375764 - Change default sort order on browse pages

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(addons.mozilla.org Graveyard :: Administration, defect)

Description

[Wil Clouser [:clouserw]]

There have been a lot of comments on the blog, and I think they make a good point - sorting alphabetically by name isn't that useful.  Of the four sorts we have available right now, I think "Last Updated" is the only one that would actually change the order very often, but I'm not sure how useful it would be.

Frank suggested some kind of "activity index" to sort by ( http://blog.mozilla.com/webdev/2007/03/26/its-aliiiiive/#comment-2325 ) although I don't think we want anything that is computationally expensive unless we add another column in the db.

Anyway, the bug is open for ideas, I just didn't want to ignore the issue.

Comment 1

[Michael Morgan [:morgamic]]

I agree that Last Updated is a good place to start.  I'd like to figure out a way to keep people from gaming that system, though.  People have abused that quite a bit in the past by submitting new "versions" or "updating" every day.

Comment 2

[Milos]

I believe that default sort by name is unfair to many extensions for. Last update or popularity would be much better, at least the authors would deserve better position with something (update or good extension). Sort by name is just discriminating.

One more important thing. Even if I switch sort to Last Update, then go back to home page and select another category, I will get extension sorted by name again. User choice should be set in cookie and be remembered at least for that session, if not even longer.

Comment 3

[Chuck Baker]

In lieu of an "activity index" sort, I still believe the default sort should be completely random.  This is the most democratic way -- all add-ons treated equally, with an equal chance of being the first listed.  There are (or should be) links to "most popular" or "highest rated" lists for users that prefer it that way.  Is there any technical (SQL) reason that it cannot be sorted randomly? 

Comment 4

[dfgaf3]

As one commenter once pointed out, sorting the add-ons them alphabetically will inevitably lead to titles like "AAA Add-on", "AAAAA Add-on", "1-Click Add-on", and titles that use special characters (see: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/browse/type:1/cat:22)

Sorting them by Last Updated would probably lead a lot of developers to constantly update their add-ons with minor, useless changes.

Sorting them by Popularity or Rating would both be more user-friendly and eliminate these problems.

Comment 5

[Fred Wenzel [:wenzel]]

(In reply to comment #4)
> Sorting them by Last Updated would probably lead a lot of developers to
> constantly update their add-ons with minor, useless changes.

That won't be possible. "Last updated" is in fact a simple word for "last version   approval date" this will hardly be a problem, unless somebody actually constantly pushes updates and *does* get them approved as well.

Comment 6

[Michel Gutierrez]

A meaningful sort for extensions could consist in comparing the percentage of people keeping the extension in their browser after installing it.
As amo knows how many times an extension is installed and manages its updates, there is certainly some magic equation to be invented to provide a useful result.

The idea behind that is to provide a usefulness rating. If people think an extension is useful, they will keep them and follow the updates. 

On the contrary, the popularity value based on how many time the extension is installed is easily abused with add-ons whose owners are google specialists who know how to attract users with SEO methods.

Comment 7

[Ben]

Any update on this?  I think the consensus from the comments here and on the blog is for Last Updated as the default sort.

For my extension I used to get 30-40 downloads a day in the old system.  Now I get 2-5 because my extension happens to land in the middle of the alphabet.  Last Updated in combination with the approval system encourages extension authors to keep developing their extension.  Alphabetical sorting encourages us to, well, rename our extension.

Comment 8

[Mike Shaver (:shaver -- probably not reading bugmail closely)]

Renaming extensions to game the system will get extensions removed from the public site, rest assured.

Most browse interfaces provide a lexicographic sort (phone books and card catalogues among them!) but I agree that browsing in this case likely means "I want a bookmark add-on, but I don't know which one", and appearing early in the alphabet isn't a useful predictor of utility.  In the fullness of time I expect that rating will become the right way to sort them, but I'm not sure that we have enough reviews in the current system to go that route.  Active-user-count would also be good, but we don't yet have the infrastructure in place to track that in the AMO database (we'd have to process many dozens of millions of pings a day, and we will in the future, but it's not something we can switch on right now).

At one point I suggested that we leave browse sorted alphabetically (so that a user can meaningfully work their way through a category) but have the browse links go to a random page within the set to start.  It was sort of fanciful, but maybe it's a decent interim solution?

Last updated is probably our best bet today and has the side-effect of pushing add-ons that are not compatible with current versions farther down the list.  If people start gaming that system, well, there's lots of room in the sandbox for them.

Comment 9

[Fred Wenzel [:wenzel]]

I changed the default sort order in trunk to "last updated", SVN r3757. (r=morgamic)

It will go online with the next push to production. Calling this fixed for now.