3 ms·
The scope of the experiment is so narrow that I wouldn't draw any conclusions based on this, unless I was making a cheaply-designed, SEO-driven, diet-pill selli
by dood 19y ago
The scope of the experiment is so narrow that I wouldn't draw any conclusions based on this, unless I was making a cheaply-designed, SEO-driven, diet-pill selling website. Even then, the difference could be attributed to poor design (irrespective of width).
- MikePeters 19y agoDood, thank you for the kind words. It's been working (big time) for us ever since we switched all landing pages to a "thin" design. And no, we don't promote a cheaply-designed diet-pill website. SEO-driven, yes. Money-making, yes.
- mynameishere 19y agoI wouldn't worry too much about people whose "about" page consists of: "Just zis guy, you know"
- dood 19y agoSorry if I came across as overly critical - I wasn't suggesting that your conclusion is invalid, but that the experiment would only apply to a fairly narrow class of website (e.g. "mortgage-leads... business-leads... diet-pills... and ringtones"), and that you may not have varied the design significantly (screenshots would have been great!). The 'cheaply-designed' thing was uncalled for, and for which I apologise; I think I was trying to suggest that a different 1024 design style may make a big difference, but it came out snarky, probably because I'm working on something frustrating.