![]() Or maybe it's possible with the adherent mantra of "internet speed" development that without constant investment in maintenance "development" nothing will work if left alone while bringing in alternative abilities. > The only thing that I can imagine to be happening is the overriding objectives must be econometric optimization and blow every other consideration. ![]() Why don't they provide a search interface that will be familiar to their users? Wouldn't that be both more user-friendly and also more profitable? > why on earth doesn't occur to anyone that heterogeneous search methods producing a range of results with a identifiable classifiable process or at least perceptual sensibility that users can get some understanding of, might provide not only consumer choice but profit? Specifically, it seems like every company decides they have a unique selling point, and they should build all search features around emphasizing that selling point at all costs, instead of building it around showing the user the thing they were looking for. > What absolutely confounds my comprehension of marketplace sites and any online business driven by user directed discovery, is the unbroken and never deviated from practice in every industry and field of making the method and techniques used for search as unique inviolable individual apotheoses of a imaginary USP. In reality shen I search for "scooter", I get motor scooters, electric scooters, the Segway wannabes, and six other types of things I don't want, so even then fuzzy search fails me :) ![]() (and I lied in my example to give FB a chance. I typically want something specific, and if I want generic, then I'd like a category please, something which Facebook also sucks at as others have pointed out :). So for me at least it's a lose lose scenario - our experiences clearly differ radically, and it may be simply down to how specific of a thing we want to. It will then cheerfully ignore geographic distance and get me excited about something 4 hrs away. Instead, Facebook's fuzzy algorithm fill cheerfully show me what it thinks is the best answer day after day and week after week, even though its a crappy casio that shouldn't even be listed as a synthesizer and it's been there for 7 weeks and is actually sold it will refuse to show me chronological list so I can see what's new and added. If I'm searching for Scooter, it may be good that it returns also mopeds and motorcycles.īut if I'm searching for Nikon d850, and get first 10 entries for Nikon d750, Nikon d610, canon 5dMkii, Sony rx100, and then finally a d850, then its really really annoying and that's 80 percent of my experience.įor the other 20 percent, When I do want to search for something generic like bicycle or synthesizer, I frequently want to see new entries since the last time I searched - I don't want to see same synthesizer (or heat pump dryer:) day after day after day. I think it depends how specific your buying is. I hope it never changes, and I wish more web developers would take their cues from its simplicity and potency, because the more complex and tricky a website gets, the worse it is, unilaterally. Craigslist works the way the Internet used to work before it was taken over by advertisers, tracking and javascript. If an account is required to contact a seller, it is anonymous and disposable. No login necessary to search, often no account necessary to contact sellers. Good for you, if you don't mind giving up privacy and being a product, but it is not for me.Ĭraigslist's interface isn't sexy, but it is impressively fast and stable. I personally fully retreated from Facebook permanently by 2009. You're required to you hand over your identity and submit to forced content and advertising. Page crashes! Facebook is also draconian about logging in, can't see much if you're not logged in, thus FB is elitist. ![]() Facebook's interface is heavily burdened with ugly templates, is needlessly complex and clunky.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |