21–30 of 49 posts
It would be very cool if Optimizely could gather the A/B test results across all customers, run some statistical analysis, and publish which optimizations are significant. Sort of like an OKTrends for websites. That would be a great resource for initial usability and design decisions. After which, can be tweaked and further optimized by their product.
That "Enter Your website URL" field is really annoying. The easiest way to change the default " http://www.example.com to your website's URL would normally be to double click the "example" and type your address, leaving the boilerplate " http://www. and ".com" and such. But you can't do that due to the fancy javascript and everything. Have to type the whole thing yourself. If the field cleared when you gave it focus,…
It would be very cool if Optimizely could gather the A/B test results across all customers, run some statistical analysis, and publish which optimizations are significant. Sort of like an OKTrends for websites. That would be a great resource for initial usability and design decisions. After which, can be tweaked and further optimized by their product.
Great idea! We'll do this.
AJ already pointed out that they're not measuring "conversions" in the sense of converted to paying customers, but converting to "entering a url in a field"
The 29% increase is always misunderstood (by clients at least)
The original page had a conversion rate of 8.9%
The page they ended up with had a conversion rate of 11.5%
The change is that an additional 2.6% of customers are now entering their urls in a field and clicking a button.
Does anyone know of a central repository for all of these little landing page optimization tweaks? I know each site is different and just to test to know for certain but there should be some general decisions vetted that would make a good boilerplate.
I ran a 5 way split test for 9 days on my newsletter's signup page (JavaScript Weekly). My original page was the 2nd best performing but an identical page just without the subscriber count got a 8% higher conversion (or about 20% more signups in all) with a 90% confidence at the end of testing.
The worst performer? A signup page with no screenshot preview of the newsletter. Sent conversions from about 37% down to a mere 3% (!!) Lesson learned? Always have visuals or screenshots on pages where you're trying to get people to sign up for things they aren't sure about.
They increased the number of people submitting their URL, there is no telling if that actually resulted in higher leads for them. What I have found is a simple landing page, that tells the user exactly what you are providing, and is free of any confusion, works the best over the long term. I've run hundreds of thousands of website visitors through Google Website Optimizer in multi-variate tests and what I've found is…
> Looking at the small amount of users they sent to this landing page, I would call the results inconclusive The statistic say otherwise. A 29% bump with a 1% margin of error is not inconclusive; it's virtually the very definition of a conclusive result. > You can ramble off statistics to me all day long, but you can't change the fact that humans don't behave when the predictable that coin flips and physics do. And y…
They increased the number of people submitting their URL, there is no telling if that actually resulted in higher leads for them. What I have found is a simple landing page, that tells the user exactly what you are providing, and is free of any confusion, works the best over the long term. I've run hundreds of thousands of website visitors through Google Website Optimizer in multi-variate tests and what I've found is…
> Looking at the small amount of users they sent to this landing page, I would call the results inconclusive The statistic say otherwise. A 29% bump with a 1% margin of error is not inconclusive; it's virtually the very definition of a conclusive result. > You can ramble off statistics to me all day long, but you can't change the fact that humans don't behave when the predictable that coin flips and physics do. And y…
Well, no, it's a set of numbers with percentage signs after them. Perhaps the documentation for Optimizely specifies how their error margins etc. are derived, but nothing in the linked article does as far as I can see. Without knowing that underlying reasoning, all those pretty graphs and percentages are just a load of gobbledegook, apart from the original data points and the percentage increase figures derived directly from dividing them.
We've been using Optimizely more and more extensively (we have a slightly unusual use case for it), and it's been fantastic at successfully ratcheting up conversions. We use it in concert with mixpanel when we need to push people along a funnel. The tool's insanely easy to implement, a joy to use, and I get to rely on them to tell me when something is statistically meaningful.
That "Enter Your website URL" field is really annoying. The easiest way to change the default " http://www.example.com to your website's URL would normally be to double click the "example" and type your address, leaving the boilerplate " http://www. and ".com" and such. But you can't do that due to the fancy javascript and everything. Have to type the whole thing yourself. If the field cleared when you gave it focus,…
Sorry about that. The URL will fade out slightly when you focus on the textbox but I agree it is better to just clear it completely. We'll make that change.
Might be worth A/B testing it. :-p