I know you guys hate Trade. But come on!!!

So a few of my lethal prides won't show up in GGG's official search engine. No surprise there.

But trying to search for one using GGG's official tool is damn stupid. And the prices are even more messed up.

So I went to poe.trade and looked them up. Selling for 5c. sounds right. Go to GGG official site. And they are selling for over 40c. Like wtf.

So as a test bought 3 for 5c only one of them showed up on GGG's official site. And sold it in like 2 seconds for 40c. I guess you call go to town making money buying stuff from the working 3rd party website. And marking it up 800%.

Sold the other two on poe.trade again for 4c. So made about 33c profit in about a min. Because GGG don't want to make things correctly.

At least people who don't work for GGG know how to code. And yet GGG still don't want an AH.

Hell don't believe me? Than compare them now for your own reference.

Official GGG = 40c
poe.trade = 5c (what it should be)

Note: this is done on 7/21 and with no filters other than the Jewel's name. At least other websites show all items being sold. GGG purposely omit items to mess with the market.

"

Novynn wrote:

This is because the search term is too broad and our site only sorts on the first 5000 matches. Try using some search filters (setting a maximum price for example) to get more accurate results.

We should probably raise this limit slightly but it will always be a factor to be aware of.

I strongly suggest applying the current filtering ( = ascending price ) to the search, not only to its result then, because it's just unintuitive and very confusing.

There is no way that somebody without the information you just shared would be aware of this ... which makes is bad to begin with, and potentially unfair which is one of the biggest reason why somebody would be frustrated in a video game imho.

"

Novynn wrote:

This is because the search term is too broad and our site only sorts on the first 5000 matches. Try using some search filters (setting a maximum price for example) to get more accurate results.

We should probably raise this limit slightly but it will always be a factor to be aware of.

So your saying I should just exploit your tool? Until the whole community demands it gets fixed. As too many noobs are taken advantaged of. I'm sorry I dislike this answer.

Your solution assumes people know what the current market value is. This on an new item that has been constantly changing price this league. Nah I just recommend people don't use anything official from GGG when it comes to trade.

"

Novynn wrote:

This is because the search term is too broad and our site only sorts on the first 5000 matches. Try using some search filters (setting a maximum price for example) to get more accurate results.

We should probably raise this limit slightly but it will always be a factor to be aware of.

In top N sorted search at first should be applied sorting, at second displaying only first N select results. If you doing it in the opposite way, you should add warning that sort order selected by user may not work.

"

Novynn wrote:

This is because the search term is too broad and our site only sorts on the first 5000 matches. Try using some search filters (setting a maximum price for example) to get more accurate results.

We should probably raise this limit slightly but it will always be a factor to be aware of.

omg that is fucking horrible.

I always thought that sorting on the result would re-order and gives you an accurate search result o_O

I feel like I have been ripped off now the whole time I have been using your official site without knowing this lmao

EDIT: People need to be informed about that ASAP.

Actually, this needs to be fixed ASAP.

I mean, sure, it only applies to situations where your filters would display more than 5000 items, which is only when you're buying maps and the like, but still... this is a terrible disadvantage for users using your own trade tool.

a hint on the website that the search terms were too broad would be nice.

"

Novynn wrote:

We'll be raising the limit to 15,000 in an upcoming patch and investigating better methods of signaling this limitation to the user.

That's a good start, thank you.

Still, I find it a bit 'amazing' that such an issue had not been pointed out before here to be completely honest.


Would filtering the results when querying at the db level result in such a significant load increase ?