This stats is a misleading because the way it is phrased in the report doesn't accurately reflect the results of the study.
I (and some people on my team) dug into the methodology of this study a bit last year and it turns out that the 53% number wasn't a measure of abandonment rate but rather a measure of bounce rate. In some cases a bounce can also be an abandon, but in many cases it is not. A user may visit a site, read what they came there to read, and then leave—happy with the experience. In this study, those users were included in the 53% number (because technically those sessions were bounces).
We've had some internal discussion at Google, and as a result of that discussion, this stat is no longer approved for use by marketing, so I think it makes sense to remove it from this site as well.
I'm happy to provide more details if you're interested.
Can you please remove the 2016-09-15-google-mobile-abandonment.markdown from this site?
This stats is a misleading because the way it is phrased in the report doesn't accurately reflect the results of the study.
I (and some people on my team) dug into the methodology of this study a bit last year and it turns out that the 53% number wasn't a measure of abandonment rate but rather a measure of bounce rate. In some cases a bounce can also be an abandon, but in many cases it is not. A user may visit a site, read what they came there to read, and then leave—happy with the experience. In this study, those users were included in the 53% number (because technically those sessions were bounces).
We've had some internal discussion at Google, and as a result of that discussion, this stat is no longer approved for use by marketing, so I think it makes sense to remove it from this site as well.
I'm happy to provide more details if you're interested.