+1 for raising the bar on approvals
+1 for improving search functionality (this is actually already happening!)
+1 for experimenting with “forced search”, ie removing top sales pages and linear sorting by sales (maybe just filter out those who have >10 sales and present them in random order?)
+1 for replacing front page ticker with “reviewers top picks”
+1 for making it easier for VH authors to use new music (maybe give them the music for free if it has less than 100 sales?)
+1 for making great music!
Maybe if all marketplace members were able to rate AJ items (without having to buy them), more items would have ratings (specifically 1 star ratings) and sorting by rating would make more sense to buyers?
SoundSphere saidThat’s actually true in many cases. Again, “low quality items” are the root of the problem, while “old items” are really just “new items from the past”. Think 4-5 years into the future, then it’s your files from 2014 that is considered “old”
Oops sry, this comment of mine meant to address old and low quality items that have little or no sales at all. Those are the kind of items that just clog up the search results with their tags, and on top of that, making the search process a lot longer and tiresome for customers, who need to navigate their way around low quality items. I assume that if those kind of items will be rid of, less customers will end up sorting the items by sales, which just make the rich richer and the poor..well.. still poor
I would guess though that this problem will be at least partly solved by being able to filter search results within a specific upload date interval. Unfortunately with the current inflow of new uploads, we will have more NEW low quality items clogging up the search than we ever had OLD ones. It’s really about being able to filter out quality, which unfortunately is (to some extent) a delicate subjective matter.
Maybe if all marketplace members were able to rate other author’s music (without having to buy it), more tracks would have ratings (especially 1 star ratings) and sorting by rating would make more sense to buyers.
This was one of my first concerns while managing multiple item pages. Ideally, i would like the possibility of using dynamic content (e.g. <iframe> tags or similar HTML/text includes). That way one could have for example top and bottom snippets with remotely updatable text/links/images.
There’s a workaround where we can use images hosted on another platform with links to dynamic bounce pages, however this is a bit cumbersome IMO especially when working with links to similar items. Also linking to collections is an awkward way to go and burdens the buyer with an unnecessary extra click.
The main issue for me is the constant updating of previous item pages (250+ now) whenever I’ve uploaded a new similar item. I’d very much like to have a bunch of updated lists of 4-5 item recommendations that I could edit in just one place, and then BOOM all item descriptions with the “include tag” are updated.
I can see the point in keeping description pages clean and layout friendly, but there’s no reason the included HTML couldn’t be filtered just as it works as of now.
I’m guessing the simplest way of implementing this is adding a “communal” field to the item description page which is then editable from the author settings page. However I’d also find good use for having multiple versions of this field, when dealing with different categories of items.
Cheers from Sweden!
+1, although in the meantime you can always make your own icons and links on your profile and item details pages.
Oh, I see. Well then… anyway, there are many more authors now than when that top 20 was introduced. I would guess it’s there to motivate sellers and to help buyers find hot authors. I can’t really see the point in keeping it so short. Would be fun to see more (new) authors climbing the ladder, and learn more about their success. Also, would be nice to actually have a chance at securing a spot some happy day
So the “Top Authors in June” (on the All Items/Popular Files page) currently shows the 20 best selling authors.
How about… (drumroll)...
I’m just saying… there’s a lot of empty space below the list!
First of all, yes, I think a community that want to stay fresh should get rid of some cobweb and focus on the future. But on the other hand – the “old” (a few years), mostly forgotten items sell so seldom that they hardly compete with active authors. The jungle is “hard” not mainly because of the old items but because of all the new. In my opinion, if “helping new authors” is what we’re aiming for here, we should be more careful with what new items we approve. If the shelves are packed with low-relevance, low-quality items, it’s really difficult for high-relevance, high-quality items to sell. Constructively rejecting mediocre music is a service not only to future buyers but also to the aspiring author – either as a guide to improvement, or as a hint that others already provide equal or better music. Difficult as it may seem to separate selling from non-selling items before it’s too late, that is the most important task at hand.
In an ideal marketplace, demand and supply would meet up and all the “best” music would outsell the “worst”. Well, as it turns out in our case, buyers are not interested in listening to 100,000+ items before deciding. Just as people in a supermarket don’t want to spend hours and hours deciding which cheese to buy. And text-searching for something made for listening is always going to be a bit awkward. So there is considerable market friction which shifts sales towards items with good exposure – new, featured and already top selling items are the winners.
Audiojungle is a “long tail” venture where new authors are always encouraged to join in the fun. I actually think this is a very good thing in theory – but only as long as buyers have the option to steer away from the noise and clutter. As of now, many buyers complain equally to the authors. They end up sorting by sales just to save time, or picking hit tracks they already heard on VH. It’s a vicious cycle. On the bright side, the day things like search functionality, featured items relevancy and popular files categorisation improves, we may see another scenario.
Yeah but my point is, if the community has grown x 5, maybe it’s time for the frequency of recurring features to grow x 5 as well. I don’t mind competition, but these features are more like a lottery, and right now the ratio of prize to chance of winning is a bit steep. I’m only saying that a one day feature today is roughly equivalent in exposure to a one week feature back in the days, The overall traffic during the installment of the feature system was without doubt a fraction of what it is now.