Searching for the Intended Result

Posted on | April 21, 2010  
Writen by | Ian Griffith

By now most of us have had the experience of entering a search term into Google only to make a typo that Google has helpfully corrected, stating “Did you mean…?” Depending on the merits of your misspell you may find Google is confident you made a mistake and is showing you the corrected results. Other queries appear more ambiguous to the search engine, so it suggests a more promising search term while also showing the result of your query.

Given the prevalence of foreign place names and non-English language terms in wine titles, appellations and varieties this is a category fraught with potential typos. Yet a review of several wine websites both large and small found that correcting typos appears to be a feature that is reserved for the most sophisticated online merchants. Indeed many of the top wine stores use the same vendor to provide guided navigation and search for their websites. But even with the same engine under the hood, searching on these high performing websites is only as effective as the data associated with that store’s inventory.

Other than retailers, the wine websites that rely most on search are wine directory sites and publishers of wine reviews. Only a few wine directories were able to distinguish themselves by returning a valid result for a typo without tripping over misspellings from dyslexic retailers. Another approach to search is the “search look-ahead” that completes a search for you as you type. Some directories have implemented the look-ahead as an alternative to corrective logic which can work, however both features should ideally be used in combination.

We decided to take the search algorithms of these wine websites for a spin to see how they handled with a collection of actual typos from our retailer websites:

• Most of the big retailers handled common typos like “cliquot”, “barollo”, “santa margarita”, “mearsault” pretty well. This is also where the leading wine directories distinguished themselves over their peers. However, even the Wine Spectator tripped up on “Reisling” because of a few typos in their reviews.
• Harder for most sites is the phonetic spelling of wine terms like “montrashay”, or “Goldtrocken”. Wine.com tripped up here by recommending one of its own typos.
• Some typos like Rubicone or Barlo can lead to legitimate results, and few sites have a strategy for showing both the result and suggesting the likely intention.
• Only Wine-Searcher was able to make meaning from ” white zifendale”.

Clearly the quality of your data, either from your own inventory, or from the inventory you collect affects your ability to return the best set of results to your searchers. Yet this is one of your best opportunities to guide a customer to a sale. If customers are looking for a product that you have online, but they can’t find it on your website, then you are losing sales.

Beverage Media is introducing “fuzzy search” to our retailer websites this month with search technology that handles typos and the phonetic spelling of wine terms. Stores can now combine fuzzy search and guided navigation to improve conversion rates. The goal is to minimize customer frustration by showing the result they intended, and making it easier to buy the wine you have in stock.

Comments