List extractors and loaders ahead of other plugins types in search

[DouweM]

When I search "postgres", I am shown in order:

• utility postgres
• utility dbt-postres (EDK preview)
• transformer dbt-postgres
• files files-dbt-postgres
• loader target-postgres
• extractor tap-postgres

The first 3 are visible above the fold and the latter 3 require scrolling down. Someone doing this search is far more likely to be looking for the loader or extractor than the other options, and may just click the first link because it sounds right and then be confused because it talks about running Postgres in local development rather than using Meltano to send data there.

Can we list the results in order loaders, extractors, transformers, utilities?

[DouweM]

cc @tayloramurphy

[aaronsteers]

+1. This also came up in feedback at time of launch.

The first 3 are visible above the fold and the latter 3 require scrolling down.

Yes, and I'd at the same time propose expanding the height or reducing the height so that at least 3.5 items fit on each page, and 4.5 items would be ideal. MacOS is stingy about showing scrollbars (possibly other environments too), so it is entirely unclear that there are more than 3 items found, if the default result box height is an exact multiple of the row heights.

You would be positive there were only three items in this list until you mouse over and then attempt a scroll. But with no scrollbar visible and no partial items rendered, you wouldn't know to attempt a scroll.

[aaronsteers]

Regarding the sort, perhaps we can introduce introduce a two-column sort, where we first sort by an 'plugin type sort index' and then by the name of the plugin.

Or, if popularity is a larger factor, and if it would cause extractors and loaders to float to the top anyway, we could try only doing a sort on popularity/usage/installation metrics.

[tayloramurphy]

@aaronsteers is it possible to make the logos smaller? that looks like it's driving the box size.

[aaronsteers]

@aaronsteers is it possible to make the logos smaller? that looks like it's driving the box size.

Probably so. I was actually thinking the same when I mentioned reducing individual row height above.