How do you search for Stores Inworld?

In a SL business class I took at a school awhile back, many people in the class said they always start at the end of search; one reason being they wanted to encourage the smaller/new businesses; another being that the first page can often result in the "noise" already discussed.

Prior to that class I'd never thought of doing that, but now that I see it brought up again, the next time I use search for something I think I'll try that. I love smaller shops.

I alphabetize my lists and start from the top usually or sometimes from the bottom up. I ignore the traffic number completely, be it big or small. Some people profess to excluding high traffic places out of hand immediatelt, which is OK I guess, but there are times where the "big box" stores do have what I want, and no one else will. I buy just as much at big stores as I do in small stores.

I stated on the official blogs in a reply to Prokofy....that i felt that more experience users and the type that frequent these forums probably use Places search......whilst new users coming into SL would probably use ALL Search (or mostly)

The Lindens seem to think its ALL Search as they have all the data, but Prokofy thinks it's a conspiracy! Overall i think All Search is the most popular.

Would be useful to have a voting Poll. (include Classifieds & People Search too)


I tend to use All Search- Prim edit/creator - People Search - Classifieds ...in that order, for some things i go straight to Xstreet (although that can be a nightmare at times)


.

The most popular keywords and the ones that have the competitive keyword battles over like "hair", you're less like to have the likes of ETD or Gurl6 at the top. ....but that's not true for so many other keywords that are secondary or a bit niche....you'll generally quality suppliers near the top or on Page 1 and with less keyword stuffing.

I do it because occasionally, I find a new creator that's just starting out. They aren't going to be high on the list and I like seeing the up and comings.

When they first trotted out the new all search, they told us (perhaps it was James in here in the forums) that they were finding that a lot of new users were indeed using the old all search to find things, and I believe that was the impetus for improving it using the GSA. IIRC, they watched people play and watched them look for stuff and the old all search, sadly, was what they were using. Despite the fact that there were nice, neat handy tabs that automatically filtered information, they used THAT.

So they revamped it, and in my opinion, it's not bad. I tend to use it more now than anything else, and if I want to filter by place/person/group, etc. I use the dropdown. I would support the GSA being used in all the other tabs as the search engine, just prefiltered to exclude the other types of info.

By and large, I do think it comes up with relevant results but the issue is always with quality, something that cannot be determined by a search engine. Keyword stuffing sucks, but what matters is what is actually being sold. I notice that there is no discussion of whether the results are actually relevant.

I visited the #1 non-region result for "hair" and I found it to be relevant, although not of great quality (quality being defined as variety and quantity of the thing being searched for). I didn't demo the actual product to see if they were crap, but they looked fine in the pictures. For those who say it is an unusable result, why is this mall not usable to someone looking for hair? Or shapes, which they put more emphasis on (and you can see in their page results after a few stuffed keywords).

Again, a big problem with search is that it's not explicitly a tool for shopping, nor is it explicitly a tool for exploring. And also our inability to categorize objects in a meaningful way limits the ability of the engine to find objects that reflect what we conceptualize them as, such as "hair".

So as far as I am concerned, a shop that acutally sells what it says it sells, even if it is some dime-a-dozen mall, is a relevant result and the search engine did not fail. What one deems a useful result, however, is a subjective standard.

I hear you!

Generally i can find most things via All Search...especially like you stated....the use of Categories drop down menu.

I disagree. It is not success that you just find things that can technically be described by the terms you searched for. Success is finding things you are delighted with, and that will make you think highly of SL.

I think that that is too high of a standard for a search engine. It's not a mind reader and there is no way that any search engine is going to meet your needs. You will never be happy with search if you expect it to perform miracles.

Agreed. I don't expect to find the exact place to get what I want, unless I know the name of the store. Finding a group of locations where the item may be is what I expect. I search Places, I get Places, and go out and find it. It doesn't bother me if it takes some time, I'm not in a race. Shopping and exploring is part of the enjoyment I get from SL. And it seems , withh LL pushing Xstreet to a point of making inworld shopping irrelevant, they are taking that away along with all the other fun in their quest for More Predictability (tm)

I have no illusion that what I do is representative of anybody, but FWIW: I use All search a lot, but rarely for finding stores to buy stuff--I hardly use Search at all for that, nor Xstreet. Right-click is by *far* the most likely way for me to become a buyer of anything, either because I admire something in-world and Edit it for the creator, or because I'm checking Properties on an Inventory item to buy something else from that creator. (I throw away landmarks immediately upon receipt; their half-life is too short to justify Inventory slots.)

After I've identified the creator, I often use All search to "shop" their listing and to use the "Go" buttons, so if the whole listing is a mess, it's a disincentive.

Because the dopey Search browser has no internal text search, I'll sometimes grab the URL from the bottom of that page and paste it into a real browser to find occurrences of a specific string. (That's a pain anyway, but probably because of my Linux window manager, it's extra annoying: somehow that text just won't copy into the clipboard, so I have to highlight it and then paste it with a middle mouseclick..)

I almost never use Places search. I get the arguments pro and con--it's not as if All search is any better these days (although it used to be). But I'm completely out of the habit of Places at this point; if the tab went away, I'd never notice.

I tried it your way last night, Cristalle, and typed in a very general one word search. I needed the item within half an hour, though....so had to consider time.

Used All search, set to Places. First listings to come up were malls. No product listed....just keywords placed into items that were not for sale. Just couldn't bring myself to go there. No way, would I find this item in half an hour, by being TP'd to the courtyard of a mall.

Next few listings were actual stores....same thing on the listing....no product....just keywords, and very general ones. I gave it a shot. When I got there, I could not find anything close to what I needed. I scanned all over, and didn't see anything that was even in the general category, let alone the specific item.

Midway down the page, there is a store that has a few products listed....but 75% of the other listings are keywords only, no product. The product listed is 700L. I should be able to get it for 200L - so I don't go there. I'm not sure if they would have the product in the 200L range, because there are only a handful of products listed on this page.

At the bottom of the first page....I discover a store that specifically carries this item in general, and they have their products listed, with complete descriptions....so I am able to pinpoint the product by color, and use the GO feature, and end up in front of a vendor with the item. It's not exactly the style I want. So I scan around - the place has rezzed now....and it's a little bitty store with about 2 dozen products. I've got over a thousand products labeled specifically to a T, in my store....and no way in hell, will I ever make first page of a general search. How did they do this!

So I check their traffic....about 900....pretty good for a store that size, but still...how did they get to first page, they hardly have a selection here. Scan around, and there is a sign on the wall, where you get a free product, if you place the store in your picks....and two other women show up, while I'm there....and I see them join the store group, and get a tag above their head, and the tag says something about free stuff, store in picks.

It's been an hour, now....and I don't have product in my hands....so I go to an old stand-by LM from inventory....TP....and I find it within 2 minutes.

You didn't really do it my way to see if the result was relevant.

Think about this for a minute. A mall that doesn't sell anything? That doesn't make sense. You judged it just because it was a mall. You also made the judgment because you had a specific time constraint and made assumptions about the mall.

I think it is conditioning about keyword stuffing that stopped you. If you accept the fact that there will be some keyword stuffing in any highly ranked place and then check the results, then you might have had a different result.

The other thing is that it seems that you weren't really looking for something general, like "hair," but something specific. That may change the dynamic, and if it is something that requires a specific keyword combination, why didn't you just type in the keyword combination and see how it turned out? It seems that you made your search for something specific harder by looking for something general.

I'm very curious about what it is you were searching for that you couldn't find even from the "actual stores." If you do not feel comfortable saying what it is in here, please PM me or IM me inworld.

Well, that's pretty much why I asked the question. Was curious if people do make judgments or not, when pulling up the search pages. My hunch was that they do, and I know this is just a small sampling of styles. Also, most of those responding have been here for a while, and it would be a different method of search for someone who just arrived 30 days ago...probably.

I judged the mall, because I've "been there done that" on trying to find something. Just went by past experience, and short on time.

I didn't type in a very specific keyword description, because I wanted to test out a general term. And anyone who had this product in general....should have the specific product, as it should be a base for a product line.

As we've been discussing, I ran the search and know for a fact that the #1 result in my search results has what you were looking for because I already have some from there. And #s 2 and 3 also have the genre of what you're looking for.

I think the keyword stuffing is an obvious turn-off for people that read the page and see a bunch of crap that isn't for sale. I'm sure it is especially distracting for people who don't sell anything, but are a service of some sort.

In this case I would agree with Phil that a second page that has all the meta keywords and objects not for sale might be handy, leaving the visible page clean and easier to read.

Or just an option to turn off the display of objects on the parcel because they are not a shopping site with things for sale would be nice.

A comment from the dark side: I own Sirena Hair, and this is a topic that's near and dear to heart

Ive tried checking the "Show in search" button in all my actual products. When I did that, all 100+ styles times 17 packs are included. That lowers my listing, so it doesn't even show up in the first 10 pages

I actually make hair. That's all Ive been making for over 2 years. I don't resell; I am not a mall. I make original hairs.

I really, really wish there was an alphabetized listing of hair creators, like the one at the Hairspray sim or from Hair Fair.

Frankly, I don't know what to do. For a long time, I didn't tweak the search results. But people kept telling me Im hard to find.

Now, I watch 2 keywords: "sirena" and "hair". I don't have any other keywords I don't belong in (like "skin" or "shoes". So, is there such a thing as ethical stuffing? ;P

As long as I can keep finding your super cool scripted hair, I am happy - don't hide!

Hi Natalia. Thanks for coming.

There is such a thing as ethical stuffing. Putting in the description of what you sell (hair) into every object for sale is perfectly legitimate. "Another fine Sirena Hair Style." It allows anyone inspecting the hair to know the name of the shop and to find you in search.

That said, you ranked high for all the "actual stores" and you shouldn't feel bad about that at all. We have to wait and see what happens with search, but I don't think that the changes will be devastatingly different from what we have now, unless they use Phil's idea of a second page for meta keywords.

Someone im'd me about this in the week, it's an interesting issue. Their items are medieval based, medieval clothing, medieval buildings, medieval weapons and now they're concerned that they will be dinged for stuffing because of repeated use of the word medieval.

The second page for non-human would be a really, really bad idea, particularly if there wasn't a very obvious Page.2 link on the first page.
If it were completely invisible except to the parcel owner, it would be the idea from Hell.

Merchants unfamiliar with the internal operation of search engines would be at a huge disadvantage. What would get the rankings would be excellence at search engine feeding rather than excellence at producing product/service.

The advice in LL's guidelines, if followed by all, would enable people to find product, and particularly when using phrases to search.
"Appeal to Humans, Not Search Engines " would enable a level playing field.
People would still have to put some thought and intelligence into how they worded the various sections, and would be able to see the style used by others.


A hidden page would be as crazy in effect as the upcoming change to drop registered Scripted Agents from Traffic. Nobody will be able to see who's cheating. You look at a store model bot, a greeter or whatever. Is it registered or is it clocking up Traffic? No way to tell.

So you look at search results ranked by a hidden page. How did they get that high ranking? No way to tell.

Quite candidly, I don't give a crap how they got there, so long as what they sell is in the genre of what I'm looking for. As my view of the test results go, people WOULD find what they were looking for, so the result is not useless.

"Appeal to humans, not search engines" is cute, but ultimately nonsensical since it suggests that a search result should be the product of mindreading. What I've been finding is that people are misusing the term "useless result" a lot because they don't like what they find when they get to the destination, or they pre-judged and didn't even check for relevance at all.

Those are the sort of phrases that people searching for specific sub-categories of 'medieval' would be expected to use. It is natural repetition in context.
A parcel with "medieval buildings" is more relevant to a search for "medieval buildings" than is a parcel that happens to sell medieval textures, and separately, building aids.

It would be great if the indexing did not give additional ranking in a search for "medieval" but did rank on a phrase search.

Now, if he were to list a shield and describe it as something like "Medieval Shield - medieval clothing, medieval buildings, medieval weapons", he would definitely be keyword stuffing.

Although it is very useful for humans to see the name of the makers' businesses in the description of items in their Inventory or rezzed around the Grid, it's unlikely that a business would call itself something like "Joe's medieval clothing, medieval buildings, medieval weapons, medieval something, medieval something_else". Someone could name their business like that I suppose, but there might be downsides.

Yeah, and it would be a really stupid missed opportunity, too. Not that they aren't predisposed to miss every opportunity that presents itself.

The real win here would be to get past the denial stage and realize that in-world Search has FAIL writ large all over it, and XstreetSL is half-assed and stoopid from top to bottom, Search included. They bought a pig in a poke, and should get over it already and think outside the lame little box that currently passes for virtual world web commerce.

Here's one way:

All Premium members get free e-commerce webpages for a "shop" and products to populate and include in Search. If they have land, they can link it to a parcel web page automatically populated with the objects set to show in search. Search on the web and in-world is completely unified--there is no Xstreet distinct from Search except maybe a few web-only e-commerce operations on that same set of webpages. There are no listing fees other than Premium membership, but sales originating from Search or a Search-directed TP are taxed some nominal percentage, and the transaction report to the seller includes the details of the search that lead to the sale--without those details, no tax is charged.

Why don't they do something like this? Perhaps

1. They're imbeciles.
2. They can't let themselves believe how pathetic Xstreet really is.
3. They hope to spin-off Xstreet again someday.
4. They're victims of some Byzantine organizational objectives that pit Land vs Commerce.

Hi, Natalia. For what it's worth, I buy almost all my hair from your shop, ever since I started, and I certainly didn't find you from search.

As I recall, when first I started buying hair I spent a couple of hours TP-ing around checking places (for which I must have used search, I guess) to see what I liked, and found it pretty much a waste of time -- places taking ages to rez and then finding myself just overwhelmed by the ranges available, none of which I particularly liked when I tried them on. It was that experience, as I recall, that pretty much decided me that search isn't a particularly useful tool when you're shopping.

So instead, I started asking friends whose hair I liked where they got theirs from. Your name kept on coming up, and I'd seen some of it in your invaluable blog (to which someone had directed me when I was asking how make something) and liked it, so I asked for a LM.

When I got there, I liked the layout of the shop -- easy to find stuff -- and when I started trying on the samples, I found that the shape of my head is such that I can wear just about anything you make without having to edit it (very important when you're new, and still important to me now, for saving time, if nothing else) and that I really like your up-dos, so I keep on coming back. And the cycle goes on, with me recommending you to new people, or people asking me where I got my hair from 'cos they really like it and me giving them one of your LMs.

Even when I buy other people's hair, it's not because I've thought, "I feel like a change; I'll see what else is available by searching for 'hair'" and started tp-ing around; it's because a friend will have said, "I found this great hair shop the other day" -- usually via a blog or a recommendation -- "and there's some stuff there I think you would like" or I've seen an advert (usually over at SLU) or I'm out doing something else and I happen to see a shop display that catches my eye.

Search really doesn't feature much in my buying; for me it's a tool to find out where somewhere is rather than anything else.

That's the kind of "good enough" attitude that has given us the duck walk, rubber banding, barbed boobs, melting underpants and The Butt Crack. "Delight" may be too high a standard for you, and may even be un-achievable, but working toward that you'd definitely not stop with search in its current state.

Search is what a lot of people are going to make of SL. If you search for hair and find a place like bad@zz and not a place like ETD search has failed and the searcher has one more reason to think SL one big crappy mall full of hucksters. Make all the semantic excuses you want, but SL and LL are not being served by people looking for hair showing up at a crappy club furniture store.

BTW, the senior-level search specialist position is still open at the lab. You can bet that whatever they release the 20th will not be the final word...

http://lindenlab.hrmdirect.com/employment/view.php?req=38287&