Skip to main content
loser

General: Navigation Structure Test

Hypothesis

If we test a similar change on our any pages as rejected, we should be cautious

NavigationLanding PageTravelindustry_leakbookingcomgloballoser

Test Results

Key Learning

Problem: The primary call-to-action on the general isn't converting at its potential — design, copy, or placement may be the bottleneck.

What was tried: rejected this UI change (Oct 16, 2019). Rejection suggests the change underperformed the control

Why it failed: Navigation changes are risky because they disrupt established muscle memory. Test with new visitors separately.

How to Apply This to Your Site

This test showed that general: navigation structure test hurt conversions. The change was tested on a landing page page in the travel industry. Avoid replicating this exact approach — instead, consider testing the opposite direction or a more subtle variation.

Before you test: Consider that navigation tests typically require adequate traffic to reach statistical significance. Run your test for at least 2 full business cycles to account for weekly traffic patterns.

What Was Tested

Booking ran a sitewide experiment where they tested two types of breadcrumb navigation. The contending variation showed a breadcrumb with two dimensions: displaying the geographical hierarchy of how deep someone is within the site (as expected), and also displaying a menu (on-click) with a secondary dimension of stay types for each level. It might have seemed like a nice idea but it didn't cut it. As the a/b test completed, the idea was rejected in favor of the old-school breadcrumb approach. Nice try booking. :)

Methodology

Confidence Level
70%

Build On These Learnings

Save your own experiments, spot winning patterns across your test history, and stop repeating what's already been tried.

Related Experiments

Explore More Experiments