ActiveDen search engine works really well

Wow you guys are never happy, every time I fix something you find something else!

I can’t see what is wrong with the rating sort though. Seems to be fine to me.

EG: http://activeden.net/searches?categories=&category=utilities&order=desc&page=&sort_by=rating&term=image+gallery&type=files&type_id=&x=17&y=16 and: http://activeden.net/category/video-players/video-galleries?categories=video-players%2Fvideo-galleries&page=3&sort_by=average_rating&type=files

The results are being listed from highest rating to lowest as far as I can see?

Why did you guys get rid of the version filter? The one where you could sort between AS3 and AS2 ? It worked well for me on the old site. When I put AS3 in the search field it usually doesn’t do anything. It leaves AS2 stuff in there. regards, -LE

...what about a search by “mp3 player”

it is amazing that none of the top 10 results belong to “mp3-players” sub-category.

1. Menus & Buttons \ Horizontal Menus
2. Site Templates \ Creative/Portfolio
3. Music Players \ Equalizers
4. in Flex \ Media Players
5. Flex \ Media Players

I think when there is a search by “mp3 player” EACH item that belongs to “Music Players \ MP3 Players” should be listed first and than any other items which have some keywords related to mp3 player.

Wow you guys are never happy, every time I fix something you find something else!

I can’t see what is wrong with the rating sort though. Seems to be fine to me.

EG: http://activeden.net/searches?categories=&category=utilities&order=desc&page=&sort_by=rating&term=image+gallery&type=files&type_id=&x=17&y=16 and: http://activeden.net/category/video-players/video-galleries?categories=video-players%2Fvideo-galleries&page=3&sort_by=average_rating&type=files

The results are being listed from highest rating to lowest as far as I can see?

Nope its not taking into account how many times it was rated that star ie highest rated… search “image gallery” and then sort by rating.

1st result: 7 ratings (5 stars)

on page 8 of the results, is a file which might be the highest rating of 565 ratings (5 stars)

So I think we can conclude that sort by rating count does not work, what it appears to be happening is it’s ordering by stars.. but not taking into account how many times it was rated that star… the highest rating, should be 5 stars and then how many times it was rated 5 stars.

All 5 star rated files are not considered equal by the search engine. Internally we store the ratings to higher precision than is displayed, and this is what we sort by. So a file rated 4.9 is listed higher than a file rated 4.6, despite both showing 5 stars.

So I think we can conclude that sort by rating count does not work, what it appears to be happening is it’s ordering by stars.. but not taking into account how many times it was rated that star… the highest rating, should be 5 stars and then how many times it was rated 5 stars.

then you’d come up #1 for everything

total ratings / total sales seems better as a second factor.

edit: it’s irrelevent after what ezza said…

All 5 star rated files are not considered equal by the search engine. Internally we store the ratings to higher precision than is displayed, and this is what we sort by. So a file rated 4.9 is listed higher than a file rated 4.6, despite both showing 5 stars.

hmmm so if file X has one rating of 5 stars and file Y has 999 ratings of 5 stars and 1 rating of 1 star… file X will appear higher up to Y in the results, because of that one 1 star vote?

I guess to sort by how many times a file was rated a star is too much data? or that data is not stored I guess? Why not sort by star and then by rating?.. it’s not perfect but you would get more fair results… the current sort by rating is not fair at all and is not a true reflection of the highest rated files. Youtube use the correct algorithm to show highest rated videos based on stars and how many times it was rated that star.

First video 5 stars 5,275 ratings

Second video 5 stars 6,915 ratings

The second video has more ratings, but the first video obviously has more 5 star ratings… so they are using the correct algorithm to show highest rated videos.

file a: 100 sales, 50 5 stars

file b: 1000 sales, 100 5 stars.

File a is the logical choice.

I guess to sort by how many times a file was rated a star is too much data? or that data is not stored I guess?

If that data was not stored, they would not be able to add a new rating and then calculate the new average.