Acknowledged
CIQQA-4580

A Critical Integrity Flaw in the Connect IQ Store Ranking System

Subject: Concerns and Suggestions Regarding the Connect IQ Store Ranking and Discovery System

The Connect IQ Store currently lacks an effective recommendation system and sufficient safeguards against ranking manipulation. As a result, developers can potentially improve the visibility of otherwise average-quality watch faces by artificially increasing their ratings, reviews, downloads, or purchases.

Because the platform does not appear to have strong mechanisms for detecting or limiting this behavior, the most prominent positions have remained dominated by a relatively small group of developers for many years. This makes it extremely difficult for new or independent developers to gain meaningful exposure, regardless of the quality of their work.

The store’s discovery experience also feels highly repetitive. Watch faces that users have already viewed or downloaded should not continue occupying the same prominent positions indefinitely. Video platforms, for example, generally avoid repeatedly recommending content that a user has already watched. However, when users return to the Connect IQ rankings after one or two months, they often see nearly the same products in nearly the same positions.

The store would benefit from a “Show me something different” or “Refresh recommendations” option, as well as a more dynamic rotation system for featured and highly ranked content.

I would suggest considering the following improvements:

  • Introduce stronger detection and prevention measures for artificial reviews, downloads, and purchases.
  • Give greater ranking weight to reviews and activity from verified, genuine users.
  • Reduce the influence of unusually large review counts, so that a product with 10,000 reviews does not automatically receive an overwhelming visibility advantage over one with only a few dozen legitimate reviews.
  • Use actual engagement signals, such as whether a downloaded watch face remains installed and actively used after a certain period.
  • Consider retention rate, active usage, uninstall rate, and long-term user satisfaction as ranking factors.
  • Personalize recommendations by reducing the visibility of products a user has already viewed, downloaded, or dismissed.
  • Reserve part of the front-page exposure for randomized or rotating discovery, giving newer and lesser-known developers a fair opportunity to reach users.
  • Regularly refresh ranking results instead of allowing the same products to remain permanently at the top.

A healthier ranking system should reward product quality, genuine user satisfaction, and long-term usage—not simply whichever developer can accumulate the largest number of reviews or downloads.

Without meaningful changes, the current system creates pressure for honest developers to participate in the same artificial competition simply to remain visible. That is not a sustainable environment for developers, users, or the Connect IQ ecosystem.

I hope Garmin will review these concerns seriously and consider building a fairer, more diverse, and more manipulation-resistant discovery system.

Thank you for your time and consideration



8206990
  • in reply to flocsy🤠 
    >> Well it depends what you call a legitimate user I guess. Technically you're right, but one only needs 1 Garmin device and can create multiple Garmin accounts, download the app as user #1, write a review, then log out, log in as user #2, pair the device, review the app, etc...

    That is very clearly outlawed in the Terms and Conditions… but we should not be naive; Jim said “all we see is legitimate users”. But actually all we see are users; it’s like saying everyone who has a driving license is legitimate so everything is OK on the roads… but actually the problem is abusing that license by speeding etc.

    T’s and C’s say as below… so there has been good legal guidance in procedure for setting up the accounts. The better question is if there is fair and proper policing of the rules as per the OP discussion.

    https://www.garmin.com/en-US/legal/terms-of-use/#section1-2

    • No Fraudulent or Deceptive Activity. You may not use the Site in a manner that constitutes fraudulent or deceptive activity.

      Examples of Violations:

      • Using multiple accounts to boost a rating of content on the Site
      • Participating in or organizing “review bombs” on the Site
      • Engaging in schemes to pay people to follow you or to post positive reviews
      • Faking activity results to win a reward or prize in a promotional contest
  • in reply to jim_m_58

    Well it depends what you call a legitimate user I guess. Technically you're right, but one only needs 1 Garmin device and can create multiple Garmin accounts, download the app as user #1, write a review, then log out, log in as user #2, pair the device, review the app, etc...

  • Several years ago, I emailed Garmin to report these problems, but my concerns disappeared into a black hole and I never received any meaningful response.

    Later, I also experimented with artificially generating large numbers of reviews in order to influence the rankings. Because my product itself was well made, the additional exposure quickly increased its sales to roughly four times the previous level. This inevitably took traffic and sales away from other developers who were manipulating the system. My account was subsequently reported and banned, and it is highly likely that the report came from other manipulators whose interests had been affected.

    However, this behavior is so widespread within the Connect IQ Store that it is difficult to determine, based on surface-level data alone, which developers began manipulating the system voluntarily and which felt compelled to participate because of the unfair competitive environment. To avoid falsely accusing or harming innocent developers, I have never reported any specific developer, nor do I want to reduce a systemic problem to the actions of a few individuals.

    What I truly want is for Garmin to acknowledge and reform this foolish, outdated, and easily manipulated ranking and discovery system. The current Connect IQ Store simply does not provide an environment in which honest developers can compete fairly. Many developers who manipulate the system may not have originally intended to cheat; they may have felt forced into this distorted competition because legitimate methods offered them virtually no chance of gaining visibility.

    Punishing individual developers will not solve the underlying problem. As long as the platform’s fundamental mechanisms remain unchanged, new manipulators will simply replace those who are removed.

  • in reply to flocsy🤠

    It's legal for different versions to comment repeatedly. The real difference isn't these features.

    Even my niece in kindergarten could tell where the problem was.     
  • in reply to jim_m_58

    However, creating an account is extremely easy, as there's no secondary verification and no phone number is required. Leaving a review after downloading is a simple matter. Each updated version can also be evaluated review/rank ，There are many techniques and tricks to control all of this.  

    users can only review/rank an app if they've actually download and installed it，Ten years ago, it might have served as a threshold. But bypassing it is easy. There are only two honest developers inside. 

    Ten thousand downloads can surpass the number of ratings for one million downloads.Or, with the same 1 million downloads, the number of comments is 30 times that of other normal authors.