Thoughts on Market Categorization and a Request for Hair Typ

[Sierra Jakob]

I would like to make a request to add two hair "type" attributes. This is not a request for just me. This is a request to make the market better as a whole. Currently, the categories, subcategories, and attribultes are rather randomly added. The explanation I was given earlier is that these are added when it is "noticed" that there are a lot of products that might fit nicely under a particular category/subcategory/attribute. It might be more consistent with Kitely's overall Market mission, to --instead of copying other markets random categorization style - make more logical cat/sub/attrs choices--including even those that there are not yet any products for. For example, if a subcategory is "East", then "West", "North" and "South" should be included. If Kitely does this there will be several advantages. 1) Whoever is in charge of "noticing" that another category might be needed, doesn't need to do that--because the merchants will place their object in the correct category, because it is available. Merchants generally know the best category/subdivision/attribute already--if they choose poorly, their item will not sell. 2) Kitely does not appear to be "favoring" products with particular categories/subcategories/attributes, or themes. For example, if "Arabic" is a theme, then other major cultures should also be included--this way, Merchants don't feel they are being discouraged from creating "Asian" themed products because no one will be able to search for that anyway--and customers don't feel that they are being discriminated against. 3) Merchants will get the right category/subcat/attribute the first time, because it is available from the beginning--they won't have to constantly monitor whether the category/subcat/attribute, etc. they actually needed has finally been added. Therefore, the Kitely categories/subcat/attributes are more likely to be more "correct" in the future--customers won't all be wondering why the heck I put my hair product under "long" hair, when it clearly doesn't belong there.

Which brings me to the topic of this particular request.

Please add to the Hair Type product attribute two additional choices. We already have "Short" and "Long". That's nice, but logically and practically, "Medium" is now needed--this describes shoulder-length hair and is well understood by any woman who has changed her hair length. Also, please add "Updo"--since it really is something totally different from "Short", "Medium", or "Long".

[Dundridge Dreadlow]

REALLY good idea

sooooooo..... I'm assuming updo means/includes Marge Simpson hair !?!
Long, short, medium, tall !

'twould be lovely if there was a "suggest a category" feature with voting or something just to see how many are wanted/missing

[Ilan Tochner]

Hi Sierra,

There are several ways to view hair styles. A general categorization could be done by arranging hairdos by the average perceived length of a person's hair (long, medium, short). A different way would be to categorize hairdos by the style in which the hair is arranged (e.g. Mohawk, Afro, Ponytail, Crew Cut, Updo, etc.).

There are problems with using both these options:

Average perceived hair length is both subjective and culturally influenced. What is considered long for men is often considered medium (or short) for women in most cultures. The difference between medium (average for the culture) and long or short is also culturally influenced. People from countries where crew cuts are common will view men with 15cm (6") hair as having long hair, while people where 70s style hairdos for men are common may view such hair as being medium length.

The problem with using hairstyles is that there are too many of them to list while retaining an easily browsable market. Choosing this approach will require creating a few style groups that are easily understood by people from different countries and cover all the various hairstyle options.

We searched for hairstyle groups but couldn't find a categorization method that was both manageable in size and covered all the options. We therefore opted to use the first categorization option - average perceived hair length. As there are many hairstyles that would be categorized differently by different people we decided to make it a boolean decision that would help guide merchants to using attribute values that are more likely to be what their buyers will search. The options left to merchants are "Is this hair more 'short' or more 'long'" - this reduces the ability to differentiate between many types of hairstyles but it helps guide people to using groups that are more likely to be what other people will look in.

The differentiation itself can be done in the item's name or description. People searching for a particular hair style will be able to use the text search to refine the current options they're viewing to only include the hair style they're interested in.

[Dundridge Dreadlow]

I have never measured my hair.

Go figure.

Well, I'm no stranger to the land of scoff. Perhaps you'd like to explain to me why it is that every major battle in history has been won by the side with the shortest haircut.

[Constance Peregrine]

Hi Dundridge?

Was my reply scoff? (it wasn't meant to be)

Regarding your question, if what you say is true. Maybe the people with shorter hair had less head lice (which can be quite distracting to people in battle) and had better ventilated craniums (so they could think a smidgen better than their rivals)? Of course, if you said the opposite I could have found explanations that would have made just as much sense

[Dundridge Dreadlow]

hahahaha

No worries, you just missed the Red Dwarf quote hehe. It seemed like the right place for it.

[Constance Peregrine]

oooo...Ilan showing some humour.../me likes!! let the jokes commence!!

[Sierra Jakob]

Please. It's simple physics. The people with shorter hair were more aerodynamic. Everyone knows that's better in war.