I don't know, that's like saying that the one way to measure quality of journalism is by number of clicks.

Good UX should help conversion rate, but so might dark patterns, obnoxious popups, lies, etc.

You can't measure the quality of journalism in any quantifiable way if not to some quantifiable output.

Otherwise, it just becomes an art discussion which can be amusing but hardly something you can build a business on.

I don't think you're talking about measuring UX. You're talking about quantifying the business value of UX.

No I am talking about not being able to measure UX unless you can quantify it. Otherwise it just becomes "what is art" discussion.

Yes but conversion isn't the only metric.

For a newspaper, you could also have whether users feel more informed, whether they are more informed, etc.

Conversion is exactly the metric there and btw have little to do with UX in this specific situation and everything to do with the quality of the content.

No it is not. You haven't provided supporting arguments, but I will anyway: you can sell newspapers with sensation and lies. Look at PCC vs Guardian on the Mark Duggan case.

> There is only one way to measure UX IMO and that is conversion

Are you just saying that outside of a sales funnel there's no way to measure UX? Like, on a day-to-day product usage basis it's not possible to measure my users' experience?

I am saying that the purpose of good UX is to lead to some sort of conversion whatever that might be. Whether that's buying, using, submitting etc doesn't matter but you can't measure something you don't put measurable metrics around.

I discuss UX all day long and have all sorts of discussion around various approaches, have principles and strong opinions on various UX related issues, but I would never claim it's a framework that can be used to judge the UX in itself unless I am willing to put it to the test of something externally and quantifiable.

That's a little overly simplistic. You can increase conversion rates at the expense of user experience, increasing churn and lowering long term LTV. Depending on the metrics you're measuring it can go completely unnoticed.

So when you sell UX to a client you would tell them to not worry about conversion because you give the user a better experience?

I am not against having personal opinions about what good UX is, but the idea that you can measure UX if you don't have measurable metrics is nothing but a marketing idea.

Its about tricking the user vs not tricking the user, and everything between. Churn can be as simple as a user aborting or clicking back right after they commit a certain action. If you don't measure confusion you'll fail to reduce it.

Which are all measured and via conversion metrics (I am talking about conversion in it's widest possible interpretation)

There's so many factors that come into play with conversion, though. And this will vary wildly between B2B, B2C, and enterprise.

I think marketers have invaded the UX space a little too hard. We should be thinking of more inventive metrics. Stuff that isn't generic content marketable acronyms for cheap blog thrills, but more deeply ingrained metrics that correlate with the problem you're solving.

Are you solving for conversions? Then sure, use conversions and call it a day.

Not sure what client would pay you to not solve for some sort of conversion.

There is no need to make that leap. You're just measuring conversions, period. And why not? If that's what's most important to you or your job.

The UX could be shitty, but if it converts, you're good. There are plenty of dark patterns that fall into this category, including clickbait article titles. Clicking a title just to find out you were baited is horrible UX. But everyone get's paid.