Comments on: Why conversion rate uplift percentages can be confusing

By: Our Bookmarks: Jul 20 - Jul 26, 2009

Our Bookmarks: Jul 20 - Jul 26, 2009 — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 10:17:11 +0000

[…] Why Conversion Rate Uplift Percentages Can Be Confusing by 90 percent of everything […]

By: Boot up: Google hits florist, HTC’s FTC charge, Samsung takes on disability … | Old Click

Mon, 25 Feb 2013 08:46:18 +0000

[…] 48%. They afterwards private a CAPTCHA, and it increased a acclimatisation rate adult to 64%. In conversion rate lingo, thats an uplift of 33.3%! They transposed a CAPTCHA with honeypot fields and timestamp analysis, […]

By: Quimp

Quimp — Mon, 09 May 2011 14:20:24 +0000

Youâ€d have a conversion rate of 1/1000 but a conversion ratio of 1:999. For 1 conversion, there were 999 non-converts. From ratio to %: 1:999 = 1/(999+1) = 1/1000 = 0.1% Otherwise you'd get 1:1000 = 1/1001 = 0.0999001% It doesn't make a big difference here but consider 200:800 = 1:4 = 20% vs 200:1000 = 1:5 = 16.7%, or 500:500 = 50% vs 500:1000 = 33%. That's enough to perceive a false statistical significance if one of the before-and-after numbers isn't calculated correctly. Just nitpicking; very solid article.

By: F**K CAPTCHA

F**K CAPTCHA — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:08:21 +0000

[…] of roughly 48%. They then removed the CAPTCHA, and it boosted the conversion rate up to 64%. In conversion rate lingo, that’s an uplift of 33.3%! They replaced the CAPTCHA with honeypot fields and timestamp […]

By: Kilka ciekawych artykuÅ‚Ã³w marketingu internetowego

Kilka ciekawych artykuÅ‚Ã³w marketingu internetowego — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 11:39:37 +0000

[…] konwersji moÅ¼e byÄ‡ mylÄ…cy? – przed wyciÄ…ganiem wnioskÃ³w z wyÅ¼szego wskaÅºnika konwersji warto sprawdziÄ‡, czy test strony docelowej speÅ‚nia wszystkie warunki prawidÅ‚owego […]

By: Harry Brignull

Harry Brignull — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:12:54 +0000

Carlo, you’re absolutely right – there was a typo in the example. I’ve edited the post!

By: Carlo Valbonesi

Carlo Valbonesi — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:51:54 +0000

Isn’t the increase = 100% instead of 200%?

Considering that you compare

Day 1: number of users = 1

and

Day 2: number of users = 2

The difference is = 1

and 1 is exactly the total number of user of day 1, i.e. 100% of day 1

On day 2 we have double the users buying, but the increase itself compared to day 1 is 100%.

Or am I suddenly dumb? :)

rgrds

Carlo

By: Harry Brignull

Harry Brignull — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:21:47 +0000

I think I might buy myself a copy of that, thanks! User Experience design – and web design in general these days – sits at the intersection of science and “craftsmanship”. Even if you’re trained in both, it’s easy to forget to wear both hats simultaneously.

By: Leif Kendall

Leif Kendall — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:12:12 +0000

I’m reading Bad Science by Ben Goldacre, in which the author demonstrates how the media like to manufacture health scares by using misleading stats. It’s frighteningly easy to manipulate numbers to give the desired impression.
And you’re right – it’s always worth looking behind the headline to see what the numbers really mean.

By: Harry Brignull

Harry Brignull — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:32:43 +0000

I forgot to mention - many thanks to James Page of FeraLabs and Andy Baker of Ixxy for reviewing the draft of this post!