Hey event tracking friends, we are really excited to announce a new feature to the Analytics event tracking landscape: non-interaction events. “But wait!” you ask, “How can an event—which measures…
The results were always pretty fantastic, and the backstory takes a little of the mystique away. Was it really that simple?
Then, you look around and realize how many sites are following the exact same paths. This was a big site, probably one visited with some frequency by their customers, yet not often enough that they knew which account they might have registered with.
We learned a substantial percentage of customers were requesting password reset, approximately 40%. Two out of every five users was getting stuck and needing their password to be reset.
I know my current site doesn’t have the kind of stickiness the big guys have. The impact of this change on a smaller, less often visited site will probably lead to a greater change in net revenue.
I’d be curious to understand the impact of adding “Sign in with Twitter”-style buttons. Does that begin to eliminate the friction of sign in completely?
Texting to see how this comes up on tumbler. If its good, this might be my new blog.
when we expect to be able to access information in the future, we tend to have reduced memory for the actual information, but enhanced memory for where to find the information. Thus, while we do measurably worse
Shared by nathanziarek
Fantastic photography. Some are easier to guess than others.
This is a macro photo of…what do you think this is?
Click through to find out and see more macro…
I’d trust Search Engine Land to have the right data, but I’m surprised that the “formulating query” stage of searching is so quick. Still, Google says that half a second leads to 30% increase in searches, so 2 seconds could be quite the boost.
I fall right in line with SEL’s thoughts on how this will affect incoming terms. They might shift to shorter terms, but that’d be short lived.
I got it wrong. It was the other day when I was talking with EightShapes’ Nathan Curtis while recording an upcoming podcast.
As we were talking, I had suggested that a UX Design Library was a…
Crazy Apple Rumors:
Just as reporters in the 1930s helped cover up Roosevelt’s illness and in the 1960′s helped cover up Kennedy’s philandering, we in the Apple press community help cover up the…
Google Instant Proves Me Wrong
A few months back I wrote a bit about Minimalist Google, and how the Big G was sacrificing “load” speed (the amount of time it takes the browser to download and render a page) to decrease Focus and Query time (or increase perceived speed).
I have no reliable way to test, but I’d guess this new page loads and renders slower than it’s less-fancy ancestor. If microseconds count — a half-second increase in page load time translates to a 20% decrease in traffic — wouldn’t it benefit the big G to stay away from “needless” styling?
The user path of a basic search would look something like this:
In this scenario, the visit (typing www.google.com) and the page load (receiving data and rendering the page) have little room for improvement. My personal load time for the Google homepage is a little over a third of a second…Similarly, clicking “submit” (or pressing enter) and the speed of the results page have little, if any, improvement.
Turns out, I was wrong (shocking!).
As before, the added code to create this advanced interaction costs some small measure of speed on the downloading and rendering of the page. But, Google has found both real and perceived speed improvements where I thought technology had pretty much hit its limit.
To start, they’ve completely removed a step (Submit). While pressing “Enter” at the end of typing a search query wasn’t the most time consuming action known to man, anyone that has ever reached for the mouse to click “Search” has shaved seconds from their query.
More importantly, though, the wait between submitting the search and waiting for the results has been taken out of the critical path. With live results, the transition between formulating the query and receiving results blurs. Even if this constant updating slows the page (not sure why it would), it gives the perceived feel of instant results.
Thinking it’s faster makes it faster.
Google promotes the idea that Instant can save between 2-5 second per search, based on look-ahead suggestions, shorter queries that produce relevant results, and feedback to show if you are on the right path.
I shouldn’t be surprised that Google is smarter than me, but I am surprised that they found a way to shave that kind of time from a simple search. Google VP Marissa Mayer said “users really respond to speed.” I’m going to take them at their word that this isn’t the last we’ll see of speeding the humble search results page.
Say your website has a check out lead generation process and you want to understand funnel abandonment by new vs. return visitors. You can do this through the Web Interface using many segments,…
About Me
I'm not really what you'd call "cutting edge." This is where I talk about cool new stuff I've found that the rest of you have moved on from.
