[latortuga]

It's really surprising to see a comment like this, so wrong on something and yet upvoted. Crucially, your view is entirely anecdotal - a much better argument would be "Testimonials are a bad way to sell things because X" where X is a reason that is valid and tested.

Unfortunately, X for you is either highly personal or based on a faulty understanding of persuasion because social proof is incredibly powerful as a persuasive technique - research, testing, and daily commerce bear it out. It is tried and tested and used by marketers and businesses everywhere. The reason? Social proof works. Knowing that someone that you lend credibility to thinks that this thing is good/useful/etc helps you make a decision about it, whether you think it does or not. Content tends to inherit the value that is near it (e.g. important people, powerful companies, athletes, etc). A patio11 quote is in order here: "content which bears social proof will, in A/B tests, often ROFLstomp absolutely equivalent content lacking social proof."[0] Dr. Robert Cialdini's Influence has an entire chapter on social proof.

[0] http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/05/31/can-i-get-your-email/

[paranoiacblack]

You're getting pretty uppity about testimonials here. Regardless of them being effective persuasive techniques, they're still just persuasive techniques and I imagine a lot of people dislike persuasion getting in the way of content. I happen to agree with the OP that testimonials tend to make me believe that the product lacks enough substance to be useful by itself. In any matter, it's a personal preference and no amount research changes that.

[latortuga]

You've completely rehashed the OP. My point is that it doesn't matter what one individually believes on the subject of testimonials and the effectiveness thereof - they are indisputably effective for selling. Presenting anecdotal evidence that there exist people that dislike them does not change that and is worse than saying nothing because you give people the impression that testimonials are somehow negative.

We're on an internet message board talking about conversion optimization. Statistics don't care about personal preferences; your competitors will laugh at them straight to the bank.

[paranoiacblack]

On the contrary, you're extrapolating too much from the OP. It was never presented as a universal impression, and I really doubt anyone took it that way. However, the anecdote is useful because it shows that there are people who absolutely hate testimonials. Which is a useful lesson for anyone who might be blindly using testimonials as opposed to actually analyzing their users. The OP never challenged the statistics or suggested that testimonials are always bad.

To say that users sharing their anecdotal negative experiences about what you claim is an indisputably positive experience for the user is an interesting argument to make though. It's almost like you're telling the OP that it's good for them whether they realize or not.

[PavlovsCat]

> My point is that it doesn't matter what one individually believes on the subject of testimonials and the effectiveness thereof - they are indisputably effective for selling.

That it works on people just means it works on people, not that it's not lame, and not that it works on me. Which , if you read carefully, is exactly what I said.

And I don't believe, I think. And I have good reasons for what I think, too. I would even say I know to some degree. If you don't care about that, that's fine; but notice the irony of you telling me what you think (or what "statistics think" which is saying the same thing with less courage).

> We're on an internet message board talking about conversion optimization.

Yes, and? I find reverse engineering and defeating techniques of manipulation much more intellectually stimulating than just fawning over them. Not that I did that here, but then again I clicked this think because it claimed to be about UI, which I care about, and just typed up my initial reaction to it.

They got my eyeballs with that, so now they have my testimonial, too ^^

> Statistics don't care about personal preferences; your competitors will laugh at them straight to the bank.

You must mistake me for quite the short-sighted, selfish, materialistic asshole to believe that would impress me. As the Italian proverb goes, "after the game, the pawn and the king go into the same box.", so I'd rather laugh on the way from the bank to there, than on the way to the bank, like some complete noob.

You can't buy integrity; you can either develop and keep it, grow numb to the lack of it, or wake up in a cold sweat one day. Statistics don't decide such things, they're not even an indicator. Statistics don't care for the same reason rocks don't care. Statistics don't decide for you, at best you hide your own decisions from yourself behind statistics.

I'll go you one further: If you go by statistics, you can be scripted today by skilled people, and tomorrow by script kiddies or their AI equivalent. So personally, I stay away from that. When I finally do get pushed aside I'd like that to be a genuine loss, not a net improvement, you know?

I'm hoping the world will move towards more honesty and less alienation, and that integrity pays off in the long run. Sometimes I'm vaguely optimistic even. But if the mindlessness and materalism continue unabashed, I'd say humanity is over with - and whoever gets to stuff their pockets with the most money is the biggest fool of all, but certainly no idol of mine, especially with all the amassed inability to think or talk straight.

You go by the assumption that sales at any price are good, that money is all that matters, and that the web is a perfect playground for whores, instead of maybe something for humanity to communicate and learn with. I disagree on all counts.

[jcheng]

I'm quite intrigued by your intense reaction to conversion optimization. Or is the particular mindset of GP that you are reacting to?

Just curious: in your moral calculus does it matter if the conversion is for Zynga's next Facebook game, or for watsi.org? The latter's homepage features prominent pictures of young people apparently from 3rd world nations, isn't that a form of manipulation? And if so, is that morally wrong?

Also, if you have two options, and one of them converts 20% more users, is it always immoral to choose that one?

I'm not trying to get into an argument, I'm just interested in what the world looks like from your perspective.