bridal websites

Which one of those users is more valuable? Obviously, Facebook users are much more dedicated users than NYTimes.com users. Facebook is also getting less drive by users, and drive by users aren’t that valuable

You don’t really answer this question, nor justify the blog’s title. Ok, so Facebook users spend much more time at Facebook.com tha NYTimes’s users spend at NYTimes.com. So what?

You don’t explain why that should be the No. 1 goal, nor why FB users are more valuable. FB users don’t necessarily click around on more ads in their extra 5 hours, but they do necessarily use more server resources, so it’s conceivable (unlikely) that Facebook would be better off *financially* if users spent less time on their site and they instead pointed users to other sites, like Flickr or Vimeo, for examples, for photos and images.

One of the early praises for Google was exactly because it lowered engagement, even while increasing stickiness: You could bypass the search result page entirely by clicking “I feel lucky!”. Engagement’s obviously changed for Google, but I’d love to hear specific arguments for why engagement is better for newspaper sites beyond, engagement is good because it’s good.