Hacker News Reader

Comment by heavyset_go | Hacker News Reader

> It works well as it is

Search is horribly broken, sorting is broken, ratings are broken, products are broken up into categories that don't make sense and searching and sorting between categories is broken.

View on HN

You just articulated basically every complaint I have about buying anything from Amazon. It seems unarguably true that I can’t buy anything from them if I can’t find it. So, why is it so hard to search for anything I don’t already know the exact name of?

> It seems unarguably true that I can’t buy anything from them if I can’t find it.

Most people are looking for the best value they can get at the lowest price they can find. Amazon's site makes that process difficult and nearly impossible. I can only speculate as to why that is.

So much of the result of a search is now explicitly advertising. Amazon now has a new incentive to sell ads and display those ads as often as possible, whereas before their only goal was to return relevant results to the customer making the search.

You can say the same about Google search, yet their organic results are still quite relevant. Isn’t Amazon supposed to be focusing on the customer?

That hasn't been my experience at all, but the further point is that is all background stuff. They can improve the search without changing the UI, so it's not really a response to my point.

It's very much a response to your point. From your original post:

> It works well as it is, I certainly never find myself wanting something it doesn't currently do.

You are talking about functionality, and I am responding about Amazon's functionality.

this is such a classless reply.

You don't get to tell me what my point was and you certainly don't get to argue with me about what my point is.

The person I responded to said the website hasn't changed. I read that as a redesign of the site itself.

Now, there's nothing wrong if you read it differently. Where you stepped over the line is when you decided to argue with me about what my point is.

> You don't get to tell me what my point was and you certainly don't get to argue with me about what my point is.

You said one thing, which I replied to, and now you're claiming it's another thing. I'm not really sure what you expect when you do that.

and this is how you get dismissed.

"Broken" is one-dimensional-black-and-white-thinking-speak for "works for most, most of the time, but has some behavior I don't like so it's 100% useless."

So you can't perfectly compare an item that is cross-listed in multiple categories. Is that "broken", or not ideal?

Even ratings, the worst thing about amazon, are "useful" in that you can instantly look at the distribution. All 5's and 1's? Product sucks.

> "Broken" is one-dimensional-black-and-white-thinking-speak for "works for most, most of the time, but has some behavior I don't like so it's 100% useless."

Please do not strawman my position just because you disagree with it. Sorting by price doesn't sort by price, sorting by average customer review doesn't sort by average customer review and so on.

> So you can't perfectly compare an item that is cross-listed in multiple categories. Is that "broken", or not ideal?

When the feature says "sort by price" and it doesn't sort by price, it is broken. I assume you work in software development, so you should know this.

> Even ratings, the worst thing about amazon, are "useful" in that you can instantly look at the distribution. All 5's and 1's? Product sucks.

This isn't even remotely true. I've come across hundreds of listings that have reviews for products that are clearly not the product in the listing. The fact that this is even allowed means that the rating system is broken.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com