Dhruv’s approach
FRAMING Two users. The saver, who browses for ideas and keeps what they like. And the sender, who passes a pin to a friend. Pinterest runs on a loop: people save, boards get richer, recommendations improve, more people save. Shares also bring new users in, so this metric is engagement and acquisition at once. The tension in any redesign: a cleaner screen means fewer visible actions. Every control you hide to cut clutter costs some of the behaviour behind it. One clarification first. "Pin sharing" can mean saving a pin to your own board, or sending it to someone. Different flows, different causes. I would confirm which, and will assume sending. No solutions yet, as instructed. My output is a tested diagnosis.
- WHAT THE UPDATE COULD HAVE TOUCHED
- The share control moved, shrank, lost its label, or went into an overflow menu.
- The action bar went from always visible to appearing only on tap.
- A gesture disappeared, such as long-press to share.
- The share sheet was rearranged, shows fewer destinations, or gained a step.
- Actions moved below the fold on the pin page.
- Contrast dropped, so the icon blends into the image behind it.
- A login or permission prompt now sits in the path.
- The build is heavier, so the sheet is slow or fails on weak devices.
- The share event was renamed or stopped firing in the new build.
- VALIDATE THE NUMBER
- Count or rate? If sessions fell, share count falls with no change in behaviour. I want shares per pin viewed.
- Is the event still firing? Releases change tracking as often as they change UI. Compare client events against server-side receipts.
- Compare updated users against users still on the old build. A natural control group, and the fastest way to show whether the update caused this.
- Does the drop track the rollout curve, or was it already sloping before release?
- Did the definition change? Saves excluded, or multi-destination sends deduplicated.
- Check YoY, since sharing is seasonal around holidays and weddings.
- Split iOS and Android. They rarely update together, so a simultaneous drop is suspicious.
- WHERE IN THE FLOW IT BREAKS Shares = active users x pins viewed x share rate per pin x completion of the share flow. The flow: pin seen, pin opened, action bar seen, share tapped, destination chosen, sent. Three forks, each a different problem:
- Fewer pins viewed, share rate flat. An engagement problem, not a sharing problem.
- Views flat, share taps down. A discoverability problem. The control is harder to find.
- Taps flat, completions down. The sheet itself broke. Find the screen people abandon. Then segment: new against tenured users, app version, device tier, network speed, destination.
- HYPOTHESES, ranked by likelihood x impact / cost to check H1 The event stopped firing. Confirm: server-side sends flat while client events fall, drop tracks version adoption exactly. Kill: server side confirms the fall. H2 The control is buried. Confirm: action bar views flat, share taps down, overflow menu opens up. Kill: taps per action bar view unchanged. H3 An extra step was added. Confirm: taps flat, completion down, a clear abandon point on the new screen. Kill: completion flat. H4 Lower visual salience. Confirm: drop sits with new and casual users who relied on the label, tenured users flat. Kill: drop is uniform across tenure. H5 A gesture was removed. Confirm: the opposite pattern, concentrated in heavy users who used the shortcut. Kill: drop sits with new users. H6 Performance. Confirm: sheet load time and error rate up, worse on low-end devices and slow networks. Kill: latency flat. H7 Mix shift. Confirm: count flat, rate down, because the update pulled in more light users. Kill: count down too.
WHAT I WOULD HAND OVER An attribution, not a single cause: how much of the 15% is measurement, how much discoverability, how much flow friction. H1 and the old-build comparison run first, because both are cheap and either can close the investigation in a day.