I think the main explanation for the disparity in numerosity between (a) Eastern Rite Catholics and (b) Western Rite Orthodox, is that the latter came into being without violence or bloodshed, with the application neither of military force nor of trickery and deception.
I appeal to those who have repeated the polemical term "liturgical archaeology" and/or its grammatical permutations, to reconsider doing this. Unfortunately for the spirit or potential spirit of unity between Orthodox of various rites and usages, this term is profoundly pejorative, basically an "N" word used against some Orthodox by other Orthodox, who should be as brethren. It is also an inaccurate concept, but I'll come to that in a bit.
To oversimplify, the "L.A." term has been used to marginalize older usages approved within the Orthodox Church. But what is happening in an Orthodox parish of today, regardless of how old or new it may be, is not liturgical archaeology (a fine field of study for those so inclined). It is contemporary Orthodox Christian worship. The worshippers in the house of God need not know or care whether a prayer was written or placed liturgically by an Orthodox Saint 1200 years ago or by a Protestant reformer 500 years ago. The prayer is a prayer, and its purpose is to lead the human spirit from earthly things to the knowledge of God Most High, for worship and repentance and salvation, not to form part of some SCA* reenactment.
I'm a Russian Orthodox priest. Some monasteries in Russia have decided to sing not the SATB melodies of the Russian Church standardized in the 19th century, but to reach back and learn some of the original ancient chants of the Russian tradition. Is it fair to call this "liturgical archaeology," as if it were not a real contemporary movement to utilize more of the past resources than what was common in the 20th century? Are they "playing church" with re-enactments, trying to pretend they live in a 14th century village of Muscovy? No, that would be an unjustly cruel accusation.
I notice that in vestments of many bishops and patriarchs, one sees less and less the ornate brocades which were the "canon" for most of the 19th and 20th centuries, and a conscious return to some of the styles from 1000 years ago, with the cross-on-cross desgins, simpler styles from the past. Are our hierarchs, then, engaging in "archaeology," or are they simply utilizing and recognizing what is useful and beautiful from the past?
But wait, there's more! The term is also inaccurately applied, because all those using this little verbal weapon against brethren, themselves have no qualms about restoring certain aspects of the Western Rite from the past. They accept and use the styles of vestments which had completely vanished from the Western Church. Or they use Gregorian chant, another conscious return "ad fontes," to older traditions. If there is such a thing as liturgical archaeology, then it's a fact that absolutely everyone has engaged in it to one degree or another, or benefited from those who did so.
The only question really facing Western Rite Orthodox is not whether to draw upon the riches of an ancient tradition, but to what extent. And surely that is a question that can be pastorally addressed by our people and clergy and hierarchs in a way which is respectful of others.
* Society of Creative Anachronism. I had a friend in high school who participated in their activities, which mainly consisted of trying to reproduce or re-create, re-enact, cultural, sport, and quasi-military events from out of the Middle Ages or related bygone times. You would put on your helmet and swing your sword at another "knight" in the city park. Followed by a banquet with a bard and some mead. That sort of thing.