I will have to follow up with all the different branches, as I can imagine there are many more learnings hidden in them, as you say :). Added it to the ideas backlog.
Great feedback on the numbers looking fake. I always had the same impression, so it's really nice to read that from somebody like you. The only thing I started to do is shorten the really big numbers to "289K" because "289,145" might look more accurate, but is also a lot more to process for the user. But also not sure what the best way is.
I think there's a balance because, with those exact numbers, as you say, it costs more to process, and ideally you are updating them. I like what you say about shortening those bigger numbers, I do think that is a good solution and still looks more real. You can also say 289K+ so you don't need to update it too often.
Super interesting funnel (and branches when you go deep)
I will have to follow up with all the different branches, as I can imagine there are many more learnings hidden in them, as you say :). Added it to the ideas backlog.
Great feedback on the numbers looking fake. I always had the same impression, so it's really nice to read that from somebody like you. The only thing I started to do is shorten the really big numbers to "289K" because "289,145" might look more accurate, but is also a lot more to process for the user. But also not sure what the best way is.
I think there's a balance because, with those exact numbers, as you say, it costs more to process, and ideally you are updating them. I like what you say about shortening those bigger numbers, I do think that is a good solution and still looks more real. You can also say 289K+ so you don't need to update it too often.