their software as some sort of technical onanism.
If you look at their web site, it's clear their goal is "social networking, back in your hands". Vanity metrics lead to wasted effort relative to goals like that.
I'd love to see them succeed. But I think it's dangerous for programmers to focus on building a thing rather than serving their users.
[1] This isn't a slam; it's a technical term from Eric Ries: http://www.startuplessonslearned.com/2009/12/why-vanity-metr...