What do these expressions mean in general: first-level, second-level, ... ? For example,

Response rates provide a first-level indicator of advertisement effectiveness. Conversion rates offer a second-level indicator of advertisement effectiveness.

  • 5
    There's no way to know without context. Are first-degree burns worse than third-degree burns? Is a first-rate hotel better than a third-rate hotel? Are one-star restaurants better than three-star restaurants? Is a first-level company executive higher than a second-level company executive? Is a first-level dressage horse more advanced than a second-level dressage horse? (These are rhetorical questions you can find the answer to by Googling; you don't need to tell me the answer.) Commented Jun 17, 2012 at 14:45
  • @PeterShor Thanks. So do you mean that there is no pattern (even partial pattern) in using this constructs? Commented Jun 18, 2012 at 3:34
  • First is either highest or lowest, clearly, but if there's a pattern to when it's one or the other, I can't see it. Commented Jun 18, 2012 at 4:02

2 Answers 2


As comments have indicated, this is a specialised use and "first-level", "second-level" etc mean different things in different contexts. In this particular case, second-level is a better indicator than first-level.

If an advert is not effective, no-one will even respond to get more details of the product, let alone buy it.

Counting the number of responses to the advert will provide a measure of effectiveness. Counting the number of conversions — the number of actual purchases — will provide a better measure of effectiveness.

A more effective advertisement will have a higher number of conversions than a less effective one, although both might have around the same number of enquiry responses.

Because the quotation is ambiguous, I would phrase it

Response rates provide an approximate indicator of advertisement effectiveness. Conversion rates offer a better indicator of advertisement effectiveness.


Perhaps you could think it this way:

first-level = top-level

second-level = sub-level

However, without the context, it's not easy to give a very definitive explanation here.

My guess: first-level indicator perhaps is a main/major indicator while second-level refers to subordinate/minor indicator.

  • Except when I Google "first-level indicator of", in around half of the hits it seems to mean a quick but not very accurate indicator. There are very few hits for "second-level indicator of", though, so maybe it means something else in this case. Commented Jun 17, 2012 at 18:24
  • I believe that for OP's example, it is more along the lines of first aid, second aid, &c, but it is merely a guess. Commented Jun 17, 2012 at 19:25

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.