I have to call bullshit on this...not that the numbers as reported are wrong, but that the correlation is a causation. There&#x27;s just no way that a single change from total nudity to very-sexy-poses is going to so drastically change and increase the audience (by 4x!) for a publishing website.<p>Think about it...how many people knew this change had actually occurred until we read it in the New York Times yesterday? Don&#x27;t you think that if the change from nudes to non-nudes had been so noticeable that guys would&#x27;ve been telling their friends&#x2F;bosses&#x2F;IT people -- <i>&quot;Hey guess what, no more nudity on Playboy.com...we can finally read it at work!&quot;</i><p>There must have been some other change, such as a change in editorial (publishing more things, or more junk, or publishing more of its great archive) or business (killing a paywall or obtrusive advertisements) that happened in this time period. Or maybe just a switch in how they measure analytics.