Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Thomas Crook

dblp:92/7120 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2009
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 first-authorDatabases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Empirical software engineering · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Empirical software engineering
controlled experiment
0.112009
Seven pitfalls to avoid when running controlled experiments on the web · KDD 2009
Empirical software engineering › controlled experiment
online controlled experiments
0.112009
Seven pitfalls to avoid when running controlled experiments on the web · KDD 2009

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

statistical power analysis · 0.1randomized experiment · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2009 Seven pitfalls to avoid when running controlled experiments on the web
abstract
Controlled experiments, also called randomized experiments and A/B tests, have had a profound influence on multiple fields, including medicine, agriculture, manufacturing, and advertising. While the theoretical aspects of offline controlled experiments have been well studied and documented, the practical aspects of running them in online settings, such as web sites and services, are still being developed. As the usage of controlled experiments grows in these online settings, it is becoming more important to understand the opportunities and pitfalls one might face when using them in practice. A survey of online controlled experiments and lessons learned were previously documented in Controlled Experiments on the Web: Survey and Practical Guide (Kohavi, et al., 2009). In this follow-on paper, we focus on pitfalls we have seen after running numerous experiments at Microsoft. The pitfalls include a wide range of topics, such as assuming that common statistical formulas used to calculate standard deviation and statistical power can be applied and ignoring robots in analysis (a problem unique to online settings). Online experiments allow for techniques like gradual ramp-up of treatments to avoid the possibility of exposing many customers to a bad (e.g., buggy) Treatment. With that ability, we discovered that it's easy to incorrectly identify the winning Treatment because of Simpson's paradox.
Thomas Crook, Brian Frasca, Ron Kohavi, Roger Longbotham
KDD1