<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Google Website Optimizer Case Study: Daily Burn, 20%+ Improvement</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2009/08/12/google-website-optimizer-case-study/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2009/08/12/google-website-optimizer-case-study/</link>
	<description>Tim Ferriss's 4-Hour Workweek and Lifestyle Design Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:39:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff</title>
		<link>http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2009/08/12/google-website-optimizer-case-study/comment-page-1/#comment-119276</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Jan 2012 20:28:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/?p=2078#comment-119276</guid>
		<description>Great post. 

Although, two quick points.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Website Optimizer is using Z-scores not Chi Squares? Personally, I prefer Confidence Intervals because it is easier to explain to people and for people who don&#039;t know statistics to see what is going on. Of course, it is three ways to do the same thing--find statistically significant differences. Although, like you showed in your own Chi Square, if it is anything but 2X2, you have to do another step to find which comparison is statistically significant. So, it isn&#039;t always the most efficient way to get results.

The second point has to do with your comment regarding sample size and significance. I see this all the time with people talking about A/B testing and multivariate testing. While it is true that adding more samples will provide significance, it kind of defeats the purpose. Sure, if you only had a couple hundred samples, then sure, adding more people would be beneficial. But at a certain point, adding more participates simply waters down the results. Adding 21,000 respondents is just crazy. The p-value still tells you something if the result isn&#039;t significant. Mainly, that the signal-noise ratio is weak. No result is still a result, i.e., you can&#039;t reject the null hypothesis. Most likely, once you hit about 1,500 samples, you&#039;ve pretty much reached a point of diminishing returns. Adding 7,000 more samples for each variation simply gives the illusion of significance when none really exists.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great post. </p>
<p>Although, two quick points.</p>
<p>Correct me if I am wrong, but Website Optimizer is using Z-scores not Chi Squares? Personally, I prefer Confidence Intervals because it is easier to explain to people and for people who don&#8217;t know statistics to see what is going on. Of course, it is three ways to do the same thing&#8211;find statistically significant differences. Although, like you showed in your own Chi Square, if it is anything but 2X2, you have to do another step to find which comparison is statistically significant. So, it isn&#8217;t always the most efficient way to get results.</p>
<p>The second point has to do with your comment regarding sample size and significance. I see this all the time with people talking about A/B testing and multivariate testing. While it is true that adding more samples will provide significance, it kind of defeats the purpose. Sure, if you only had a couple hundred samples, then sure, adding more people would be beneficial. But at a certain point, adding more participates simply waters down the results. Adding 21,000 respondents is just crazy. The p-value still tells you something if the result isn&#8217;t significant. Mainly, that the signal-noise ratio is weak. No result is still a result, i.e., you can&#8217;t reject the null hypothesis. Most likely, once you hit about 1,500 samples, you&#8217;ve pretty much reached a point of diminishing returns. Adding 7,000 more samples for each variation simply gives the illusion of significance when none really exists.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DomenK</title>
		<link>http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2009/08/12/google-website-optimizer-case-study/comment-page-1/#comment-109846</link>
		<dc:creator>DomenK</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Oct 2011 18:44:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/?p=2078#comment-109846</guid>
		<description>Indeed a very interesting and helpful guide. Thanks to all who made it possible!

Regards,
Domen</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Indeed a very interesting and helpful guide. Thanks to all who made it possible!</p>
<p>Regards,<br />
Domen</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2009/08/12/google-website-optimizer-case-study/comment-page-1/#comment-109121</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2011 20:22:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/?p=2078#comment-109121</guid>
		<description>Thanks for this - very timely. I love Gyminee too!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for this &#8211; very timely. I love Gyminee too!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2009/08/12/google-website-optimizer-case-study/comment-page-1/#comment-107372</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:38:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/?p=2078#comment-107372</guid>
		<description>feel like I’m back in my management science classes in university :), except here we’re learning stuff that’s specifically applicable to my work!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>feel like I’m back in my management science classes in university :), except here we’re learning stuff that’s specifically applicable to my work!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Victoria Morgan</title>
		<link>http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2009/08/12/google-website-optimizer-case-study/comment-page-1/#comment-99441</link>
		<dc:creator>Victoria Morgan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 May 2011 15:20:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/?p=2078#comment-99441</guid>
		<description>Outstanding Effort! The interest level of the visitor is maximized by matching the right visitor, the right place, and the right time. I recently read an interesting post by Codebaby about “Conversions, Not Just Eyeballs” http://codebaby.com/cbBlog/2011/04/20/conversions-not-just-eyeballs/  that I thought you would find.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Outstanding Effort! The interest level of the visitor is maximized by matching the right visitor, the right place, and the right time. I recently read an interesting post by Codebaby about “Conversions, Not Just Eyeballs” <a href="http://codebaby.com/cbBlog/2011/04/20/conversions-not-just-eyeballs/" rel="nofollow">http://codebaby.com/cbBlog/2011/04/20/conversions-not-just-eyeballs/</a>  that I thought you would find.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

