Sales.. Dead.

[EndoPlasmic]

 

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

AKA - her team does not want to fix the problem.  Then the question is.... WHY?

---

 

We'll never get a straight answer to that question, you can be sure of that much.

Look, when people search by "relevance", then that should be all the criteria that particular search uses to find what the customer is looking for.  If I type in "black shirt", I should only get back results that have "black shirt" listed in the title and keywords.  Period.  This is not happening right now, and it doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that.

The ONLY time there should be added search "criteria" is when the customer is trying to narrow what they've searched for in the "relevant" field.  In other words, I search "black shirt" and get a ton of results.  I then have the choice of narrowing it down further by price, sales volume, whatever.  But there should NEVER be any weighted "criteria" added to the basic "relevant" search UNLESS THE CUSTOMER CHOOSES TO SORT IT THAT WAY.  Clearly, the Commerce team HAS put extra weight on things such as sales volume in the "relevant" search function.  It's inexcusable.

A "relevant" search should be just that, a search which brings back "relevant" results from titles and keywords (Titles and Keywords ONLY!).  There is no need for added "criteria" in the initial search, as that should be up to the customer whether or not they want to narrow it down further. 

This isn't rocket science, but the Commerece Team sure is having one heck of a time trying to figure it all out.  Of course, this is Linden "Lab" we are all talking about here, so the experimenting and further weakening of search can't be all that unexpected.

[Toysoldier Thor]

---

EndoPlasmic wrote:

 

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

AKA - her team does not want to fix the problem.  Then the question is.... WHY?

---

 

We'll never get a straight answer to that question, you can be sure of that much.

Look, when people search by "relevance", then that should be all the criteria that particular search uses to find what the customer is looking for.  If I type in "black shirt", I should only get back results that have "black shirt" listed in the title and keywords.  Period.  This is not happening right now, and it doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that.

The ONLY time there should be added search "criteria" is when the customer is trying to narrow what they've searched for in the "relevant" field.  In other words, I search "black shirt" and get a ton of results.  I then have the choice of narrowing it down further by price, sales volume, whatever.  But there should NEVER be any weighted "criteria" added to the basic "relevant" search UNLESS THE CUSTOMER CHOOSES TO SORT IT THAT WAY.  Clearly, the Commerce team HAS put extra weight on things such as sales volume in the "relevant" search function.  It's inexcusable.

A "relevant" search should be just that, a search which brings back "relevant" results from titles and keywords (Titles and Keywords ONLY!).  There is no need for added "criteria" in the initial search, as that should be up to the customer whether or not they want to narrow it down further. 

This isn't rocket science, but the Commerece Team sure is having one heck of a time trying to figure it all out.  Of course, this is Linden "Lab" we are all talking about here, so the experimenting and further weakening of search can't be all that unexpected.

---

Endo... I cannot agree with you enough.  You are DEAD ON RIGHT!.  This is what  I have said in jira's, forum posts, LL Commerce mass meetings, IMs to Lindens, etc.etc.etc.

sadly... no progress.

[EndoPlasmic]

 

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

---

EndoPlasmic wrote:

 

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

AKA - her team does not want to fix the problem.  Then the question is.... WHY?

---

 

We'll never get a straight answer to that question, you can be sure of that much.

Look, when people search by "relevance", then that should be all the criteria that particular search uses to find what the customer is looking for.  If I type in "black shirt", I should only get back results that have "black shirt" listed in the title and keywords.  Period.  This is not happening right now, and it doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that.

The ONLY time there should be added search "criteria" is when the customer is trying to narrow what they've searched for in the "relevant" field.  In other words, I search "black shirt" and get a ton of results.  I then have the choice of narrowing it down further by price, sales volume, whatever.  But there should NEVER be any weighted "criteria" added to the basic "relevant" search UNLESS THE CUSTOMER CHOOSES TO SORT IT THAT WAY.  Clearly, the Commerce team HAS put extra weight on things such as sales volume in the "relevant" search function.  It's inexcusable.

A "relevant" search should be just that, a search which brings back "relevant" results from titles and keywords (Titles and Keywords ONLY!).  There is no need for added "criteria" in the initial search, as that should be up to the customer whether or not they want to narrow it down further. 

This isn't rocket science, but the Commerece Team sure is having one heck of a time trying to figure it all out.  Of course, this is Linden "Lab" we are all talking about here, so the experimenting and further weakening of search can't be all that unexpected.

---

Endo... I cannot agree with you enough.  You are DEAD ON RIGHT!.  This is what  I have said in jira's, forum posts, LL Commerce mass meetings, IMs to Lindens, etc.etc.etc.

sadly... no progress.

---

 

I feel your pain. 

The biggest issue I have with LL, by far, is their seeming reluctance to listen to their customer base or take action on matters that are pressing to that customer base.  They simply don't listen or don't care.

The biggest joke about this whole search issue is the sheer hypocrisy of it.  The Lab has always been worried about people "gaming" the search (as they should be).  But now, whether by accident or on purpose, that is exactly what THEY are doing!  I find it kinda unethical to be "tweaking" or "weighting" the relevant search feature.  When you tweak relevancy in this instance, you are making the search results in many cases irrelevant, which defeats the purpose of doing the freakin' search in the first place.

The Commerce team needs to get a clue.  Either that, or LL needs to get a clue and realize their Commerce Team is crippling merchants on the Marketplace.  It's that simple.

[Relm Foxdale]

As all of my stuff is general, I am unaffected by issues related to whether one is logged in, but I can totally see where this would be an issue for any of us, and I'm often lazy and try to search without signing in if I think what I'm looking for is general content. The problem, of course, is that so many things aren't listed where you'd expect. My sales were blah this past week, but I'm considering it a statistical anomaly, as it varies (I get some benefit from one or two people sweeping through and buying several items in one go--LOL, one person paid my rent in about 10 minutes once).

But that example above about a black shirt...I tried that, without quotes, and the first result was a dress. So was the fourth. And there were knee-high boots under that somewhere. You don't have to be a genius to see that something's wrong with that. And I wouldn't think you needed to be a genius to fix it, but apparently...

Meanwhile, in-world search is still broken, too. It's a miracle any of us ever sell anything at this rate.

[EndoPlasmic]

 

---

Relm Foxdale wrote:

As all of my stuff is general, I am unaffected by issues related to whether one is logged in, but I can totally see where this would be an issue for any of us, and I'm often lazy and try to search without signing in if I think what I'm looking for is general content. The problem, of course, is that so many things aren't listed where you'd expect. My sales were blah this past week, but I'm considering it a statistical anomaly, as it varies (I get some benefit from one or two people sweeping through and buying several items in one go--LOL, one person paid my rent in about 10 minutes once).

But that example above about a black shirt...I tried that, without quotes, and the first result was a dress. So was the fourth. And there were knee-high boots under that somewhere. You don't have to be a genius to see that something's wrong with that. And I wouldn't think you needed to be a genius to

fix

it, but apparently...

Meanwhile, in-world search is still broken, too. It's a miracle any of us ever sell anything at this rate.

---

 

Yea, to be quite honest, I have not been able to do enough research to comment on the tweaking that has been done, as it pertains to General, Moderate and Adult.  I'd just be talking out of my arse if I took a stance one way or another on that front.  Many longtime stores owners have a much better grasp on that situation than I would.

And you are right about the "black shirt" example.  Heck, I didn't even TEST that example, it's just one I threw out there.  I didn't have to test it, as search is so completely broken and useless that I KNEW what would happen if someone tried that particular example.  I will even wager a guess that at least 35-40% of all items that showed up in that search (in total) had nothing to do with a black shirt whatsoever.  And I'm likely being generous on those percentages.

As for inworld search, my guess is that is gone forever, as far as working properly.  I still hold out hope for the MP search getting fixed, but that hope dwindles a little everyday, with what appears to be the utter imcompetence of the Commerce Team in addressing this issue.  I'm sure they (and others) may think "imcompetent" is a bit harsh here, but c'mon, let's call a spade a spade.  What other explanation could there be?