[racket-dev] racket vs. scheme vs. clojure (as it appears to others)

In retrospect I think this post was a bit opaque. So, some exposition:

We have a hypothesis: changing the description of Racket will increase
adoption. We can measure this and optimise for it. The measure of
adoption could be "doesn't bounce" or "downloads Racket", for example.
(Bouncing means leaving the page immediately. Yes these measures
aren't perfect but the great is the enemy of the good in these
situations.) We have various different descriptions we can try. Myna
is a system for optimising the choice of description. A/B testing is
the current industry standard. It is essentially hypothesis testing.
Myna uses better mathematics to achieve better results.

HTH,
N.

On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Noel Welsh <noelwelsh at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Justin Zamora <justin at zamora.com> wrote:
>> A sentence like that would be a good replacement for the awful,
>> "Racket is a programming language" currently on the front page of
>> racket-lang.org
>
> We are men of science; untested hypotheses do not become us. Luckily,
> your buddies at Untyped have recently created a system called Myna for
> testing these kind of hypotheses:
>
>  http://mynaapp.com/
>
> We'd *love* to use Racket as a case study. I'm sure you have enough
> traffic to get some good results fairly quickly, and this problem is a
> straight-forward application of Myna.
>
> If you've heard of A/B testing, this blog post explains why Myna isn't
> A/B testing:
>
>  http://untyped.com/untyping/2011/02/11/stop-ab-testing-and-make-out-like-a-bandit/
>
> Cheers,
> Noel
>
> PS: Anyone else reading this who would like to use Myna -- drop me an
> email at this address or noel at untyped.com.
>