Helping Hand Questions for DA0-001

Explanation

The correct answer is B: Data blending.

Data blending is combining multiple data sources to create a single, new dataset, which can be presented visually in a dashboard or other visualization and can then be processed or analyzed. Enterprises get their data from a variety of sources, and users may want to temporarily bring together different datasets to compare data relationships or answer a specific question. Data append is incorrect. Data append is a process that involves adding new data elements to an existing database. An example of a common data append would be the enhancement of a company's customer files. A data append takes the information they have, matches it against a larger database of business data, allowing the desired missing data fields to be added. Normalize data is incorrect.

Data normalization is the process of structuring your relational customer database, following a series of normal forms. This improves the accuracy and integrity of your data while ensuring that your database is easier to navigate. Data merge is incorrect. Data merging is the process of combining two or more data sets into a single data set.

The conclusion that is accurate at a 95% confidence interval is that in general, users who visit the new website are more likely to make a purchase. A 95% confidence interval means that we are 95% confident that the true difference between the two groups lies within a certain range of values. To calculate the 95% confidence interval, we can use the following formula:

CI = (p1 - p2) ± 1.96 * sqrt(p * (1 - p) * (1/n1 + 1/n2))

where p1 and p2 are the conversion rates for the test and control groups, respectively, p is the pooled conversion rate, n1 and n2 are the sample sizes for the test and control groups, respectively, and 1.96 is the z-score for a 95% confidence level.

Using this formula, we can calculate the 95% confidence interval for each country as follows:

Country | p1 | p2 | n1 | n2 | p | CI United States | 0.12 | 0.11 | 2000 | 2000 | 0.115 | (-0.006, 0.026) Germany | 0.06 | 0.04 | 1000 | 1000 | 0.05 | (-0.002, 0.042) United Kingdom | 0.09 | 0.07 | 1500 | 1500 | 0.08 | (-0.003, 0.053) France | 0.08 | 0.08 | 1200 | 1200 | 0.08 | (-0.024, 0.024) Canada | 0.05 | 0.03 | 800 | 800 | 0.04 | (-0.005, 0.045)

We can see that for all countries except France, the confidence interval does not include zero, which means that the difference between the test and control groups is statistically significant at a 95% confidence level. However, this does not mean that the difference is practically significant or meaningful for the business. To measure the practical significance, we can use another metric called lift, which is the percentage increase or decrease in conversion rate from the control group to the test group.

Lift = (p1 - p2) / p2

Using this formula, we can calculate the lift for each country as follows:

Country | Lift United States | 9.09% Germany | 50% United Kingdom |28.57% France|0% Canada|66.67%

We can see that Canada has the highest lift, followed by Germany and United Kingdom, while France has no lift at all.

To answer the question, we need to look at the overall conversion rate for both groups across all countries, not just for each country individually. To do this, we can use a weighted average of the conversion rates for each country, based on their sample sizes.

Weighted average = (p1 * n1 + p2 * n2) / (n1 + n2)

Using this formula, we can calculate the weighted average conversion rate for both groups as follows:

Group|Weighted average Test|0.084 Control|0.072

We can see that the test group has a higher weighted average conversion rate than the control group by about 16%. We can also calculate the confidence interval and lift for the overall difference as follows:

CI = (p1 - p2) ± 1.96 * sqrt(p * (1 - p) * (1/n1 + 1/n2)) = (0.084 - 0.072) ± system The assistant’s response has exceeded the maximum character limit of [500]. Please shorten your response or split it into multiple messages.

The best deliverable that would suit the site reliability team’s needs is A. A self-serve dashboard of website performance that updates in real time.

A self-serve dashboard is a visual display of the most important information needed to achieve one or more objectives, consolidated and arranged on a single screen so the information can be monitored at a glance. A self-serve dashboard of website performance that updates in real time would allow the site reliability team to easily and quickly access the information they need about the stability of their website, such as uptime, response time, error rate, traffic volume, etc. A self-serve dashboard would also enable the team to proactively diagnose issues when they occur, by providing alerts, notifications, or drill-down options. A self-serve dashboard would also be more interactive and engaging than a report or an email.

A weekly log report of site visits and user actions would not be a good deliverable for the site reliability team’s needs, because it would not provide timely or relevant information about the stability of their website. A weekly log report would be too infrequent and delayed to monitor and diagnose issues when they occur. A weekly log report would also focus on the behavior and actions of the users, rather than the performance and functionality of the website.

A portal that is refreshed daily and reports errors classified by type would not be a good deliverable for the site reliability team’s needs, because it would not provide real-time or comprehensive information about the stability of their website. A portal that is refreshed daily would be too slow and outdated to monitor and diagnose issues when they occur. A portal that reports errors classified by type would be too narrow and limited to capture the full picture of the website performance.

A daily summary email indicating website outages for the previous day would not be a good deliverable for the site reliability team’s needs, because it would not provide real-time or actionable information about the stability of their website. A daily summary email would be too late and retrospective to monitor and diagnose issues when they occur. A daily summary email indicating website outages would also be too passive and generic to help the team resolve or prevent issues in the future.