Talk:Conversion rate optimization

edit tags

thanks. I'll take care of it shortly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengel1959 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

formatting/style tags

can they be removed now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengel1959 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

OK I guess I'll remove the tags now

OK I guess I'll remove the tags now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengel1959 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit suggestions

Hi there, I have two suggestions for edits to this article. The first is that the article suggests that conversion optimisation is designed to reduce bounce rate. This is technically not true as if you design an extremely effective landing page that convinces visitors to buy without actually visiting another page on the website, you will have increased conversion rates but also increased bounce rates as bouncing is simply not visiting a second page on the site. Secondly, I would like to add a note on the most widely used conversion optimisation tool: Google's a/b testing tool which has been recently moved to the goals section of Google Analytics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddiejodriscoll84 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Correction on the above claim that Google's a/b testing tools is "the most widely used conversion optimisation tool". This is not true. This tool only has 3% market penetration among split testing tools (source http://trends.builtwith.com/analytics/a-b-testing). I'm very active in the CRO community and can assure you that this tool is not widely used by CRO practitioners. amaclickclick (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding Citations

Hi Guardians of the Wiki-verse, I have come to suggest. To keep it short, I tried adding a citation to an article that proves exactly what CRO is about.(imho) Unfortunately, it was seen as spam (even though, there's clearly a promotional blog that links to this page)

Therefore, with all due respect, I would like to add a link to Convertcart's piece on A/B testing ideas for CRO. What they have written is far better than the generic stuff, that goes around these days. After being classified as spam, I checked the Domain Age of Mayple and Convertcart. Guess who has been doing this for a longer time (and still was considered as spam). @SamKuru, I am going ahead as you said. I think what I've said holds value. If not, remove Mayple too. Thanks. Jordan.crowley.cc (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to remove other links that a garbage content marketing blogs. Do not add any more material that you have a conflict of interest with. Thanks. Sam Kuru (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed addition: 2025 third-party research on AI Overviews' impact on CRO

Hello, I'd like to propose a single-sentence addition to the article reflecting recent independent industry research on how Google AI Overviews have changed search-traffic dynamics — directly relevant to the CRO discipline, which the article does not yet reflect.

Suggested wording (for an uninvolved editor to consider, place at end of "Methodology" section):

A 2025 analysis by Authoritas, reported by Press Gazette, found that publisher click-through rates dropped by 47.5% on desktop and 37.7% on mobile when Google AI Overviews appeared in search results, prompting CRO practitioners to focus on per-visitor conversion value as overall traffic volumes decline.<ref>{{cite news |title=Publishers 'lose 50% of clickthrough rate due to AI Overviews' |publisher=[[Press Gazette]] |date=2025 |url=https://pressgazette.co.uk/media-audience-and-business-data/google-ai-overviews-publishers-report-clickthroughs-authoritas-report/}}</ref>

Source independence: Press Gazette is an independent UK journalism publication (founded 1965). Authoritas is a search-data research firm not affiliated with any CRO agency. The proposed sentence introduces no commercial entity by name.

COI Disclosure: I am the founder of a CRO agency, disclosed on my user page. I am not proposing this content to drive traffic to any commercial entity — neither my agency nor any other commercial brand is mentioned in the suggested wording. I will not make this edit myself given the COI. Posting here for uninvolved editor consideration.

Thank you for reviewing. ThickSolution (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

We should not be using claims in legal complaints - even when passed through a media outlet (which is not claiming that they have verified or support the findings) as sources of fact in a Wikipedia article. - MrOllie (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2026 (UTC)