I'm not a fan of the new approach, which is, basically "We don't need to be creative, up front. We'll just shove some crap out quickly, and work on the friction points."
But it's not that simple. We definitely need to "pave the bare spots" (desire paths); It's just that we need to start off, at what we sincerely believe to be an optimal place, knowing that it isn't, in fact, optimal.
A/B testing isn't about creativity, it's retention maxxing. It's what drives youtube face in every thumbnail, loud titles that don't say much, etc. This feature will optimise the actual content itself to be the most attention holding, overstimulating slop possible to synthisise.
> A/B testing isn't about creativity, it's retention maxxing
Absolutely, and unfortunately in my experience many people implementing A/B testing actually believe that it is finding the "best outcome for users".
I'm sure if we blind tested people to see whether they consumed more when unknowingly given cocaine vs protein powder, we would see cocaine win the A/B test.
ChrisMarshallNY · · focus · HN ↗
But it's not that simple. We definitely need to "pave the bare spots" (desire paths); It's just that we need to start off, at what we sincerely believe to be an optimal place, knowing that it isn't, in fact, optimal.
SchemaLoad · · focus · HN ↗
jordwest · · focus · HN ↗
Absolutely, and unfortunately in my experience many people implementing A/B testing actually believe that it is finding the "best outcome for users".
I'm sure if we blind tested people to see whether they consumed more when unknowingly given cocaine vs protein powder, we would see cocaine win the A/B test.