Closed tupton closed 8 years ago
I think this is the low-hanging fruit that addresses #6. There might be middle ground to sort by coming up with a kind of weighted "frecency," but this seems like it addresses the majority of sorting concerns.
This coupled with a solution to #7 will probably make the results a lot more relevant.
I actually think this also helps to address #7, too, at least in the specific example of gmail. Because gmail email urls are long and unique, their visit count is really low. Even searching urls for "gmail" doesn't result in many or even any emails in the top 9 results, which I think is the desired effect.
After using this for a couple days, I'm confident that this is no worse than the sorting from before and is very often better than it was.
Weight frequency above recency. This might not be ideal, but much-visited sites are usually what you're looking for.