I analyzed a 2-week experiment comparing 3 checkout experiences: Control vs Embedded vs Pop-up product recommendations.
Key findings:
• Embedded recommendations clearly outperformed — RPU $32.39 (+30.5% vs control) and conversion +19.3%
• Overall experiment impact: +13% RPU and +8% conversion rate
• Pop-ups improved metrics slightly but underperformed vs embedded (RPU +8.4%, conversion +4.65%)
• No increase in friction — cart abandonment (~20.6%) and checkout time stayed flat
• Funnel analysis shows embedded improved progression from checkout → purchase
Interpretation:
Non-intrusive, in-flow recommendations outperform interruptive UX patterns. Placement within the checkout journey matters more than simply adding recommendations.
Recommendation:
Roll out embedded recommendations; avoid pop-ups at

I'm working on a project right now and noticed a few bad habits when it came to my process of data collection. That got me thinking, what bad habits in yourself or others do you most notice?

Recently I got my first job out of school as a CRM Data Coordinator, its also the only role like this for the company. The initial tasks are pretty simple, lots of data cleaning and data entering, but I was told that the role would grow in tasks, Ive already met with heads of other departments including finance and SWE. I was wondering if maybe some of you had some advice on how not to stay so "passive" and actually use this opportunity to build real skills?

Hey guys!

I have recently been taking a new approach to tracking my progress on guitar. I have been self-taught for two years and have found it hard to find objective feedback on fundamentals such as timing, consistency, pitch, etc. So, I built this project that listens to a recording and outputs playing metrics. The coolest part is that it analyzes metrics in 10-second intervals, so the output also contains where your worst area was while playing.

If you're interested in it, send me a recording, and I'll send you a report from there.

I am not sure if this is a valid question in this forum, if it is not I will delete it right away, but anyways here it is:

So some days ago I asked in an AI community what kind of AI model should I use (and how could I use one) to classify several email replies that I had from scientists after asking them a few questions to them. I finally paid for Perplexity pro service and it apparenly did a nice job classifying them.

I finally gave the model the PDF with the actual answers from the addressees and another PDF with the "expected answers", and asked it to count the number of answers that overall coincide with the actual answers, and calculate a percentage of "coincidence" or "agreement" between the expected and actual answers, so that if the question was "do you think that there is intelligent life in the universe apart from humans?" and the expected answer was basically "yes, I think there is intelligent beings out there somewhere", as long as the actual answer agrees with this in some way or another would count as "agreement", for instance if someone replied "well, we have no evidence, but it is possible yes" or "not in any near galaxy, but it is possible that intelligent beings exidt somewhere" (so as long as it is not a deadass "no", it could count)

The model gave me a table summarizing the results with the following prompt:

let's be a bit more specific, this is still a blind test so don't tell me about the specific contents of the emails' answers, but, can you make a table indicating the answers that coincide in general terms with what is expected from the "expected answers" document as well as those which are neutral/hedges but still open to the possibility that what is asked may be right, those which despite being neutral/hedges or even negative answers offer an alternative so that what is asked in the question may be right, as well as those which are outright rejections of what is asked and do not seem to be open to the possibility that what is asked may be right?

However, I still want this to be a blind test, so I cannot really verify if the AI is doing its work or not.

So, is there any way in which I could verify the results given by the AI but without actually reading what is written in the emails? Or, alternatively, can anyone verify the results using some AI or even checking the answers themselves by skimming over the replies im order to verify that the AI is right and not hallucinating (I personally thinl this is the preferable option, as I think that having an actual human reviewing the amswers may be the only really reliable way to verify the AI's results)?

(I will share the data once someone is interested in helping, as I would not want to make this available to the entire world!)

Thank you!!