Some use cases that I'm already using it for even in the limited state:
* Making topic-focused lists of articles. e.g. researching a particular topic just grab a bunch of URLs and stick them in a table
* Real estate research - grabbing a bunch of locations and adding them to a table, but where price and image are auto-
grabbed (and adding notes)
* Making a list of gift ideas
* Making a running list of music I want to check out
These are mostly simple bookmarking use cases.
What I *really* want to be able to do is publish these lists (either as HTML or as JSON endpoints) and collaborate on them with others! But that requires building a server and login etc that all feels a bit beyond my coding skills.....
This is one of those really simple ideas that's really exciting - making me think of a lot of "what-ifs". Thank you for sharing.
I'd love for this level of functionality - but auto-sync to Google Sheets (my platform of choice for "more than a few rows that I might need to share") (or like I mentioned elsewhere, maybe Braintool, for further manipulation/browsing in Emacs/org-mode).
Maps support would be really cool to see the results in tabular form as well as where they are.
I also noticed it doesn't notice if you add the same site twice - so instead of editing an existing entry, it lets you create a second one (maybe both options are needed).
A browser extension has some key advantages - getting around some security issues like you mentioned, but you can also make the icon for the extension reflect when you've already stored data for a URL (Braintool, which I mentioned elsewhere, does this).
I don't know why you got downvoted because this is a good idea.
The only criticism I have is that usually the dotted underline is associated with adwords on some sites. I don't know if there's a better way to do it. Superscript question marks at the end of the phrase?
There's a built-in HTML tag for this that traditionally uses the dotted underline. Looks like it doesn't do that on all browsers, though, these days, but it's a CSS tweak to add it. Behavior also seems worse than it used to on some browsers—safari makes you hover for a little to see the expanded definition, while I recall clicking to see it before, which is better.
There's also the <details> element: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/de... It works quite nicely but is a block element by default. You can override that with some CSS (display: inline or inline-block) and style it to look more like a regular piece of inline content. Pretty useful IMO!
Yes there is an issue with the client agreeing with me sharing the data. It's something that is being addressed with new clients.
The main thing is to ensure you AB test. Lots of what's in the post is proven, not just by my own experiments, but by organisations like Unbounce who have global data across 1,000s of pages.
However the true key to improving your own loading page is to grow and act on your own quantqual data.
As @transitus said, some quantitative statements about results would be really helpful here. I hope you can get some. Other than that, what you’re saying is very convincing.
Yeah, I saw that but still. It starts off with 1-on-1 meetings with managers and employees but then I guess it's actually just some scheduled survey like a weekly qualtrics to /dev/null that admin pushes at us already or whatever. Finally. That's what I got from that.
I guess what I would say is that the pop.work* landing page seems to want to sell itself as scratching an itch or solving a problem, but doesn't tell us what that itch or problem is or even show us how it solves it. It's just vague and no details (which is a major red flag about a landing page for me personally).
*lots of alternate "popwork" out there and you don't even link it or anything so I had to google text from the landing page in the video to find what and where it even was or if they'd completely pivoted to a different product (popwork.com)
You talk exclusively in qualitative statements, but do you have any quantitative data to back up any of things you are saying? Its all well and good to say what you think someone should do, but without actual data to back up these statements why should I believe you? You're just some random dude from the internet, and just because you said something, does not make it true.
You say for example "Contrast your product with competitors and the current way of doing things." but what data do you have to substantiate that this is anything other than your / intuition / opinion? What kind of conversion rate lift did you clients see by implementing this particular tactic while controlling other variables to ensure the integrity of the test?
As someone who's spent a fair amount of time on CRO in the past, I appreciate that most of what you're saying is probably right as it's all broadly speaking conventional wisdom in the CRO space, but it rings somewhat hollow without actual data to back it up. I understand data sharing agreements with clients can be difficult to arrange, but had you even included data on how the tactics you're recommending had impacted the conversion rate of your own landing page you could have at least had some proof in your pudding.
Senja forms, widgets and Walls of Love have a Powered By Senja badge.
They get clicked 1000s of times a year, driving product discovery and sign ups.
This is one of the reasons we have such an aggressive free tier - more users, more Powered By, more sign ups, more users.
We were happy with the badge performance, but didn't want to leave it untested.
So, for our most recent marketing experiment we decided to test if we could change the badge design, and increase the click through rate.
This simple change took a few hours to design, and few more for Wilson to implement.
We added view and click tracking at a badge level as before we'd only tracked referral in our PostHog analytics.
The result was a 40% uplift in clicks from the badge.
That's 12,000 visitors a year (based on current views on the badge, which are actually increasing)
Here's the exact results
Control Views: 223,904 Clicks: 486 Click through rate: 0.217%
Test Views: 221,950 Clicks: 676 Click through rate: 0.305%
Percentage increase: 40.55