Skip to content

docs: document Store search ranking and Console personalization#2653

Open
marcel-rbro wants to merge 7 commits into
masterfrom
docs/store-search-update
Open

docs: document Store search ranking and Console personalization#2653
marcel-rbro wants to merge 7 commits into
masterfrom
docs/store-search-update

Conversation

@marcel-rbro

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Adds publisher-facing guidance for Apify Store search.

  • Ranking on Store search and the MCP server search-actors tool uses criteria similar to the Actor quality score, with extra emphasis on popularity. Higher score = more likely placement, no guarantees.
  • Search in Apify Console is the personalization exception: same criteria, individual order per user.
  • Adds a category-dispute note pointing publishers to support for now.

Add publisher-facing guidance for Store search: ranking criteria are
similar to what the Actor quality score evaluates, with extra emphasis on
popularity. A higher score makes higher placement more likely, though no
specific position is guaranteed. Search in Apify Console is the
personalization exception - same criteria, individual order per user.
@github-actions github-actions Bot added the t-docs Issues owned by technical writing team. label Jun 18, 2026
@apify-service-account

apify-service-account commented Jun 18, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

✅ Preview for this PR (commit a677de0) is ready at https://pr-2653.preview.docs.apify.com (see action run).

marcel-rbro added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 18, 2026
Move the Store search ranking guidance to its own PR (#2653). This PR
now covers only the Apify-AI-specific surface: the new Apify AI page
and the Apify AI vs MCP comparison. Soften the MCP page's ranking line
to avoid pre-empting the search PR's framing.
…s it

Search ranking and the Actor quality score are separate systems that
evaluate similar parameters, so they correlate strongly without one
driving the other. Reword the publisher guidance to match.
The categories dispute guidance is owned by the Apify AI launch wave and
covered in PR #2633.
Each surface uses criteria similar to the quality score, but the
criteria are not identical across surfaces - so reword to "similar" and
drop "the same" framing.
The ambiguous "they evaluate similar parameters, with extra emphasis on
popularity" could be read as the quality score having the emphasis.
Rephrase so it's clearly search ranking that weights popularity extra.
Drop the "separate systems" preamble and the "extra weight on
popularity" detail. Lead directly with the correlation: search ranking
uses parameters similar to those in the quality score, and the two
correlate strongly.
@marcel-rbro marcel-rbro requested a review from danielarypl June 18, 2026 13:48
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

t-docs Issues owned by technical writing team.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants