Tall ATF comparison tables - yay or nay?

[Poplanu]

I'm designing a new post template for my lists, and I'd like to include these "tall" comparison tables at the top.

Examples:

• https://www.carbibles.com/best-ceramic-coating-for-cars/
• https://bestreviews.com/best-aldo-heels

The thing is - for every website that I see doing these, I see 10 other sites that aren't. Including high-traffic sites that have obviously spent money on CRO.

So, do huge ATF tables have any downsides? Do they only fly on high-power, juiced domains (like the 2 examples above)? Or is it just that they "cheapen" the brand if not done properly?

What do you think?

 

[bernard]

I would personally add an intro before the tables, but other than that, they're part of my post template now. I only have it implemented on my newest fitness site though.

My template is like this:

Intro

Table of Contents

Top 3 products
- best value
- best pick
- best cheapest

Product 1 review
Product 2 review
Product 3 review

Producs on offer
- feed search engine

All products reviewed

Normal product comparison table

Product 4
Product 5
product 6
product 7

Buyers guide

I'm thinking about making the buying guide its own article.

 

[Ryuzaki]

Including high-traffic sites that have obviously spent money on CRO.

This doesn't really tell you much. Every site is different for one, but they have to start somewhere. Even if they start with a short table and a tall table, they first decide which of those is better. Say the short table wins. They then start testing variations on the small table only.

This might lead them to the highest converting small table, but that's a local maxima, meaning they have the best small table, but would a long table out perform the small? There could be another local maxima that's higher.

It could be the case that they tested both to the ends of the earth with 20 variations until they hit a local maxima of both, and then chose the winner. I doubt it. There's few projects I've ever seen undergo constant variation testing, and none of them have been content sites.

So, do huge ATF tables have any downsides?

Like what? Big tables are going to have content in them above the fold, so that removes any ATF algorithm concerns. They're going to grab attention immediately and have a great time-on-page metric. They provide the summary of the details the user wants. Even on mobile when they collapse to being even longer (several viewport heights), they still achieve this goal. And small ones (on desktop) are still long ones on mobile. There's no escaping that and that's where 70%+ of the traffic is.

The only thing I can imagine is it stops people from engaging in the content below the article, reducing clicks there. But they more than make up for those clicks themselves. The real question is what do they do to conversions. They may not convert as highly in terms of percentage (or maybe they do) but a lower percentage of conversion rate at a much higher click through rate will still net more revenue.

One thing I think is important is to not wrap each column as a giant anchor tag for a link. I think that could invalidate the fact that there's content above the fold and turn it into one giant advertisement.

Do they only fly on high-power, juiced domains (like the 2 examples above)?

I don't see any reason to think this. It seems like you've made up your mind based on what the majority of sites are doing though. And that's called the Argumentem ad populum, or Argument of the people. It's the fallacy of the majority, the bandwagon fallacy. The majority of people don't eat vegetables, like at all. They're wrong.

Strangely, there was a talk on Reddit recently about "should I follow Google's suggestions or copy the big sites" and John Mueller spoke up about how the big sites get a lot wrong but still succeed because the algorithm has so many variables. If everyone copies the big sites, the playing field gets leveled because we're all equally wrong. But we're still wrong.

Or is it just that they "cheapen" the brand if not done properly?

I'm not following you here at all. They look extremely impressive and professional when done right. I've never seen one done wrong as far as I know. I'd imagine if you butchered the execution it would look non-professional, like messed up media queries or something.

 

[Poplanu]

One thing I think is important is to not wrap each column as a giant anchor tag for a link. I think that could invalidate the fact that there's content above the fold and turn it into one giant advertisement.

Good point, I was actually considering doing this.

I don't see any reason to think this. It seems like you've made up your mind based on what the majority of sites are doing though. And that's called the Argumentem ad populum, or Argument of the people. It's the fallacy of the majority, the bandwagon fallacy. The majority of people don't eat vegetables, like at all. They're wrong.

Strangely, there was a talk on Reddit recently about "should I follow Google's suggestions or copy the big sites" and John Mueller spoke up about how the big sites get a lot wrong but still succeed because the algorithm has so many variables. If everyone copies the big sites, the playing field gets leveled because we're all equally wrong. But we're still wrong.

Yeah, you hit the nail on the head there. Having this kind of layout seems like a no-brainer on a product comparison site. At the very least as a good baseline from which you can start testing different things.

But I'm used to questioning my ideas. And hence the question - "If they're so good, then why aren't more sites doing them?". But you clarified it well, and I'm gonna go ahead with the plan. Cheers.

 

[Top152]

But I'm used to questioning my ideas. And hence the question - "If they're so good, then why aren't more sites doing them?". But you clarified it well, and I'm gonna go ahead with the plan. Cheers.

Because comparison tables are more work and apparently not worth the extra effort for the minimal percentage of CRO they offer (if at all). Carbibles and all their other websites (>3million traffic combined) don't utilize them, even tough a slightly higher CTR might mean a 5 figure increase in revenue per month. Now you could argue that they don't give af about their mass produced content (they don't) and pushing out new articles has a higher ROI than optimizing old ones, but even Wirecutter, who update their A+ content all the time don't bother including tables. So they probably aren't so good after all.

 

[bernard]

I think the reason they're not more used is that webmasters are analytical people, who don't always understand how other people make more impulsive decisions.

You probably wouldn't buy a toaster off a single product comparison table would you? No, you'd read and read and look at specs and compare. Most people probably don't do that, but generally trust what Google serves them from experience.

Of course, you want to give the analytical people the option to read the in depth reviews, which I solve by having:

Button ("Go to vendor")
...or read the full review here (link)

So at the call to action to "go to vendor", they are also presented with the option to jump to that particular review.

 

[Poplanu]

Carbibles and all their other websites (>3million traffic combined) don't utilize them, even tough a slightly higher CTR might mean a 5 figure increase in revenue per month.

I was actually talking about those 3 huge product boxes that they have at the top of each article. Theirs isn't really a comparison table, but fulfills the function - they have the "overall/ budget / premium" stickers there. So the reader has something to click on fast. And you're right - with those huge boxes at the top, it doesn't make sense for them to spend time on comparison tables because they get the clicks anyway.

Because comparison tables are more work and apparently not worth the extra effort for the minimal percentage of CRO they offer (if at all).

But only if you have those product boxes included at the top, right? Otherwise, I'd say that a mobile-responsive comparison table with buy buttons should work great for CRO.

 

[Top152]

But only if you have those product boxes included at the top, right? Otherwise, I'd say that a mobile-responsive comparison table with buy buttons should work great for CRO.

Yes, I was assuming you are comparing these boxes vs full-sized tables. You want those easy clicks of people that don't give shit about your content and offering "budget", "premium" and "best overall" satisfies pretty much every potential buyer.

 

[Ryuzaki]

I'm thinking about making the buying guide its own article.

Have you tested this yet? When I get a little time I'm going to give this a shot on a few established "best ___" posts. If it works that'd be huge and it'd make developing the content that much easier and faster.

 

[bernard]

Have you tested this yet? When I get a little time I'm going to give this a shot on a few established "best ___" posts. If it works that'd be huge and it'd make developing the content that much easier and faster.

Not yet, I don't think I will test it on existing articles.

It all depends though. I will still include a buyers guide, just not the keyword/headline stuffed, long guides.

I'm thinking a lot more along the lines of short burbs, info boxes and illustration/videos.

Then have a separate article for "What is a red widget" and similar.