I think we fundamentally agree, and probably have the same approach, with just a different “marketing”. For the background of these, on a professional level I

I think we fundamentally agree, and probably have the same approach, with just a different “marketing”. For the background of these, on a professional level I try to sell the experiments with some angle, whatever it is, even if it is intuitively wrong. An exemple of that was a discussion around wording for a relatively delicate part of our site. We didn’t know how to approach it, and it hasn’t been touch for a very long time. So, the random hypothesis taken was that nobody reads the text anyway. We set hooks and tracking in and out of the sections to have a decent view of what’s happening, and we got enough data to come with new insights and propositions; Next phase was AB testing two changes, with expectations to have positive effect, and the tracking we set in place was to validate it went as planned. This also didn’t go fully as expected, but not that far from the mark, and we iterated. In hindsight we could surely have just done the data collection and make hypothesis from it, but I feel the data would have been more vague and less exploitable. I don‘t trust “let’s just collect data” approaches much.