Yesterday, my Account Health score increased by 4 points. This is pretty interesting because, as we all know, orders in February tend to drop from those in December.

I haven’t been able to work out how this number is calculated, but in this case, there seem to be 2 possible reasons for the change:

The 4-points-for-every-200-orders thing could be calculated based on a year. In the short term, my total orders have dropped, but they are up from last year.

I had one fair pricing violation fall off about 1-2 weeks ago. But Fair Pricing Violations show as ‘No Impact’, so if this is true, having one fall off shouldn’t make any difference.

I’d like to be able to figure out exactly how this score is calculated, but so far, it still remains a mystery.

In my experience, it’s recalculated every day based on the past 180 days. Yesterday’s orders are added in and day 181 drops off. It’s not a day in December that will drop off, it’s a day in early August (or whatever yesterday-181 days is)

In my experience, it’s recalculated every day based on the past 180 days.

Did you go back and actually do the calculation? I know the above is how it works for the ODR metric, but I’ve never tested it for Account Health.

Yesterday’s orders are added in and day 181 drops off.

Let’s assume this is true. How then, do you think they’re coming up with ‘the next 200 orders’? Let’s use an easy starting point for the sake or argument. Assume the current rating period is Jan 1 - Jun 30 and you had 500 orders during that time.

At what point do you earn your next 4 points for having 200 new orders? When your order total in the current rating period reaches 700? And where’s the starting point? Because if you had 500 orders from Jan 1 - June 30, you might have 400 from Feb 1 - July 21 (January usually being busy and July being slow). How would that impact things?

Whenever the total number of orders for the previous 180 days hits 600.

Did you mean 700? If the base starts at 500, then… ?

I see they’ve updated their help pages to include language that says the number reflects your selling history in the last 180 days. That didn’t used to be there.

So maybe it is just this simple? I’ll have to check… Let’s see, yesterday minus 180 days = ???

They are? I didn’t know that. That would make it a lot simpler to follow. And looking back at a few days roughly 6 months ago, it makes perfect sense that I would have just hit a point of having a lot more orders. August was terrible. 1-5 orders a day.

Our number changes daily. It is kind of fun. I have screenshots on my work PC for “high score” fun.
We have raised about 60 digits since the start of the new rating. We are down 8 points from my high score.

The potential problem with your equation is it assumes you earn points for selling 1, 2, or 3 increments of 50 orders, and you don’t - you only get them once you sell * 4 * increments of 50 (ie 200).

If you had 250, 300, or 350 orders, for instance, it fails.

250/50 = 5 + 200 = 205 No
300/50 = 6 + 200 = 206 No
350/50 = 7 + 200 = 207 No

You only get 4 points each time you complete another 200 orders (as you know). You don’t get any points for orders 1 - 199. Dividing by 50 would assume you get a point each time you complete 50 orders, but you don’t. Your AHR always moves in multiples of 4.

That’s why you have to divide by 200 then drop any remainder. The remainder reflects orders that are applying toward your next increment of 200, but are not earning you any points right now.

Your formula works on numbers that are evenly divisible by 200, which 16,600 happens to be, but not on any others.

@joebcrafts we are all wrong sometimes–including both @Roxy and @oneida_books, and definitely me! It actually makes us more credible, when we can admit that, as you have.

I think we’re still adjusting to the fact that here on SAS, none of us are trolls or sealions or cocky newbies.

And don’t worry, we are colleagues here, not bosses

Well said @papy, and if I came across sounding critical of @joebcrafts, I want to apologize.

Please remember that any corrections offered are not to rub anyone’s nose in their error, but to protect that person, and any others following the discussion, from unwittingly becoming a victim of Amazon’s evil ways.