How do you measure impact while accounting for the novelty effect?
Tests your ability to design experiments that isolate long-term effects. A good answer proposes a long-running A/B test, analyzing user cohorts by join date to see if initial lift decays. A red flag is ignoring the novelty effect and suggesting a short test.
What's really being asked
This question assesses your depth in experimental design beyond a simple A/B test. It probes your understanding of threats to external validity, specifically time-dependent effects like novelty (initial excitement) and primacy (learning curve). The interviewer wants to see if you can design an experiment that produces a trustworthy estimate of the long-term impact, which is crucial for making durable product decisions.
The full answer
A strong answer has three parts. First, acknowledge the novelty effect as a significant risk that can inflate initial metrics for the new newsfeed. Second, propose a specific experimental design to mitigate this. The primary method is a long-running A/B test, lasting several weeks or even months, not just 1-2 weeks. Third, describe the analysis. This involves plotting the treatment effect on session duration over time. A key technique is to segment users into weekly cohorts based on when they first entered the experiment. You then compare the metric for the treatment vs. control group within each cohort over the experiment's lifetime. A stable long-term effect is found if the lift observed in later weeks for early cohorts is similar to the lift observed for newer cohorts.
The mistakes people make
The biggest red flag is proposing a standard, short-duration (e.g., 2-week) A/B test without mentioning the novelty effect at all. This suggests a lack of experience with real-world product changes. Another weak answer is acknowledging the novelty effect but not proposing a concrete way to measure or control for it, simply saying "we should be careful." A senior candidate must provide a specific analytical framework. Failing to mention cohorting by join date is a missed opportunity to show depth.
What usually comes next
"How long is long enough? How do you decide when to stop the experiment?" (Answer: Monitor the cohort analysis; when the weekly lift stabilizes for several consecutive weeks, you have a good estimate). "What if we can't afford to run a multi-month experiment? Are there other methods?" (Answer: This is where you can bring in observational methods like Difference-in-Differences on post-launch data to estimate the learning effect, comparing early vs. late adopters. This has higher statistical power but relies on assumptions about time-based interactions).
A concrete example
We launch the new feed algorithm in an A/B test for 8 weeks. We create 8 weekly cohorts of users. For Cohort 1 (users who joined in week 1), we see a +15% lift in session duration in their first week. By week 4, their lift has decayed to +4%. For Cohort 4 (users who joined in week 4), we see a similar +14% lift in their first week. If, by week 8, all early cohorts have stabilized at a ~4% lift, we can be confident the true long-term impact is +4%, not the initial +15% from the novelty effect.
Interview question
To accurately measure the long-term impact of a new feature while accounting for the novelty effect, which experimental approach is most effective?
- a.Run a short-duration A/B test (e.g., 2 weeks) and rely on the initial observed lift as the feature's impact.
- b.Implement a long-running A/B test, segmenting users by their experiment entry date into cohorts, and track the treatment effect stabilization within and across these cohorts over time.Correct
- c.Launch the feature to all users and use a Difference-in-Differences analysis comparing user behavior before and after the launch, focusing on early vs. late adopters.
- d.Conduct a long-duration A/B test and only consider the average treatment effect observed in the final weeks, assuming the novelty effect has fully decayed by then.
Why? this is the answer
The most effective approach involves a long-running A/B test combined with cohort analysis by join date. This allows tracking how the treatment effect evolves for different user groups over time, distinguishing initial novelty from a stable long-term impact. Simply averaging the lift in final weeks without cohorting (Option D) misses the critical insight into how the effect decays within specific user groups.
Just read this? Test yourself on what you have been reading.
Read the original → arxiv.org
Put your scrolling time to good use
Learn one idea, try a quiz and save useful cards for revision. Tezvyn makes it easy to learn and stay current in your tech field, a few minutes at a time.
The iPhone app is on the way
We are building it. Until it lands, nothing here is held back from you: every interview card, your saved cards, streaks and the job board all work in Safari, plus hundreds of free practice quizzes of thirty questions each. Sign in and it all carries over to the app the day it arrives.
Want it as an icon? Tap Share at the bottom of Safari, then Add to Home Screen. It opens full screen and the cards you have read stay available offline.
We are hiring for this. Open roles that interview on analytics — each one lists the topics its interview covers.
See open roles