This but with one minor correction, the developers usually want to fix the experience. It's the management / project owners / etc that use the aforementioned analytics to make their judgement.
Perversely, I've also often observed that those who spend the most time judging a sites performance on its analytics are usually the ones who actually use the site the least. or at least this is what I've observed with past projects I've worked on.
> those who spend the most time judging a sites performance on its analytics are usually the ones who actually use the site the least
It's a weird part of human tribal/social dynamics. People who already generally like a thing are open-minded to new information that presents the thing in a positive light, and just generally ignore new information that presents the thing in a negative light. Likewise, people who already generally dislike a thing filter out the prosthelytizations of people who like the thing, but pay attention when they notice reasons to dislike the thing.
Basically, our brains' belief-evaluation machinery is really just a wrapper around a core "generate excuses to keep thinking what I'm thinking" algorithm.
We can exploit this—adversarial justice systems work much better than non-adversarial ones, because you've got two sides who each have paid attention to half the evidence, brought together in the same room to present it all. But if we aren't exploiting it, aren't even aware of it, it can become a real problem.
One further (possible) correction: a "discussion" was had in the past whether to fix this, dev wanted to fix and PM didn't, or vice versa - whoever is the most politically powerful wins, regardless of metrics impact (all relevant facts aren't reported to senior management so sanity could prevail).
Perversely, I've also often observed that those who spend the most time judging a sites performance on its analytics are usually the ones who actually use the site the least. or at least this is what I've observed with past projects I've worked on.