Developers reporting changes to Apple's App Store search algorithm
Developers with apps published to Apple's iOS App Store are reporting that search results have changed drastically and may be a result of a change in the weighting of the number of downloads and "topic detection."
Whereas previous App Store searches appeared to prioritize the names and keywords of applications, TechCrunch reports that more topically-relevant results have begun to appear in the query results.
For instance, developer BestParking.com told the publication that the ranking of its "Best Parking" app in searches like "chicago parking," "dc parking" and "sf parking" is now higher than apps whose names more closely match those terms.
"Apple is now putting a heavier emphasis on app downloads, so that BestParking has pulled ahead of apps with better names (at least, for a given search) but fewer downloads," the report noted.
Meanwhile, Xyologic cofounder Matth?us Krzykowski claimed that Apple has improved its "topic detection" capabilities. If this is indeed the case, it would mean that searches performed in the App Store would prioritize relevant topics over conforming specifically to a keyword or search term.
The changes to the App Store search functionality may be earlier implementations of Apple's recent acquisition, Chomp, though there does not yet appear to be any hard evidence that is the case. Chomp is an application search engine built to address the issue of discoverability that has arisen from the flood of apps to mobile application stores. The service was previously available on Google's Android as well, but Apple disabled the functionality in April.
As of early June, there were 650,000 applications, of which 225,000 are built for the iPad, available on the App Store. Total downloads for the store have reached the 30 billion mark, with more than $5 billion paid out to developers.
Whereas previous App Store searches appeared to prioritize the names and keywords of applications, TechCrunch reports that more topically-relevant results have begun to appear in the query results.
For instance, developer BestParking.com told the publication that the ranking of its "Best Parking" app in searches like "chicago parking," "dc parking" and "sf parking" is now higher than apps whose names more closely match those terms.
"Apple is now putting a heavier emphasis on app downloads, so that BestParking has pulled ahead of apps with better names (at least, for a given search) but fewer downloads," the report noted.
Meanwhile, Xyologic cofounder Matth?us Krzykowski claimed that Apple has improved its "topic detection" capabilities. If this is indeed the case, it would mean that searches performed in the App Store would prioritize relevant topics over conforming specifically to a keyword or search term.
The changes to the App Store search functionality may be earlier implementations of Apple's recent acquisition, Chomp, though there does not yet appear to be any hard evidence that is the case. Chomp is an application search engine built to address the issue of discoverability that has arisen from the flood of apps to mobile application stores. The service was previously available on Google's Android as well, but Apple disabled the functionality in April.
As of early June, there were 650,000 applications, of which 225,000 are built for the iPad, available on the App Store. Total downloads for the store have reached the 30 billion mark, with more than $5 billion paid out to developers.
Comments
I wonder if they take in to account what apps people have chosen to hide in their purchase list? I know I mostly hide junky ones.
Where's that "draconian store policies" troll when you need him?
Off the edges of the map, thankfully.
Long overdue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Where's that "draconian store policies" troll when you need him?
whats this have to do with that at all? This has nothing to do with store policies.
But.... having most downloaded apps show up first isn't always a good thing to do. It means people will see the most famous apps first, so it will be hard for newer and maybe better apps to ever compete with well established apps. That said, the older search method wasn't any better.
I wish there was a way to permanently get rid of apps after I've hid them. They can leave me connected to it on their back end so that if I do actually try to download some junk app I've paid for in the past or it's now a paid for app it still lets me, but I actually purchase less apps than i would because I dislike the clutter so much. I'm not a hoarder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I wish there was a way to permanently get rid of apps after I've hid them. They can leave me connected to it on their back end so that if I do actually try to download some junk app I've paid for in the past or it's now a paid for app it still lets me, but I actually purchase less apps than i would because I dislike the clutter so much. I'm not a hoarder.
Yes, I am overly careful about purchases too. There are lots of free apps that it wouldn't hurt to try, but I don't want them in my purchase list forever and a day.
Well, in the case of one of my company's apps, Wine Navigator Plus, the algorithm change has made our ranking terrible.
We've consistently been about #11 when searching for "wine" (on the UK store at least). We're now ranked #90.
We've had loads of downloads over the time it's been available and the app is currently enjoying a 4.5 star rating (again, in the UK).
The thing that bothers me is that apps appearing higher than us include those with very little to do with wine at all (iBeer and Classic Books for instance!)
The first result that appears (and this hasn't changed) is one called Wine* which has no ratings, looks tacky as hell and I'd argue is of very little use to wine drinkers. That app is also very new so, in terms of downloads, we'd surely have had far more (especially given that our app was free for a day recently, getting us an extra 7,000 users).
So, however Apple have changed the algorithm, I don't believe it's based on number of downloads. And it's certainly not improved the relevance for users - at least in this case.
Is this a good change? It sounds like poor quality free apps will rank a lot higher than fantastic, innovative but expensive apps.
@Wyatt - Another of our apps has had the same treatment with Apple rejecting keywords in the name for its latest update.
I think it's a good thing in the long run as keywords in the app names do look ugly... but they should understand it's the developers' way of getting around the poor discovery aspect of the App Store.
My guess is that this latest algorithm change is Apple experimenting with improvements but they'll continue to test and change. I hope!
Just curious.... what else are you doing to promote your app?
Do you try to get your app reviewed by people in a particular market? (photo apps reviewed by photographers... music apps reviewed by musicians... etc)
I understand how difficult it must be to get your app noticed among the thousands of apps in the store.
But I can't imagine the act of simply being in the store would ever be enough.
@Michael
You're absolutely right - it's never enough just to release an app and hope it does well. We've done press releases, gotten reviews from magazines, promoted on social networks and so on... pretty much everything we could do that doesn't cost too much.
But if the App Store is like a supermarket, Apple's latest algorithm update is the equivalent of having our app hidden on a dusty shelf.
The difficulty is that big companies have marketing budgets, know people at Apple (that's a big one!) and are able to spend the thousands it takes to launch and market an app. It's tough!
This is most likely round one and it will improve as more data is put into the mix.
I typically don't use search anyway. I already have apps for most the functions I *need* to do, and now just scan the top lists periodically looking for any new hotness.
True but it also means that apps like Facebook Camera, which they renamed:
http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/12/facebook-camera-app-gets-renamed-camera-dot/
don't have to be renamed in order to rank higher. There are loads of camera apps:
Camera, Camera+, Camera·, Camera®, Camera?, Camera!!
It seems Facebook have named their app back to Facebook Camera so possibly the change was implemented at their request.
I agree with placing higher value on downloads than keywords for search results but it should also take into consideration ratings and reviews with reviews ranking higher in importance. There should also be the equivalent of Google's bounce rate - the time between an app install and a deletion. With so many factors and varied apps though, one weighting choice is always going to favour some apps over others unfairly and people will always find a way to abuse it. Google has been at this for ages and there's no way their algorithms are fairly weighted either.
I don't even scan the top app lists. If I need an app I do a search on Google looking for a solid review but even that is a rarity. Usually I'm sent a link to a review or App Store link by someone who thinks I might like it or I just stumble across a review of an app II end up buying. I've never been a fan of the iTS setup within the iTunes app so I do try to stay away from it as much as possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
I wonder if they take in to account what apps people have chosen to hide in their purchase list? I know I mostly hide junky ones.
Actually, the easiest way to simply make search better for most users is to allow them to hide things they don't want to see, but this is bad for sales so it will never happen.
The trouble is that "the stupids" will always hide something, then forget about it, then complain when they can't find something due to one of these forgotten, self-made preferences. That's why almost all searches are "dumb searches" now (not paying attention to your syntax), and why your preferences now have to be decided for you (as above).
For smart people however, who know that they literally *never* want to see a sports app, or never want to see anything from company a, b, or c again ... being able to hide groups, categories, vendors, etc. would be the route to a sparkly clean and easy to navigate store.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
There should also be the equivalent of Google's bounce rate - the time between an app install and a deletion.
That would be fantastic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Actually, the easiest way to simply make search better for most users is to allow them to hide things they don't want to see, but this is bad for sales so it will never happen.
If Apple would simply hire Google to help them with searching the App Store, all would be well. I don't expect that to happen.