wp.org search vs our merit ranking: “gna”
wp.org orders by popularity, so a plugin a host bundled onto millions of sites, or a big-brand one that's slow and mediocre, can sit at the top. Our ranking is built to answer a different question: which of these is actually worth installing. How this works →
For “gna”, we agree with wp.org on the top plugin, and our order differs from theirs on 1 of the top 17. 5 plugins are pushed down for signals wp.org ignores: errors, a host-installed base, or removal risk.
wp.org search ranks on
Install count (uncapped), the raw star average, freshness, and support. Popularity dominates, so the biggest install base usually wins regardless of how it got there.
We add
A cap on the install boost, volume-weighted ratings, and signals wp.org can't see: whether it throws errors on current PHP, whether the install base is organic or host-pushed, and its risk of being pulled.
Ranked above its merit
GNA WHM Manager shows at wp.org #8 but places #17 on merit, a gap of 9 places. Its 10+ installs carry it up the search order; its 3.0★ average from 1 reviews, plus freshness and upkeep, place it lower on our volume-weighted scale.
Merit ranking caps the install boost at 1M (wp.org leaves it uncapped), replaces the raw star average with a volume-weighted Bayesian score and a Wilson lower bound, and keeps wp.org's own freshness and compatibility decays. Method from the plugin-directory source; see Meta Trac #8298. Positions are tracked daily from the first visit to a keyword, so the small arrows show movement since tracking began.