6 ms·

Google has been using A/B testing for quite some time I think; they even do it with Chrome nowadays. Wouldn't that work to manage load?

by testbro 13y ago

raldi 13y ago
You mean instead of handing out N invites, just pick N users at random? Why would that be better? You confuse and potentially upset the randomly-chosen users, and you disappoint the eager people who actually want to try the new thing.
- r00fus 13y ago
  When google does first-come first served (Google I/O last year) they get dinged. When they do randomized (Nexus4 initial sale and this year's I/O) they get dinged. Fact is, they can't satisfy everyone. The algorithm used to differentiate the few from the many will obviously upset some groups. Would you rather they charge for it? That'd be the Microsoft thing to do [1]. [1] http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1011983/microsoft-to-charge-for-beta http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1011983/microsoft-t...
  - eloisant 13y ago
    The problem with Google I/O is that it was not actually first come first served, but random. As in: the registration site gets pound so hard that you need to be lucky to be able to load the page and proceed with your registration. Also, for Google I/O it would have served to have people apply, and review applications to pick real developers and not dumbass unable to read a line of code but hoping for a cool gadget to flip on ebay. Anyway, as much as I want to try the new map right away I would do the invite system like them: you get to ramp up your userbase progressively, and people trying it actually want to try it (not grandma opening Maps and being completely confused by the new UI and possible bugs).
- testbro 13y ago
  I suppose neither are ideal, really. With an invite only model you run the risk of biasing your feedback. The advantage of a random rollout would be the marketing sleight of hand: "gradual rollout" might be more defensible than "by invitation". Gmail and Google Groups have both had random rollouts for changes, with optional rollbacks. That seems more fitting (to me at least).
peterjs 13y ago
IO is the place to launch new products. It's just slightly more impressive than showing a message "And btw. we've lunched this new version of maps. Check it out (with the probability of 0.00053846)".

Google has been using A/B testing for quite some time I think; they even do it with Chrome nowadays. Wouldn't that work to manage load?

by testbro 13y ago

Google has been using A/B testing for quite some time I think; they even do it with Chrome nowadays. Wouldn't that work to manage load?

raldi 13y ago

You mean instead of handing out N invites, just pick N users at random? Why would that be better? You confuse and potentially upset the randomly-chosen users, and you disappoint the eager people who actually want to try the new thing.

r00fus 13y ago
When google does first-come first served (Google I/O last year) they get dinged. When they do randomized (Nexus4 initial sale and this year's I/O) they get dinged. Fact is, they can't satisfy everyone. The algorithm used to differentiate the few from the many will obviously upset some groups. Would you rather they charge for it? That'd be the Microsoft thing to do [1]. [1] http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1011983/microsoft-to-charge-for-beta http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1011983/microsoft-t...
- eloisant 13y ago
  The problem with Google I/O is that it was not actually first come first served, but random. As in: the registration site gets pound so hard that you need to be lucky to be able to load the page and proceed with your registration. Also, for Google I/O it would have served to have people apply, and review applications to pick real developers and not dumbass unable to read a line of code but hoping for a cool gadget to flip on ebay. Anyway, as much as I want to try the new map right away I would do the invite system like them: you get to ramp up your userbase progressively, and people trying it actually want to try it (not grandma opening Maps and being completely confused by the new UI and possible bugs).
testbro 13y ago
I suppose neither are ideal, really. With an invite only model you run the risk of biasing your feedback. The advantage of a random rollout would be the marketing sleight of hand: "gradual rollout" might be more defensible than "by invitation". Gmail and Google Groups have both had random rollouts for changes, with optional rollbacks. That seems more fitting (to me at least).

peterjs 13y ago

IO is the place to launch new products. It's just slightly more impressive than showing a message "And btw. we've lunched this new version of maps. Check it out (with the probability of 0.00053846)".