New Marketplace Search???

[CatherineG Walworth]

I am not sure what is so new about it?  As with most SL things there is no explanation that I can see.  thanks

[Freya Mokusei]

OK. You're welcome!

[Aethelwine]

The only difference I have noticed is you can't search for a store name in the first box

[Beowulf Zessinthal]

a few have said this sort of thing..

but the 'new search' link is a bit 'hidden' in the line!

at least to me "Try Marketplace with our new search engine!" looks on the page like a single line of dead text as if the 'new search' is already implemented on the current Marketplace page, when really it is "Try Marketplace with our new search engine!"

ie ..its not so clearly done.

[Perrie Juran]

---

CatherineG Walworth wrote:

I am not sure what is so new about it?  As with most SL things there is no explanation that I can see.  thanks

---

They made changes to the search algorithms.

When they asked the Merchants to try out the Beta the Merchants asked what were they looking for.  LL said we're not telling to forestall gaming the search engine.

So no one really knows. 

[steph Arnott]

There is a difference, the beta version matches words in search and words in the merchants main title discription.

ADDED, Also the drop down list when typing in the search field gives a list with the matched words. Have noticed tho that after all the matched words products are found and paged  then all the non matched is added to the next pages.

[Kelli May]

---

Aethelwine wrote:

The only difference I have noticed is you can't search for a store name in the first box

---

That's a vast improvement in itself. I've also noticed a different mix of results being returned (on the first page of search, at least - I've not dug down into exactly what results come back) and different numbers of items returned for a given search term. The latter is reasonable to expect if the search is not including store names in product searches.

One thing that hasn't changed is gaming of search terms by merchants. Searching for "Batman", for example, will bring back avatars of the caped crusader, but you don't have to go far down the results to start getting other DC superheroes... and Marvel superheroes. The non-Bat heroes mostly seem to be further down the search, so at least the 'relevance' aspect is working.

[steph Arnott]

Aethelwine wrote:
The only difference I have noticed is you can't search for a store name in the first box

........................................................................................................................................................................................................

That has not changed,

[Phil Deakins]

---

Kelli May wrote:

---

Aethelwine wrote:

The only difference I have noticed is you can't search for a store name in the first box

---

That's a vast improvement in itself. I've also noticed a different mix of results being returned (on the first page of search, at least - I've not dug down into exactly what results come back) and different numbers of items returned for a given search term. The latter is reasonable to expect if the search is not including store names in product searches.

One thing that hasn't changed is gaming of search terms by merchants. Searching for "Batman", for example,

 will bring back avatars of the caped crusader, but you don't have to go far down the results to start getting other DC superheroes... and Marvel superheroes. The non-Bat heroes mostly seem to be further down the search, so at least the 'relevance' aspect is working.

---

Actually, that doesn't sound like a problem to me. If the Batman stuff is listed above the non-Batman stuff, and the non-Batman stuff is related, then it's good. It could be that there aren't very many Batman things, so the results are padded below with related stuff. That sounds right, to me, and better than not having the extras.

On the other hand, if the related stuff is only there because the seller included the word Batman, when it has nothing to do with Batman, then it's not necessarily good, but it depends on why the word 'Batman' is there. If, for instance, a description of a Superman outfit includes something along the lines of "....and all the superheros like Batman, Green Lantern ...", then it's not gaming as such. And, from what you said, it does sound like the items that are the most relevant outrank those that are not, so I don;t see a problem.

Note: Arranging pages to help them rank more highly than they otherwise would, isn't gaming. It's simply catering for search engines, and perfectly 'white hat'.

[Kelli May]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Kelli May wrote:

---

Aethelwine wrote:

The only difference I have noticed is you can't search for a store name in the first box

---

That's a vast improvement in itself. I've also noticed a different mix of results being returned (on the first page of search, at least - I've not dug down into exactly what results come back) and different numbers of items returned for a given search term. The latter is reasonable to expect if the search is not including store names in product searches.

One thing that hasn't changed is gaming of search terms by merchants. Searching for "Batman", for example,

 will bring back avatars of the caped crusader, but you don't have to go far down the results to start getting other DC superheroes... and Marvel superheroes. The non-Bat heroes mostly seem to be further down the search, so at least the 'relevance' aspect is working.

---

Actually, that doesn't sound like a problem to me. If the Batman stuff is listed above the non-Batman stuff, and the non-Batman stuff is related, then it's good. It could be that there aren't very many Batman things, so the results are padded below with related stuff. That sounds right, to me, and better than not having the extras.

On the other hand, if the related stuff is only there because the seller included the word Batman, when it has nothing to do with Batman, then it's not necessarily good, but it depends on why the word 'Batman' is there. If, for instance, a description of a Superman outfit includes something along the lines of "....and all the superheros like Batman, Green Lantern ...", then it's not gaming as such. And, from what you said, it does sound like the items that are the most relevant outrank those that are not, so I don;t see a problem.

Note: Arranging pages to help them rank more highly than they otherwise would, isn't gaming. It's simply catering for search engines, and perfectly 'white hat'.

---

One might ask, if I searched for Batman, why would I want to see Wolverine at all?  'search by relevance' might bring up the Batman items first, but what if I'm searching by recent items (something I might do to find mesh items rather than traditional) or by price (because I need an item cheap for a one-off costume party)? The items I checked had nothing about Batman in the description. I assume there are additional search terms that the vendor can set which are used by the search algorithm.

The whole Batman thing (while an actual search I tried) was also an analogy, and perhaps not a good one, to avoid using brand names. Let's say I use a certain brand of mesh body. If I search for "skirt AND brand-X" I don't want to find skirts for brand-Y in the results (unless they also fit brand-X). Especially when the search brings back 80 pages of results a significant proportion of which are not relevant.

 

 

 

[Britlan]

I definitely noticed a huge difference on the results returned when I finaly noticed the new search and tried it. I actually opened 2 windows and used both at the same time. The biggest thing I noticed was on the new search, the title of an item seems most keyed on now I think.

I also may have found a bug or 2, although after talking too one merchant, they said one is just old and was never fixed I guess.

 

1- An item search with the beta took me to a store page I've used before and I was surprised that they removed several of their items, but I found one new item I was going to get. I clicked on it but I just went back to the search page.I tried the old search and never found the same item but following another item link I ended up back at the store page and noticed the store was back to 163 items rather than 132. I imed the owner and they said the item I saw has been gone for a few years. It showed on their page though on the new search. So it showed a non existent item and fewer items when you visit the store page.

2- The other bug I noticed was when I went to the store from the new search it was totaly a new order. After talkng to the owner and her doing the same search, it turned out the default item sort was different on the store page. I have never used that except on a main search. I guess top selling has been broke for some time according to the sellor and relevance gives a better look on top sellers if you are curious.

Aside from any bugs though, my wish for a new search would be to get stupid items out of a search description. If I am looking for a bed, I do not want to go through endless adds for land, rentals or whatever. Yes, anyone can flag those, but it just gets stupid and may get you in trouble flagging hundreds of them and who has the time. Having a seperate demo listing would be nice as well when you search for items priced low to high as well. Just a few thoughts

[Tenly]

Tried it several times. I noticed no improvements.

Im still getting everything UNrelated to my search parameters.
Searching for a particular store results in finding everything UNrelated to the store. even including a store product along with the store name results in everything but the store Im looking for.

The only time you can actually get a store to come up is IF that store name contains all the characters our store names are no longer supposed to contain such as .::your store name::.

The category listings seem "slightly" different but most of what we commonly would consider as 'MAIN' are buried under subcategories.

Dont even get me started on the fact that searching for a MESH BODY brings up thousands of "default" avatar skins and shapes. these things should be in separate categories.
Maybe we can hardcore defined by use of keywords that the seller MUST select from before placing the item on the marketplace. these keywords would be used to give PREFERENCE in a search display, OVER what the seller has listed for keywords. The seller could also implement additional keywords, but those user entered keywords would not take precedence over selected keywords. This should already be happening when you choose a category, but the problem IS that the categories alone aren't working to weed out the chaf.

Right now I sell eyes for "default" avatar eyes. In keywords if I put "not mesh eyes" I can bypass the limitations of the categories and FORCE my eyes into a search for mesh eyes. I dont do this because why the hell would I want people looking for mesh eyes to stumble across something they do not want?

My pet peeve is people who do that. For example when I am searching for FULL PERMISSION shoes and I get some lame sellors gorgeous shoes which are labeled NOT FULL PERM which throws them right into FULL PERM. 

NO one will assume your shoes are FULL PERM unless you do something that forces search to put you into that category. And I think people do things like that because you may miss the "NOT", buy the shoes and be stuck with them.

ID like to see a sellor have to REFUND when they use terms like that which purposely place them into the search engines results because they purposely used a words like that. There is NEVER a reason to put NOT FULL PERM into an item. if your store name is FULL PERM TEMPLATES and you decide to sell things that are not full perm, GET ANOTHER STORE.

There are no sanctions against sellors who use keywords for which their product is UNrelated. It totally relys on purchasers to spend valuable time and effort to 'report'. WHICH. btw, does NOT result in the problem being fixed. 

The only time a marketplace item which is posting purposely in error gets fixed or removed is when the sellor is violating copyright.

I love SL. Not sure when I will stop. I keep trying not to love it but Im such a digital diva. Conversations like this might look like "grief" and it is, but if we dont talk about what it is we do not like, what we want changed, what we would like to see, nothing will change.

Some people believe lindens are not listening. But you know what? I think they are. If they were not listening at all, SL would not STILL be here.

I personally love much of the progression I see. Just would love to see some of the basics step out of 1997.