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?

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.

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.

Zhoie Zimermann wrote: Triple Peccable wrote: I agree with 2 things mentioned in this thread: (1) Sales were quite good until this last week, and now are worse than they have been in a long time. (2) When sorting by "Best Selling", my products are listed in reverse order. It is perfectly reversed: The item that has sold the least is first, and my best selling item is last. Well I can honestly say this is a fact because it HAS and DOES happen to me. It's something I mentioned to Brooke a week or two ago. I told her that when I did a search and saw my products, then sorted by best selling it showed my very least popular and least selling item first, literally one that rarely if ever sells. At one point it was even showing in search before I sorted by "best selling". It was showing on one of the top pages where as my very best selling product was showing 20 pages past it. Also, I've mentioned this before but I'll mention it again. Things that are non search related continue to show up in search. I check page sources to see if the merchant has those words in their key words or listing data and they do not, so it is not merchant's fault. Really, if I am search for a couch do i really want to see public hair for sale? I realize that sometimes mistakes happen and need to be fixed, that is reality. BUT when something affects people's rl income and pocketbooks you would think it would be fixed much faster than it is. Honestly, someone said it in another thread, and I think it has some merit. The "relevance" of items in search may just be "irrelevant" to LL. It's quite possible they feel that a broken search will make merchants frustrated enough to buy enhanced listings since, as I stated before, if your items can't be found in search, then you aren't making any sales. I'm sure that seems like a conspiracy theory to most, but is it really so easily explained away when talking about Linden Lab? As far as "fixing" any mistakes that have been brought about by Brooke and the Commerce Team: 1) They actually have to view it as a mistake and acknowledge that they made a mistake (not very likely) or 2) It has to affect the RL income and pocketbooks of the only people that Linden Lab cares about which, obviously, is themselves. Search is broken. It's obvious search is broken. The people in charge of making it right either don't beleive that it's really broken (think clueless), or don't really care. Or both.

I know this is just repeating what's already been said, but maybe if the lindens see it enough, then there's a chance of a lightbulb turning on and an actual clue is found by those in charge of such things. Long story short: Fix the search function. It is so obviously broken that you could put a moneky in charge of "fixing" it and they'd have a better chance of success than what the Commerce Team is currently accomplishing. This applies to both the MP and inworld search functions. THE SEARCH FUNCTION IS BROKEN AND UTTERLY USELESS. That being the case, how in the world do you expect merchants to make sales? It's not only killing merchants, its killing the commission for LL. I'm not sure how this cannot be a priority or, if it is, how the Team in charge of "fixing" it continues to be employed. Search is an absolute joke and, until it gets "fixed", it's irrelevant to go any deeper into boosting sales than that.

I just started a little MP store last week, so I can't comment on the new maturity settings with any kind of real knowledge, or how those settings may be affecting other store owners. But I know this much beyond a shadow of a doubt: Search does not work. At all. Period. I only listed 12 items total, to get a feel for how the MP worked. Of those 12 items, they have shown up in search 2,957 times. Of those times they have shown up in search, all 12 items combined have been viewed a total of 157 times. That's just over 5%. Yea, that's not gonna cut it, whether you are new or whether you have been around since the SL stone ages. That is a HORRIBLE percentage between searched and viewed items. I consider it absolutely amazing that I've even been able to sell a few items with that kind of percentage. Here's a clue for Brooke and the Commerce Team: You need people to be able to view your items so that you can, ya know, sell them. Shocking, indeed...but also very true. Whodathunkit? When you do a search for random items, like say beds, and you get results such as dogs, boats, cars, grasshoppers and little green men from mars, that may be a clue that SEARCH IS NOT WORKING. Not to mention the fact that most of the garbage that shows up in that search is a bunch of $1-5L items that are just trash. Utter garbage that the majority of customers will get tired of trying to weed thru to get to what they want. Which, of course, inevitably leads them to giving up and searching for it inworld where, wouldn't ya know it, THE SEARCH IS NOT WORKING EITHER. I don't know how certain people in charge of certain things for Second Life keep their job. Search is absolutely destroying merchants which, in turn, lowers the money that LL can make off of sales. It's mind boggling to me that whoever is tweaking this search stuff still has a job. Where else can you completely sabotage a vital part of the SL economy and continue to get paid, and CONTINUE TO BE ALLOWED TO TWEAK THE SEARCH AND WORSEN IT? When search works as it should (don't hold your breath)...then sales, both inworld and on the MP, will revert to "normal". It's sad that by then, if then ever arrives, that there will be longtime SL businesses who had to close their doors. Seriously, get a clue LL.