Can't filter marketplace anymore

[Paul Hexem]

"-word" and "NOT word" no longer work, so there's no way to filter spammy stores anymore.

[Wulfie Reanimator]

What's the exact query you're trying to use?

Store names are not considered in your search results, so if you try to do "NOT storename", it won't hide products from storename because the search doesn't even look at that.

[Paul Hexem]

5 hours ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

What's the exact query you're trying to use?

Store names are not considered in your search results, so if you try to do "NOT storename", it won't hide products from storename because the search doesn't even look at that.

That's a terrible change when we don't have any other ways to filter. That straight up hands the marketplace over to keyword abuse.

[Wulfie Reanimator]

37 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

That's a terrible change when we don't have any other ways to filter. That straight up hands the marketplace over to keyword abuse.

That part can kinda suck, yeah.

There are way better solutions to that than letting store names pollute the product search, though. LL could group related items (like individual colors) as a single listing, for example.

If you're using a browser extension like TamperMonkey, you can use a script that lets you permanently hide merchants by name.

[Flea Yatsenko]

They need to separate store name into a different tag, like how google does site:reddit.com (query) , and allow boolean so you can do NOT store:"blah blah blah" to exclude the store or store:"blah blah blah".

There are too many store names that have nothing to do with what they sell. And from a search optimization standpoint you want your brand to be something unique that pops out. But if you're using any standard english words people would search for in your store name, adding store name to a generic query can really ruin results. I.E. if someone has a store with "car" in the name and they sell things that aren't cars, those irrelevant products show up because the store has "car" in the name.

I think they are getting basic search queries under control, the results seem a lot better lately. Obviously it depends on case and if you're using relevant keywords and optimizing for search. But once that is under control I think the next step to make SLMP search really good would be to add a bunch of filters you can use in an advanced query. Something like the store boolean, and other tags that do things like show products that have been released in the last X days.

Excluding a store is a very important part of search, especially when sorting starts having hick ups and starts pushing 10 year old stuff where the creator is long gone. But it needs to be its own tool and not included in a generic query. I'm pretty sure they could add a few more really helpful features, especially after the problems we've seen from the last issue with sorting. Mainly the ability to exclude stores, or search multiple stores at once, and the ability to limit results by age. They should really consider adding more listing options when writing a listing too, including the techs used to make the product. i.e. prim/sculpty/mesh, texture/baked/materials/pbr, etc. and let people filter.

We need more filters and for a generic search to be as relevant as possible.

1 hour ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

There are way better solutions to that than letting store names pollute the product search, though. LL could group related items (like individual colors) as a single listing, for example.

This would be helpful for anyone selling multiple color variants. Having multiple listings show up in a search that no one clicks on also hurts that products' ranking.

[Paul Hexem]

4 hours ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

That part can kinda suck, yeah.

There are way better solutions to that than letting store names pollute the product search, though. LL could group related items (like individual colors) as a single listing, for example.

If you're using a browser extension like TamperMonkey, you can use a script that lets you permanently hide merchants by name.

Thanks, I do use TamperMonkey.

Although the fact that we're reduced to using addons to our browsers for basic functionality is not good.