Search Relevancy is a Mess and will cost you dearly!

[VonGklugelstein Alter]

Ok, so I waited to say something but its clear that the search algorythms are purposely being set up in a way to completely trash any product of value.

Now, (again) while browsing for products all you find are items of low value and stores full of low value items. This makes the marketplace look like a Junk Yard or worse a Garage sale outside of a Trailer Park. 

For the last few months, the Commerce team keeps messing with search but for some reason always revert back to the same system where low priced high volume items dominate all searches. This seriously affects the business of many merchants who are trying to maintain a inworld presence be reducing the sales of their merchandise. May I add that sales volume are not number of Units sold but the Value of the sales of these.

Best selling should figure in the total sales volume in Dollars and not just numbers moved. It is obvious that a 0L or low priced items sells more often than a more expensive item but that does not make them more relevant but rather makes them more popular.

 

Are they trying to reduce the cost of playing the game by making all products free so that they do not have to lower tier? It sure looks that way.  Its too bad but I am already seeing many very talented merchants leave SL for other virtual worlds because of the actions of the Commerce team is killing their drive to want to continue dealing with this crap.  In my case these recent changes have reduced my sales by more than half and if this continues to be a trend I too will have to start reducing my monthly tier and any expense that gets paid to LL.

for the last few weeks, I have been seeing the lowest daily sales since over 2 years ago when my store was not even half the size while until these recent changes sales were steady as a rock each and every single day for a year and a half.

 

In any case whatever the commerce team is doing with search is making SL look unattractive and Junky. If you want Junk, count me out.

[Lyra Blackthorne]

Inworld and marketplace search has been broken for so long now am just too worn out over it to even discuss anymore. The search teams seem to have some corporate agenda they must to march to that has nothing to do with building a working search tool. 

[Marcus Hancroft]

It seems to me that the search engine is set to display most popular first, and this is determined by the number of sales of that item.  That's why all these $0L things show up first because...you know...free stuff is always gonna be popular.  I don't know if there's anything we merchants can do about that.  Judging from their history, Linden Lab is going to do what they want to do regardless what the merchants think or ask for.

Inworld shopping is dying a slow, agonizing death.  I see stores closing down all the time, malls going away and others changing from big nice stores down to tiny little places.  It's a horrible shame, but merchants can no longer afford the tiers on full sims or parcels when traffic (and coincidently sales) drop to almost nothing.  With the Marketplace and its search issues, this just compounds the problem. 

[Triple Peccable]

I can concur. I am one of those who has been paying tier on 1.5 regions and who is in the process of consolidating to a tiny store, all because of the Marketplace search. I sell only higher end more expensive items, so I don't stand a chance.

 

[Couldbe Yue]

LL has always had an instinct for the race to the bottom.  They really do want us to give away our labour both to them and as goods to attract the punters.  That was their intention back in 2009 and they don't seem to have deviated from it since.  They've also been very open about not wanting to deal with too many people in any category in sl and have been working towards the reduction/consolidation of businesses for years.

I think we're finally seeing the result.  A few people make a lot of money and the rest of us are supposed to pay ll to provide the cheap/free baubles to entice people in.  SL was at its strongest when we were diverse, as diversity has diminished, so have the crowds and the income..  Well for those of us outside the "must have " wearables and the breedables set. 

I've never understood why LL believes that reducing the merchant presence inworld is beneficial but their behaviour over search and the marketplace underlines just how much they don't value our presence.  If their intention is to reduce the income they receive from tier because incomes are down so much that it's no longer economical to have a substantial inworld presence, I'd like to see the business case to review the benefits they are aiming for.  The evidence points to closure but even I don't totally think they're that stupid but I'm damned if I can see any other objective in their behaviour.

In the end, LL will do whatever they can to make sure we don't have a chance of success.  I really don't know why they hate their merchant class so much as it defies logic but that's where we've been for years now and it doesn't look like it's going to change any time soon.

 

[Jenni Darkwatch]

The marketplace search is overall a mess. Past posts have quite well laid out why. Relevance is pretty useless anyway, I almost immediately switch to something else - usually newest first.

As for inworld stores... I like to see some products before I buy them, but when searching for a specific product I use the marketplace. Same reason why I use the Internet for looking up RL products but then (often) drive to a brick-and-mortar store to buy it there. Searching online is faster than popping from store to store until I'm worn out, grumpy and don't WANT to buy anymore.

In the case of SL that brick-and-mortar vs. online search is plainly ridiculous. It should be easy to search for items in-world, display a render of the place when clicked on any found items' details and offer a quick TP. Instead, we have a webpage that has absolutely nothing to do with what SL is about, AT ALL. It tries to replicate the RL brick-and-mortar vs. online retailers separation. Dumb, silly and uninspired.

[Zanara Zenovka]

I agree search is a mess, and still believe that sales should have nothing to do with relevancy - relevancy should be based on matching search terms only (and good grief - give matches in the product name a higher rating already).

But does anyone actually remember back in Pink's day when they floated a plan to institute a small listing fee, which would have removed so many freebies, unsupported items, dead merchants and embarrassing old products, and the wailing and gnashing of teeth that ensued over that, until it was dropped? Well we're now seeing the result of that.

[Toysoldier Thor]

---

Zanara Zenovka wrote:

I agree search is a mess, and still believe that sales should have nothing to do with relevancy - relevancy should be based on matching search terms only (and good grief - give matches in the product name a higher rating already).

But does anyone actually remember back in Pink's day when they floated a plan to institute a small listing fee, which would have removed so many freebies, unsupported items, dead merchants and embarrassing old products, and the wailing and gnashing of teeth that ensued over that,

until it was dropped?

Well we're now seeing the result of that.

---

A little correction of your recall of history.  It was not dropped as an idea by LL for ANY reason related to the Merchant's near universal disgust for the idea.....  It was dropped - as many of us Merchants had tried to warn Pink and her team - because not only was the concept wrong - it was technically not viable to deploy with Xstreet.

The LL Commerce team simply locked all doors of communications for 7 months and finally had to admit in June 2010 that they had to "shelve" the whole idea.

So... it had nothing to do with our complaints against the poorly thought out tax.... it was that they finally had to admit they could not develop the tax model into xstreet.

 

 

[Medhue Simoni]

Yep, both searches are destroying businesses. I have yet to decide whether this is incompetence or some kind of planned strategy. From my point of view, the problems are way too evident for it to truely be incompetence. Possibly tho, this is all a case of engineers wanting to play with new toys than truely caring what those results are.

For years, we had a simple search engine with a basic algorythm that almost any1 with a brain could understand. Yeah, it had it's flaws but looking back, it was the fairest way to rank places and the best way to find anything. If nothing else, it was consistant.

This also brings up the point of consistancy. For the last 2-3 years, we have had none. It has be constant change, and almost none of that change for the good. Heck, I love change, but not haphazard change. We need change with a purpose, not change for change, which is all we have gotten.

LL took away all of our free marketing, even the 1 and only forum category we had for it. I say they should, at least, bring that back. Call it Merchant Announcements, and let any1 post product announcements there.

[Tiffy Vella]

Oh I'm nodding my head at all the replies here.

As a MP customer, I'm tired of irrelevant search results called "relevant", and constantly laugh at the weirdie array of search results. I alway's click immediately to "newest first", then "price lowest to highest", then "price highest to lowest" to try to get a balance between cost and quality.

As a MP merchant, I so so so so so wish that customers visiting my storefront got to see newest to oldest, rather than items that sell well, but are several years old. Or even better, give us a chance to select what appears on our front page. Imagine if we could choose a dozen items that represent a good spread of what we sell to go on our storefronts, and could display them as the welcome page for our customers. Like a shop window as an entrance to our stores.

 

[Catwise Yoshikawa]

I'm also tired of searchign for something and just found Demos. I don't think would be so hard to make a demo and freebie category. And I'm saying 2 categories, cause I don't want to search for a freebie and find only demos. That get on my nerves most of the time

[Zanara Zenovka]

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

---

Zanara Zenovka wrote:

I agree search is a mess, and still believe that sales should have nothing to do with relevancy - relevancy should be based on matching search terms only (and good grief - give matches in the product name a higher rating already).

But does anyone actually remember back in Pink's day when they floated a plan to institute a small listing fee, which would have removed so many freebies, unsupported items, dead merchants and embarrassing old products, and the wailing and gnashing of teeth that ensued over that,

until it was dropped?

Well we're now seeing the result of that.

---

A little correction of your recall of history.  It was not dropped as an idea by LL for ANY reason related to the Merchant's near universal disgust for the idea.....  It was dropped - as many of us Merchants had tried to warn Pink and her team - because not only was the concept wrong - it was technically not viable to deploy with Xstreet.

The LL Commerce team simply locked all doors of communications for 7 months and finally had to admit in June 2010 that they had to "shelve" the whole idea.

So... it had nothing to do with our complaints against the poorly thought out tax.... it was that they finally had to admit they could not develop the tax model into xstreet.

 

 

---

Nothing I said requires correction, and nothing you said corrects that in any way.

I did not say why it was dropped, merely that it was.

But to address the tangent you raised, please do find me evidence of "many" merchants warning of the technical difficulties of that process; I followed the debate as well as anyone and do not recall that being a major argument used at all.

[Marcus Hancroft]

---

Tiffy Vella wrote:

As a MP merchant, I

so so so so so

wish that customers visiting my storefront got to see newest to oldest, rather than items that sell well, but are several years old. Or even better, give us a chance to select what appears on our front page.

Imagine if we could choose a dozen items that represent a good spread of what we sell to go on our storefronts, and could display them as the welcome page for our customers.

Like a shop window as an entrance to our stores.

 

---

Oh my god, Miss Tiffy!  I would LOVE the ability to do this too!  Fantastic idea!  We should create a "New Feature" Jira and request this.  Maybe we would get our wish someday, huh? 

[Toysoldier Thor]

---

Zanara Zenovka wrote:

...

Nothing I said requires correction, and nothing you said corrects that in any way.

I did not say why it was dropped, merely that it was.

But to address the tangent you raised, please do find me evidence of "many" merchants warning of the technical difficulties of that process; I followed the debate as well as anyone and do not recall that being a major argument used at all.

---

You followed it....  I was the #1 flag bearer's against LL's idea of imposing a Clutter Tax as a means to get rid of cheap / free listings and listings from delinquent SLM Merchants.  I am sure for this issue alone Pink despised me as I was vocally against it until the day that her team had to finally admit defeat 7 months later.

But... regardless, dont promote Pink's idea of a Clutter Tax as the solution to get rid of cheap/free listings.  It was not and still is not the right answer to your belief that cheap / free listings in themselves is the problem for horrid SEARCH in SLM.

The problem behind horrid SLM search is LL's inability to provide effective search by Query Relevence.  PERIOD.

[Dartagan Shepherd]

---

VonGklugelstein Alter wrote:

Ok, so I waited to say something but its clear that the search algorythms are purposely being set up in a way to completely trash any product of value.

...

Are they trying to reduce the cost of playing the game by making all products free so that they do not have to lower tier? It sure looks that way.

---

It does "look" that way, and granted they won't touch this topic in any depth as far as a game plan. You do have half of a simple business fact there though in that low cost and free items benefit users. They also benefit LL in that less money going to merchants means more money potentially going to LL.

You'd have to weight profitable merchants tier and 5% against current sales pushes on land and premium accounts and increased costs/sinks from Land Impact, which is only mesh at the moment but has the potential for future sinks and costs now that even regular prims and scripts are part of that calculation.

Time will tell, can't find any evidence to the contrary that they really want to groom profitable businesses in any way. There are no programs, professional tools or perks, tiered levels or bonuses and limitations etc. to balance the impact they're having against successful merchants who used to pay far more tier and seed money to non merchants by camping and such.

A profitable merchants 5% doesn't earn LL as much as the other 95% that they lose when you take it out.

But yes, a world where all content is free does mean that the only spending is directly to LL in one form or another.

Edited to add: Or should I say a world of free AND low cost that contributes to lower profit margins across the board for merchants means more for LL, especially when you lower the profit margin further by increasing sinks. Less profit taken out in the big picture.

What they don't understand is that in the long term this has a certain threshold, that once past will speed up decline further as it becomes unrealistic to be profitable. SL simply isn't viable as a consumer-only space.

[Mickey Vandeverre]

Baffling.

Why I waste significant amounts of time being baffled....I don't know.

Would venture to say that most here planned long term based on day to day positive signs (that would have been a while back)....and planned accordingly.

Darn shame to let that slip.

 

 

[Pamela Galli]

There was something like that Tiffy but for reasons I am too tired to try to explain now, it was shelved, never to be heard from again.  After I had numbered a hundred items in order.

[Tiffy Vella]

Well.......bugger, Pamela. That must have been a while back, or so beta that it never made it to my consciousness. You don't need to explain as I can imagine exactly how the death of the idea most likely occurred.

[Pamela Galli]

I don't have much choice about keeping my inventory rezzed inworld -- people want to see and try out furniture and houses. I don't even look at any search, it's too painful. No one doing a search will find my stuff unless they are looking for something specific of mine.

 

If the Commerce Team wants people to buy 0L stuff, I guess that's how it's going to be.

[VonGklugelstein Alter]

---

Tiffy Vella wrote:

As a MP merchant, I

so so so so so

wish that customers visiting my storefront got to see newest to oldest, rather than items that sell well, but are several years old. .

 

---

As it is a new product could sit on the bottom of the relevancy searches for a long time until a smart shopper who knows that newer items are sually better than older ones figures out how to switch the view. most shoppers do not use the tools but just sit there and look at the list as its presented. 

I too think the default " Visit the Store" link should be newest first by default and then let people decide which sort order they want after they see the newest items.

 

[Tiffy Vella]

You are right about new items being nigh invisible on the MP, with little chance of change any time soon. My MP customers mainly buy from a limited range of quite old items, and I suspect they see nothing else, despite me investing time with updating, adding related items, and using relevant keywords. Inworld, customers buy mainly new items, and some older ones, as I suspect they get to see a better representation of what's available.

[ralph Alderton]

0L$ and 10L$ dross dominate any relevant search. This is a clearly a grave error.

What other online retail store would allow the lowest quality and the worst products to take up the most important shelf space, in this case, the first 10 pages of any Relevant search results. 

I've been lobbying the community and Linden Lab for 3 years or more regarding the SUPERABUNDANCE of dross and rubbishy products cluttering up the marketplace

I'm worn out with it.

'You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear'

To attract and retain new and existing users SECONDLIFE MUST LOOK ATTRACTIVE and 10L$ and 0L$ dross ain't helping.

We need paid keywords and listing fees to rid the marketplace of the appalling SUPERABUNDANCE of dross that currrently dominates

[Josh Susanto]

ralphs's here?

This can only mean some kind of imminent update that will "incidentally" have the effect of in some way robbing merchants or customers.

How's your alt's in-world animation store doing, ralph?

[Ziggy21 Slade]

---

ralph Alderton wrote:

0L$ and 10L$ dross dominate any relevant search. This is a clearly a grave error.

What other online retail store would allow the lowest quality and the worst products to take up the most important shelf space, in this case, the first 10 pages of any Relevant search results. 

I've been lobbying the community and Linden Lab for 3 years or more regarding the SUPERABUNDANCE of dross and rubbishy products cluttering up the marketplace

I'm worn out with it.

'You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear'

To attract and retain new and existing users SECONDLIFE MUST LOOK ATTRACTIVE and 10L$ and 0L$ dross ain't helping.

We need

paid keywords

and

listing fees

to rid the marketplace of the appalling SUPERABUNDANCE of dross that currrently dominates

---

Zactly!

[Deja Letov]

The Marketplace search is exactly why I focus on my inworld store with a much higher attention than I do to my marketplace listings. The marketplace has become a joke and not useful for finding anything of real use lately. I focus on making the in world experience so good that people know me for what I make and always come back. Word of mouth in the world is the only way to go these days. Marketplace has become garbage.