Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When a few hundred lines of javascript could equal $100 MM

garry.posterous.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 37 posts

Re: When a few hundred lines of javascript could equal $100 MM

#21

Post by henrikschroder »

rrreese wrote: post #2

I find expedia.com to be equally terrible in this regard. In fact I have found that most travel oriented websites suffer from extremely poor UX, be they hotels, airlines, bus or train services. I can understand the smaller hotels or bus companies, but there is no excuse for the larger players. The article is a bit presumptive in the cost, but it has to be affecting their bottom line.

I've been using hotels.com for many years now and they've actually gotten better and better during that time. Not as good as you might like, but still. :)

Re: When a few hundred lines of javascript could equal $100 MM

#22

Post by swombat »

cabalamat wrote: post #17
heretohelp wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty standard/common practice. When discussing certain quantities, including money, it's common to use MM such as $100MM. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_prefix#Similar_symbols_in_ab...

> Pretty standard/common practice. It's a common practise, but it's not a standard AFAIK. It's from latin mille which means 1000, so M=1000, and MM=1000000. Unfortunately there is also a much more widely used international standard where k=1000 and M=1000000, so the M/MM forms are to say the least, confusing, and ought to be scrapped.

On the other hand, I've never seen anyone use 10M to mean 10k, so there doesn't seem to be any actual confusion caused by this.

1000 = k

1000000 = either m or M or MM

Re: When a few hundred lines of javascript could equal $100 MM

#23

Post by rmc »

cabalamat wrote: post #17
heretohelp wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty standard/common practice. When discussing certain quantities, including money, it's common to use MM such as $100MM. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_prefix#Similar_symbols_in_ab...

> Pretty standard/common practice. It's a common practise, but it's not a standard AFAIK. It's from latin mille which means 1000, so M=1000, and MM=1000000. Unfortunately there is also a much more widely used international standard where k=1000 and M=1000000, so the M/MM forms are to say the least, confusing, and ought to be scrapped.

It's a common practise

That's the definition of a standard in the English language.

but it's not a standard AFAIK

There are no English Language standardisation bodies.

Re: When a few hundred lines of javascript could equal $100 MM

#24

Post by jackshepherd »

I work for an airline and recently redesigned the flight search. Saw 10% increase in movement to next stage of the funnel.

I still don't feel like I can say 'increased turnover by £70million' in good faith though.

There is a limited market out there. For a small business a 10% uplift in conversion really = 10% more revenue. The same isn't necessarily true for a blue chip.

Re: When a few hundred lines of javascript could equal $100 MM

#25

Post by anamax »

simmosn wrote: post #10

My main gripe about the vast majority of travel websites is the complete lack of an "anywhere" option in the destination field. Sometimes I have a week off work, a set amount of cash and don't necessarily care where I go. I just want to see all possibilities for destinations/flights etc. I think SkyScanner is the only site I've seen this option on.

> My main gripe about the vast majority of travel websites is the complete lack of an "anywhere" option in the destination field.

Next you'll be wanting "somewhere new" and "somewhere fun".

Re: When a few hundred lines of javascript could equal $100 MM

#26

Post by mwexler »

While I admit the form reset is annoying, I don't see where the author shows any evidence that this usage pattern happens enough to make a difference.

Sure, when N gets large, every little bit helps. But if that behavior pattern only happens rarely, then changing it is unlikely to make much impact.

For all we know, their testing might have shown that folks who are planning trips between 2 options (flight to Vegas, no hotel needed, vs. flight to LA, hotel needed) wanted the form to reset so they didn't have to keep swiping and typing over leftover text in the fields. The frequency of usage patterns, weighted by their value to the business, would be a useful guide.

I'm not saying that the recommended change is the right or wrong thing to do, but I am saying that some data would really help back up any claims over size of impact. Otherwise, it's a good finding ruined by a totally exaggerated headline.

Re: When a few hundred lines of javascript could equal $100 MM

#27

Post by joedev »

simmosn wrote: post #10

My main gripe about the vast majority of travel websites is the complete lack of an "anywhere" option in the destination field. Sometimes I have a week off work, a set amount of cash and don't necessarily care where I go. I just want to see all possibilities for destinations/flights etc. I think SkyScanner is the only site I've seen this option on.

http://www.google.com/flights

Select: departure airport, departure date, and return date (optionally price range). Do not choose a destination.

See: a map of destinations with price labels shown for major cities.

Set: the max price and see possible destinations fade away.

Click: on a destination dot on the map and instantly get details of available flights.

All without pressing a single "submit" button and without entering a single destination.

Re: When a few hundred lines of javascript could equal $100 MM

#28

Post by scarmig »

batista wrote: post #15
simmosn wrote: post #10

My main gripe about the vast majority of travel websites is the complete lack of an "anywhere" option in the destination field. Sometimes I have a week off work, a set amount of cash and don't necessarily care where I go. I just want to see all possibilities for destinations/flights etc. I think SkyScanner is the only site I've seen this option on.

My main gripe about the vast majority of travel websites is the complete lack of an "anywhere" option in the destination field. Sometimes I have a week off work, a set amount of cash and don't necessarily care where I go. A "first world problem" if I ever saw one...

Not to derail the thread, but I think the entire "first world problem" meme, though useful in that it reminds us of our relative privilege, isn't totally fair to either the people experiencing the problem or to the people solving it.

First world problems are still problems. And the existence of people experiencing much worse problems doesn't mean those first world problems are not worth solving. Indeed, virtually any problem could be considered not worth solving if you can identify anyone anywhere in the world in a worse off situation. Typing in a couple words and having a machine return documents automatically based on the input isn't a solution to a real problem, because people exist in East Palo Alto who are functionally illiterate. Finding a cure for Alzheimer's isn't a solution to a real problem, because a supermajority of people in Zimbabwe die decades before they might even get it. It's all a matter of degree.

And if you buy into market economics, it's not even clear that focusing on first world problems is a detriment to solving other problems. If the parent spends 10 minutes buying a plane ticket instead of 2 hours because of the implementation of an "everywhere" option, that creates a consumer surplus that could very well be worth a couple hundred dollars. Flyers can be routed to places on planes that are underutilized, reducing GHG emissions by a meaningful amount (which is incredibly valuable for residents of developing nations). Hundreds of thousands (millions? I don't know the market size) of person-hours could be saved. Some of that value inevitably would trickle down to people with graver problems.

Re: When a few hundred lines of javascript could equal $100 MM

#29

Post by simmosn »

anamax wrote: post #25
simmosn wrote: post #10

My main gripe about the vast majority of travel websites is the complete lack of an "anywhere" option in the destination field. Sometimes I have a week off work, a set amount of cash and don't necessarily care where I go. I just want to see all possibilities for destinations/flights etc. I think SkyScanner is the only site I've seen this option on.

> My main gripe about the vast majority of travel websites is the complete lack of an "anywhere" option in the destination field. Next you'll be wanting "somewhere new" and "somewhere fun".

"somewhere new" - sounds good, keep track of cities I've previously booked flights to and exclude these from my results

Re: When a few hundred lines of javascript could equal $100 MM

#30

Post by viscanti »

simmosn wrote: post #29
anamax wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My main gripe about the vast majority of travel websites is the complete lack of an "anywhere" option in the destination field. Next you'll be wanting "somewhere new" and "somewhere fun".

"somewhere new" - sounds good, keep track of cities I've previously booked flights to and exclude these from my results

"somewhere fun" sounds good too. It could keep track of your ratings of places you've been and recommend new places based on that.
Post reply on HN