AlexeyMK

Joined 18 years ago

Karma
2,330
Submissions
222
Member since
Oct 11
current: - Writing book about Growth Engineering - Advising: alexeymk.com/growth-eng - Learning Japanese - blog at alexeymk.com

former: - Head of Growth Eng @ MasterClass - engineering @ Opendoor - co-founder @ HackerParadise.org - started PennApps Hackathon - Product Engineering Consulting @ calldownmule.com [past clients include Dropbox, Tencent, Pebble, and Binti] - Engineering intern @ Facebook - started PennLabs.org - UPenn CIS '12

View on Hacker News

Recent submissions

Comment · 1 year ago
Comment · 2 years ago
If you'd rather go through some of this live, we have a section on Stats for Growth Engineers in the Growth Engineering Course on Reforge (course.alexeymk.com). We talk through stat sig, power analysis, common experimentation footguns and alternate methodologies such as Bayesian, Sequential, and Bandits (which are typically Bayesian). Running next in October.

Other than that, Evan's stuff is great, and the Ron Kohavi book gets a +1, though it is definitely dense.

Comment · 3 years ago
Comment · 3 years ago
Yes, but it is _rough_. What actually hurts is "browse on mobile, buy on desktop" type behavior.

Still worth doing, but you end up needing more black magic than you'd like (IP-based assignment, Ad Network-sourced assignment, CDN proxies for Analytics tools, etc).

Working on a separate post about that.

Comment · 3 years ago
Super helpful - looked it up, will aim to apply next time!

Curious how the bonferroni correction applies in cases where the overlap is partial - IE, experiment A ran from Day 1 to 14, and experiment B ran (on the same group) from days 8 to 21. Do you just apply the correction as if there was full overlap?

Comment · 3 years ago
Thanks, that is a well reasoned argument!

My take is for small n (say 5 experiments at once) with lots of subjects (>10k participants per branch) and a decent hashing algorithm, the risk of uneven bucketing remains negligible. Is my intuition off?

False positives for experiments is definitely something to keep an eye on. The question to ask is what is our comfort level for trading-off between false positives and velocity. This feels similar to the IRB debate to me, where being too restrictive hurts progress more than it prevents harm.

Comment · 3 years ago
Thanks for factorial design! I'll update the post to the proper nomenclature.

The frequentist/bayesian debate is not one I understand well enough to opine - do you have any reading you'd recommend for this topic?

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton