3 ms·
> Either search is not an important feature, and a suboptimal, DIY implementation that looks OK is good enough. Or, search is a primary feature and then you nee
by formerly_proven 5y ago
> Either search is not an important feature, and a suboptimal, DIY implementation that looks OK is good enough. Or, search is a primary feature and then you need control over it. IE, if you have an online store, travel site or dating app with a search based UI, then you'll probably roll your own.
Most stores have garbage search and even worse filtering. >98 % of stores have only categories for filtering and only trash like "price" for sorting. In the 2 % of stores that can actually do faceted search the number of facets is too small (e.g. shoe stores which only have a "size" facet plus categories) or the data in the facets is garbage. This is likely a big contributor to sites like Geizhals existing, whose sole purpose is to offer decent search and filtering.
- netcan 5y agoI don't disagree. If you have bad search, and search is a primary feature, then your ux sucks. I just don't think "just use google" is a viable alternative to making search good. If you're making an online store, search is probably important, and a major determinant of how well the software works. The best way to handle that is with search that doesn't suck. It may be hard, but that's the job. Fair point that search is not trivial to do well, but that doesn't mean it isn't the job.
- wongarsu 5y agoNinety percent of ecommerce sites have terrible search because ninety percent of everything is crap [1]. That doesn't mean that having a great search can't help your shop get repeat customers, just like good service, fast shipping or a good checkout flow can. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law