5 ms·
Another option is to fix algorithm used to sort the top-list. It's similar to search results, in that a purchase from the top list should be attributed to two*
by salmonellaeater 13y ago
Another option is to fix algorithm used to sort the top-list. It's similar to search results, in that a purchase from the top list should be attributed to two* factors: 1) the app's quality, and 2) its current position in the list. Basically, you can separate the effect on purchases of the position in the list from the effect of the app's quality, and then sort apps based on their quality rather than raw purchases.
*Maybe I should say, at least two factors. You can go really deep when constructing rankings.
- __alexs 13y agoSo apps should have a sort of ELO ranking where they fight with apps in the same category (possibly multiple categories simultaneously) for dominance and the fight is implemented as which app gets bought when displayed to a user at the same time as another similar app?
- salmonellaeater 13y agoThe ELO ranking is more suited to explicit head-to-head matchups, but its statistical basis could be adapted to app rankings. You could basically collect statistics for each app position (#1 averages 1000 purchases/day, #2 averages 500, etc.) and then estimate the quality of each app based on how its purchase rate differs from the expected average for that position. Google and other advertisers face a similar problem with sorting ads, which suggests some other relevant inputs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_Score http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_Score