2 ms·
That's neat. So, out of the people who took the survey, 1/2 were curious and 1/2 mis-clicked. How many even bothered to take the survey? What's neat is that 0.0
by Scene_Cast2 14y ago
That's neat. So, out of the people who took the survey, 1/2 were curious and 1/2 mis-clicked. How many even bothered to take the survey?
What's neat is that 0.08%, the reported CTR, is higher than on some regular ads.
- dkokelley 14y agoI think the curious ones should be discounted. You would be surprised at how tempting a vague ad might be to naturally curious humans. The 0.04% figure of mistakes is interesting to me as 'background noise' for ad clicks. This would probably be an interesting area for more academic research. How do you measure accidental clicks? Do some non-ads receive higher accidental clicks than others? What if it was a blank black ad? What if you mimicked actual ads but with the 'why did you click' question? There are lots of ways this phenomenon could be further explored, and I agree with the author that for a multi-billion dollar industry this exploration is warranted.