[willis77]

Anyone here have thoughts on why, all these years later, Amazon still doesn't have a sort option along the lines of these proposals? It seems like such an easy win and an easy technical change. Do they have some business reason not to change their default sort?

[SomeStupidPoint]

I'm not sure what you mean -- could you elaborate?

Amazon probably doesn't use straigt score averaging to decide "best" items sort, and this is just proposals of how to change that to be better by not just using averages. So what is it you're looking for Amazon to add?

Disclaimer: work at Amazon, not on anything search related.

[willis77]

Amazon has the default "Featured" sort (I'm not sure what is behind this, but it intuitively seems like some combination of popularity + availability + rating). If this default doesn't fit your needs, your only option is to change to sort by "Avg. Customer Review", which gets you a list that is sorted by average rating regardless of the number of reviews. Evan called out nearly 10 years ago in the post that OP's article mentioned - http://www.evanmiller.org/how-not-to-sort-by-average-rating..... The root problem is that one random obscure product with a single 5-star rating out-ranks something with 499 5-star ratings and 1 4-star rating.

I'm often looking for what is the best/highest-quality item in a category, meaning I want not just a high average, but a high average that is statistically meaningful. I'm just surprised Amazon hasn't offered a way to do that (and have read umpteen threads on HN in the past years expressing the same frustration).

[SomeStupidPoint]

....Default 'featured' sort?

When I go to Amazon.com and search, I see 'relevance' as my default, with 'featured', some price related ones, 'average', and 'new' as options. ('Featured' only seems to exist on some products, and be related to ads.)

Is it not the same for you?

-----

As for your main point (because I think that your complaint is still valid even with 'relevance' as the default), it sounds like what you want is a way to choose what factors are applied to your sort.

I'm not sure, but it seems likely that 'relevance' is doing more than just averaging, and so being able to select which parts you apply (eg, only use a statistical notion of best, don't consider availability or shipping times) would cover your usecase, right?

Well, you might want to be able to choose between a few models of 'best', but the real issue, the core need, is that you want control over the model that Amazon is using to sort what you see and to have some input on what that looks like. (And not just have 'lolsux' or 'Amznsort', to be a little glib.)

Gotta say, that actually sounds like a pretty reasonable ask. I'm not sure why it doesn't work that way, either.

[willis77]

Yeah, my above comment was not using a text search, hence no "relevant" option (i.e. if you just drilled down the department hierarchy to, say, the TVs department).

> the core need, is that you want control over the model that Amazon is using to sort what you see and to have some input on what that looks like

Indeed, but I'm not even looking to have that much granular control over it. I just want "sort by rating, but toss out all the obscure crap that has 1 or 2 ratings, because that rating is meaningless."