Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Mar 28, 2024. It is now read-only.

[BUG-10688] [SLM Beta Search] Marketplace Beta Results do not take into account frequency of Sale when ranked by "Relevance" #990

Open
1 task
sl-service-account opened this issue Nov 13, 2015 · 1 comment

Comments

@sl-service-account
Copy link

sl-service-account commented Nov 13, 2015

Steps to Reproduce

Just doing a simple search in the BETA Marketplace engine.

Actual Behavior

BETA MP search results "Relevance" ranking no longer seems to receive any weight or bearing from sales frequency. Best selling objects are last in my shop. My best selling items are dead last in overall catagory search order. I can understand some slight rearrangement due to search algorithm changes but seriously dead last for all the most popular items?? Did someone accidentally put a negative in for the sales popularity 'influence' in the Relevance ranking?

BETA MP search results prioritize store and creator names over actual product names and descriptions in relevance search rankings making it borderline impossible to actually find anything that you're actually searching for

Expected Behavior

I was expecting relevance to maintain sales frequency and positive review rating in the searches as one of the primary criteria.

I was expecting a more integrated / streamlined review experience which made it so I didn't have to actively interact with customers in order to receive a review.

I was expecting to have item names be relevant and have creator/store names only show up when searching by creator.

I was expecting a handling of "DEMO" items so they aren't part of standard search results.

I was expecting a behavior similar to any other shopping experience online in 2015 ( Like Amazon.com for example! )

In fact I heavily question why SL isn't just paying Amazon or Google to handle their search engine and database statistics like the rest of the world does when they need this type of service. Why is SL attempting to reinvent the wheel here?

Other information

THIS LITERALLY HAS THE POTENTIAL TO DESTROY ENTIRE BUSINESSES, MINE AND 100's OF OTHERS IN SL. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE TAKE OUR LIVELIHOOD INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN IMPLEMENTING THIS CHANGE.

Links

Related

Original Jira Fields
Field Value
Issue BUG-10688
Summary [SLM Beta Search] Marketplace Beta Results do not take into account frequency of Sale when ranked by "Relevance"
Type Bug
Priority Unset
Status Accepted
Resolution Accepted
Created at 2015-11-13T01:01:42Z
Updated at 2017-05-08T23:50:32Z
{
  'Business Unit': ['Platform'],
  'Date of First Response': '2015-11-13T06:43:16.676-0600',
  "Is there anything you'd like to add?": 'This literally has the potential to DESTROY MY BUSINESS THAT I USE AS A MEANS OF INCOME.',
  'ReOpened Count': 0.0,
  'Severity': 'Unset',
  'System': 'Website',
  'Target Viewer Version': 'viewer-development',
  'What just happened?': 'BETA MP search results "Relevance" ranking no longer seems to receive any weight or bearing from sales frequency.  Best selling objects are last in my shop.  My best selling items are dead last in overall search order.  I can understand some slight rearrangement due to search algorithm changes but seriously dead last for all the most popular items??  Did someone put a negative value in for sales weight? \r\n\r\n',
  'What were you doing when it happened?': 'Just doing a simple search in the BETA Marketplace engine.',
  'What were you expecting to happen instead?': "I was expecting relevance to maintain sales frequency and positive review rating in the searches as it's the most important criteria.   I was expecting a behavior similar to the Amazon.com Shopping experience.  In fact I heavily question why SL isn't just paying Amazon or Google to use their search engine like the rest of the world does when they need one.  Why is SL attempting to reinvent the wheel here?",
}
@sl-service-account
Copy link
Author

ChinRey commented at 2015-11-13T12:43:17Z, updated at 2015-11-13T12:47:11Z

I have to second that but with some reservation. I think it's clear that sales figures are too important to the current search ranking but that doesn't mean they should be excluded completely, just toned down a little bit.
Some possible improvements:

  1. Less weight to old sales, more to new ones
  2. Rank by sales frequency rather than just number of sales as seems to be the case now. (That should automatically take care of [BUG-10000] THE VIEWER DONT OPEN #1 too btw.)
  3. Maybe and if possible weigh sales against current ranking. It's far more remarkable when an item listed as [BUG-100665] Crash on trying to save texture file(s) to computer from inventory #200 sells than when the one listed as [BUG-10000] THE VIEWER DONT OPEN #1 does.
  4. Include other search ranking factors too, not only sales figures and review numbers as seems to be the case now.

As for review ratings, the current customer review system is not a good indicator and really shouldn't be included in search ranking. It's not the search that is the main problem here though, it's the rating system. Most listing just don't get enough ratings to be statistically significant. Make it easy for customers to leave ratings and encourage them to do so and we shuold soon have enough for customer ratings to make sense for a search algorithm.
Oh, just in case: I haven't really examined this part of the current search alogirthm in detail but ti seems it is based on the number of positive ratings. That doesn't make sense of course. It has to be the average rating that counts.

Edit: Not directly related to Polysail's JIRA but please do not use keyword placement or, even worse, keyword frequency as search rank criterias. That would be a recipe for disaster.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant