I just watch this monthly, it helps

https://youtu.be/UFqz5xkgRbs

I watched through some of this. This all seems very wise and well-informed. However the answer given is to spend a lot of energy attempting to work the system in fairly subtle ways to get the outcome you want - that the organization will accept your well-intentioned contributions to their functioning and eventual profit. All it takes is one or two people in the right place that don't share the same goal or are just really not that good to turn that into an exercise in futility.

541 views, on an 8 years old video. How many of those are you responsible for? Anyway I put it on my watch later list, thanks!

I just watched this — pretty good talk, thanks for linking it.

Its SEO spam link building for academics

This is so incredibly wrong: Once you have put a page on the Web, you need to keep it there indefinitely

https://www.nngroup.com/articles/web-pages-must-live-forever...

We need a curated web, not a swamp of every web page that ever existed.

No its not. Its not about keeping a swamp of old crap.

Its about keeping the url to avoid dead links and 404's.

Redirecting an old url to a new one with updated informmation is perfectly fine.

Too flammable, and the wood twists too easily with the coastal humidity.

In Big Sur you can find prickly pears and sweet lemon trees at old homesteads.

In San Francisco of all places

Meanwhile, people with no scientific training are entrusted to run A/B tests and other web experiments.

Practically all web marketing experiments and analysis is invalid, and not replicable. But it pays the bills for everyone to pretend its legitimate.

I've worked at several startups now where the people in charge of A/B testing couldn't design a single A/B test that returned statistically significant results out of dozens of attempts each. Not. A. Single. One. Even the so called experts. And that's using their own calculations, which were already poorly designed attempts at p hacking.

The worst part is that some of the tests were still used to justify decisions to and by management. SMH

Is that the fault of the experiment? Or was it a weak manipulation and no-result was correct (e.g., changing the purchase button to a slightly different shade of green and expecting a higher conversion rate)?

> Is that the fault of the experiment?

No. It's the fault of middle management.

If you are unable to provide your manager reasons for new development, he's going to find someone else to do your job, someone who will give him a report with charts and numbers that he can use to justify and expand his teams operational and headcount budget.

Giving a manager a report that says "there are little to no modifications that we can make at this time to improve UX" is a CLM for him.

IMO, this is still a failure to understand split testing. It is not to discover if changing a button color matters, but to explore the universe of all possible treatments and how they impact your most important business metrics.

It’s a global optimization problem, not a scientific way to understand how a specific change impacts users. Testers that have this mindset tend to be locally constrained and less likely to have bigger wins.

A no difference result in a well designed study is very valuable and can be used to justify decisions. It doesn't matter if we A or B so choose based on cost or the CEOs favorite color or a coin flip.

Hope the band can stay together! http://zendeskalternative.com/

If your support staff got used to Zendesk, the alternative is massive turnover and training a new workforce

This is genius wow

Blocking Drift Chatbots (those annoying things that change Title in browser windows, make noise, obstruct page content)