Shop Visibility And Commerce Analytics

What's being tested

Tests the ability to run cohort analysis and time-series aggregation to quantify shop visibility, apply dedup/ranking logic, and design stable visibility/intent metrics. Also probes experiment-aware modeling and uplift modeling for causal buyer-engagement decisions.

Patterns & templates

• Window functions for deduping and last-event logic — `ROW_NUMBER()` OVER (PARTITION BY shop ORDER BY ts DESC); tie-break with deterministic id.

• Time-based grouping using `DATE_TRUNC('day', ts AT TIME ZONE ...)` or `ts::date`; always specify timezone and bucket boundaries.

• Conditional aggregation idiom: `SUM(CASE WHEN event='view' THEN 1 ELSE 0 END)` or `COUNT(DISTINCT CASE WHEN ... END)`; use `FILTER` when available.

• Cohort assignment: compute `first_seen_date` per shop, then join a calendar of relative days to measure retention/decay across cohorts.

• Ranking & percentiles: `DENSE_RANK()` or `NTILE()` over visibility metric; report distribution buckets to stabilize noisy tails.

• Uplift modeling templates: T-learner / S-learner or meta-learners; evaluate with Qini/ uplift-AUC and policy risk, avoid post-treatment features.

• pandas performant idioms: `df.groupby(['shop','date']).agg(...)`, `resample('D')`; push heavy aggregations back to `SQL`/`BigQuery` for >10M rows.

Common pitfalls

Pitfall: Using impressions as denominator then comparing to views without matching exposure leads to biased visibility ratios.

Pitfall: Double-counting events across overlapping time-windows or failing to dedupe session-level events inflates metrics.

Pitfall: Training an uplift model using post-treatment features or leaking future exposure produces overly optimistic policy estimates.