Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Vixus Snowpaw

"No, we will not fix your group chat."

Recommended Posts

Because you are not a Premium member anymore

I've got a group with almost a thousand members in it linked to a top 10 sandbox in Second Life. People join this group in hopes of getting help from one another and chewing the fat. ( secondlife:///app/group/03e1ac8b-94f1-46a5-7d9e-d6b99e6fbaef/about ) -- I've contacted support enough to go through a whole keyboard already, but to no avail. The last time I did, I was told that because I am not premium anymore, they are not going to help me.

 

WTF guys. It's nearly 2014 and the group chat problems from 'way back' still can not be addressed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Support people work with premium members. I doubt support would be able to fix group chat in any event. It is the system not the group that is a problem. Being a premium member or not is not likely to make much difference on this type of problem.

The rest of us file JIRA bug reports and wait for help on this type of 'system' problem.

There are projects in progress that affect groups and chat. No one out side the Lab knows all the details or projects. They made major revisions to get groups up to 42 within the last couple of years. This last year they redid the Chat Hub User Interface and rewrote a considerable portion of the chat related code. Check out the Firesotrm Viewer development team's tears over that change. So, there is constant work on the problem or at least parts of it.

So, we have no clue when they may release some improvement to chat. More JIRA bug reports influence priorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Vixus Snowpaw wrote:

Because you are not a Premium member anymore

I've got a group with almost a thousand members in it linked to a
. People join this group in hopes of getting help from one another and chewing the fat. ( secondlife:///app/group/03e1ac8b-94f1-46a5-7d9e-d6b99e6fbaef/about ) -- I've contacted support enough to go through a whole keyboard already, but to no avail. The last time I did, I was told that because I am not premium anymore, they are not going to help me.

 

WTF guys. It's nearly 2014 and the group chat problems from 'way back' still can not be addressed?

Not for nothing, but I wont go to a "Top ten sandbox" set by traffic... I want a dead empty no one goes there sandbox. Not one with 80 people on it and everyone building or hanging out in the house they just rezzed, leaving no prims for anyone else to use.

BTW.. posting your group link is against the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody asked you about your opinion on anything but the matter I'm trying to address here. There is no intent of advertizing here, I'm merely showing the facts as they are. Good for you that you want an empty sandbox, good for you that you are used to knowing sandboxes the way most people host them. Good for you complaining about me leaving a unhyperlinked link to my group.

Can we please stay on topic or are you just trying to fatten your post count?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we please stay on topic or are you just trying to fatten your post count?

Whatever is the topic?

If it's the "spoiler" of non-premium users not getting support, that's pretty alienating, as if those who pay are getting exclusively their group chat bugs fixed -- as if that even made sense.

If the topic is all the problems with group chat, a small fortune in our tier payments has been spent over years trying to fix it, including a full (but failed) reimplementation to XMPP, not to mention other, even less successful attempts.

At this point, it makes more sense to simply give up on large group chat, rather than throw yet more good money after bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Vixus Snowpaw wrote:

Nobody asked you about your opinion on anything but the matter I'm trying to address here. There is no intent of advertizing here, I'm merely showing the facts as they are. Good for you that you want an empty sandbox, good for you that you are used to knowing sandboxes the way most people host them. Good for you complaining about me leaving a unhyperlinked link to my group.

Can we please stay on topic or are you just trying to fatten your post count?

I'm not ******* surprised you get ignored.

**********Rudi**********

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Vixus Snowpaw wrote:

Nobody asked you about your opinion on anything but the matter I'm trying to address here. There is no intent of advertizing here, I'm merely showing the facts as they are. Good for you that you want an empty sandbox, good for you that you are used to knowing sandboxes the way most people host them. Good for you complaining about me leaving a unhyperlinked link to my group.

Can we please stay on topic or are you just trying to fatten your post count?

fine, you want on topic, ok.

Why are groups with tens of thousands of members not affected?

Why are groups with thousands of members not affected?

Why are you attacking me for wanting to actually be able to build in a sandbox instead of trying to find a clear space?

Who pissed in your cheerios this morning?

NO ONE CAN GIVE YOU AN ANSWER ASIDE FROM  THE ONE LL GAVE YOU.

LL does not read these forums. You are on a Jira, for what ever good that might do. What exactly do you expect the forumites to do? We don't write the code, it's a code bug that is causing the issue. The Firestorm team knows about it but can't fix it. Essentially you and all of the groups affected are screwed until LL fixes it.

So, what exactly was your topic? "Group chat is borked for some people, LL knows about it , what should I do?" Sounds like you wait and see what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Cerise Sorbet wrote:

For what it's worth, one of the biggest causes of group chat overload
.
 

Now that is interesting and encouraging.

There is one phrase in that new policy that may not be as clear as Oz thinks.

":You may not use bots to send more than 5,000 messages in a calendar day. Messages to groups are counted as one message ''for every recipient in the group''. All bots operated by a single user share a common limit."

I think by way of example what Oz means is that if 50 people receive the message then that counts as 50 messages.  But I am unsure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that's exactly what it means. A single group notice to a group with 5000+ members uses up the quota in one shot. The policy isn't going to be too too black and white, because humans using very large groups will hit that number regularly. They will have to use the duck test to identify the automated messages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Cerise Sorbet wrote:

Yes, that's exactly what it means. A single group notice to a group with 5000+ members uses up the quota in one shot. The policy isn't going to be too too black and white, because humans using very large groups will hit that number regularly. They will have to use the duck test to identify the automated messages.

Really perhaps this need to be adressed with Oz.

Line 12 addition:

"Every chat message, IM, inventory offer, group notice, group IM, and group invitation creates load on the Second Life communications services......"

delineates very specific activities.  But again when we get to the addition in line 24:

"You may not use bots to send more than 5,000 messages in a calendar day. Messages to groups are counted as one message ''for every recipient in the group',

just the very generic word "message" is used.  Does message include all of the things listed in line 12?

When you use Group Chat, the servers identify which users are currently logged in and the Group IM's only get sent to those users.  And what constitutes a message in the case of a Group IM?  Is it each time you hit the 'enter key?'  Is it the entire chat per session?

I'm not trying to be pedantic or play lawyer here.  Obviously Bots have been identified as a problem when dealing with Group Chat.  One that at least I was not aware of.  So if these new regulations have a marked improvement on Group Chat I'm all for them.

 

 

eta:shpelling

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really, "a message is a message"is a good enough working defintion.

Behind the viewer interface, the differences aren't so big. An instant message, group invitation, inventory offer are really all the same thing. The viewer just treats them differently depending on flags set on the IM.

Group chat and group notices are also related to each other, though group notices are heavier because of the offline option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Cerise Sorbet wrote:

Really, "a message is a message"is a good enough working defintion.

Behind the viewer interface, the differences aren't so big. An instant message, group invitation, inventory offer are really all the same thing. The viewer just treats them differently depending on flags set on the IM.

Group chat and group notices are also related to each other, though group notices are heavier because of the offline option.

I just reread it one more time.  Don't know how how I missed this line:

"Bots joining groups and sending group IMs or notices such that more than 5,000 individual messages will be received."

That is clear and specific and answers the issues I raised.

I also notice that they have dropped the word 'please' in the following line:

"If you own a Second Life account that is primarily operated by a Scripted Agent (a "bot"), please identify it as a bot...."

Changes it from a request to a command.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Cerise Sorbet wrote:

For what it's worth, one of the biggest causes of group chat overload
.
 

I dont' know what makes you think bots are the biggest source of "group chat overload". Nothing could be farther from the truth. They may be the biggest source of fraud and annoyance. But compared to all the real users of group chat that actually put 99% of the load on the group system, they are a drop in the bucket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Darien Caldwell wrote:

I dont' know what makes you think bots are the biggest source of "group chat overload".

I don't know either, because you made that up, it's not what I wrote. You even quoted it, "one of the biggest causes", not the biggest cause, and you still were unable to read it the second time.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Impressive sounding statement, except that it actually is true, There really are lots of extremely large groups for stores and clubs that had been using bots to send out out multiple identical group notices a day, often followed by group chat messages repeating them. The first three such groups that popped into my recollection in the last minute have 11000, 96000 and 11700 members each today, and that's the tip of the iceberg.

This automated repeat group notice activity had been so common that it became a standard bot feature, MetaBOLT provides the GIM plugin for this purpose, with equivalents provided by SmartBots, PikkuBot, and various smaller ones.

Group messages all share a single system. and as such, this notice activity had been robbing server capacity from all groups, even if you personally haven't joined the spammy ones, and even if you were unaware that they exist.

They may be the biggest source of fraud and annoyance. But compared to all the real users of group chat that actually put 99% of the load on the group system, they are a drop in the bucket.

Those really huge groups generally don't have chat enabled, but most groups with active chat have a fraction of the membership of these. Chats also don't reach out to the mail queue like invitations and notices.

While there certainly is hit and run group chat spam, SL already had those cases covered as community standards and ToS violations.

 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Darien Caldwell wrote:


Cerise Sorbet wrote:

For what it's worth, one of the biggest causes of group chat overload
.
 

I dont' know what makes you think bots are the biggest source of "group chat overload". Nothing could be farther from the truth. They may be the biggest source of fraud and annoyance. But compared to all the real users of group chat that actually put 99% of the load on the group system, they are a drop in the bucket.

I don't know how far it will actaully go toward fraud control.  They are not capped from sending more than 5,000 messages.  Censorship is after the fact and fraudsters use throw away accounts so there'd be no real impact there.

All I really know is what Oz wrote in that Wiki:

"Every chat message, IM, inventory offer, group notice, group IM, and group invitation creates load on the Second Life communications services. There is an upper limit where bots consume excessive resources and threaten to decrease the quality of service for others."  (my emphasis).

Apparently it is excessive enough to warrant a change in (addition to) policy.

Of course Oz could be just blowing smoke up our gazoos. 

Me, I don't know enough to say one way or the other.  But I do welcome almost anything that will improve the situation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...