Struggling to design these two customer journey flows into segments

[asdf12341z]

So I made this post a few days ago, but for some reason it was marked as spam. Please do not remove this mods (and let me know if I am doing something wrong).

The flow, when working correctly is intended as follows:

User sees CTA > Clicks CTA > Directed to a privacy consent page > Agrees to consent by clicking a button > Directed to experience.

The first flow I am trying to design is when users encounter an error during the consent page loading, and during when they agree to the consent.

These errors are broadly categorised as by an evar called Evar1: consent_start_error and consent_submit_error. If there is no error then Evar1 takes the value of "consent_success".

The specific type of error that they face is identified by another evar called Evar2: error300, error350, error400, + n more values
consent_start_error only takes the value of error350, whereas consent_submit_error can take either of the two errors - error300 and error350.

So to summarise this first set of 'flows' that I want to design:

a) encounters consent_start_error & it is error350

b) encounters consent_submit_error & it is error300

c) encounters consent_submit_error & it is error350

The second set of flows I want to design is when they encounter the error but eventually can get through and successfully consent (e.g., they re-try it):
a)  encounters consent_start_error & it is error350 >  consent_success

b)  encounters consent_submit_error & it is error300>  consent_success
c)  encounters consent_submit_error & it is error350>  consent_success

I believe the first set of flows is relatively straightforward to capture, and all of these flows would probably be at the 'visit' level.

Yet I am getting some strange results.

For the first flow, when I tried making both a hit and visit level segment, yet for some reason the hit-level segment has a lower count of visitors than the visit level segment. Isn't this counter-intuitive?
Here is how I created both segments:

The Hit-level segment has 11 visitors/visits, whereas the visits level segment has 25 visitors and 29 visits. 

For the second flow, I made the segment as follows:

Here I get 0 visits and visitors, even If I change it to "Visits" at the top.

I suppose it is possible that no one has made it to a 'success' at this stage, but is my line of thinking correct here?
Any help is very much appreciated.

Thanks!

[Jennifer_Dungan · Accepted solution]

Hi, 

In the first segment:

This is looking for any specific hit that has both "consent_submit_error" and "error300" both values must be on the same hit.

In the second segment, you are looking for Visits that have any hit that has "consent_submit_error" and any other hit that has "error300", these don't have to be on the same hit... so you are pulling back other combinations, like hits that have "consent_submit_error" with "error350" and some other error message with "error300"

If you need to pull a Visit level segment (i.e. pulling back all the hits of a visit, where there is a specific hit) then you need to add a Hit level container inside the Visit level segment explicitly looking for hits that have the combination of the two values... such as:

VISIT [

    HIT container [

        Action Name equals consent_submit_error

        AND

        Error equals error300

    ]

]

^ This will pull back all hits in a visit (segment scope), but the logic is still looking for the explicit combination of content_submit_error with error code error300 (hit scope).

So now, if you need to combine this into a sequential segment, first, this must be at a Visit or Visitor level to make use of the THEN logic (you cannot use then on a hit because the logic looks at each hit individually, so on a single hit, the value cannot be one value and then another).

But I can see that you have a proper HIT level container around the first clause (combining the error message and value), and then you have your success. The only issue I see is the use of HIT at the segment level, but you did mention that you tried Visit which should work.... Are you sure that people are actually completing this flow in the same Visit? If you have an isolated QA / Dev suite, can you try to replicate the flow so you know you have at least 1 success, then wait for the data to process and test your segment against that test environment?

Or if you can't force the errors, you could test this with some proxy data.. i.e:

VISIT [
    HIT container [

        Page equals something

        AND

        Site Section equals value

    ]

    THEN

    Page equals something-else

]

Do several tests with incognito... hit page "something" with site section "value" (then close the browser fully), try again hitting only page "something-else" (again close the browser fully), try a scenario where you go directly from page something to something-else (close browser), try another scenario where you go to page in between, etc....

When I say "fully close the browser", I do mean fully... All incognito windows must be closed... if you have any instance of incognito open, it will corrupt your test, making all the above scenarios into a single visit (with the same user ecid). You need to be sure that each test is separate... so you can either wait an hour between tests to ensure your visit has expired, or use incognito to clear all the data on closure so that a new ECID will generate for each test, treating each scenario like a new Visitor/Visit combination.

[asdf12341z]

You are actually such a legend, thank you so much. Every time I have a question, I pray you will respond, because you always get it right haha!

[Jennifer_Dungan]

Aww, thank you. Also, I am glad that helped.

FYI, I am working on a series on Segment Building in Adobe (the first article is posted, stay tuned for the rest):

https://experienceleague.adobe.com/en/docs/experiences-by-you/experiences-by-you/analytics/analysis-...

I will also be doing a session in the upcoming Skill Exchange on exclusions in segments.