Apply for the Marketplace Direct Delivery Beta Program!

[Hintswen Guardian]

 

---

Rya Nitely wrote:

And personally, I can't wait to see my avatar go green when I make a sale :smileyvery-happy:

---

 

This. If anything, we need this!

It could actually be done right now, use ANS to communicate with a worn object which would tell your client (it would have to be a TPV made to support this) to change your skin to a green skin for a few seconds...

[Rob Fenwitch]

I couldn't seem the link to the page that explains what this is, how it is different, why it is different and why it is proposed before the current market place is complete and working. Anyone. In reply to why Linden alts aren't doing the testing. There aren't many of them left.

[Rob Fenwitch]

I've just seen my post. I've been promoted to 'New Resident'

[Josh Susanto]

[Magic boxes require the region to be online for them to deliver the items]

And my inventory would also presumably need to be accessible for the direct delivery.

I've never seen my box region down, even when box contents show as unavailable in the market, but my inventory gets temporarily abridged at least once or twice a week, in a way that prevents me from manually correcting delivery errors.

So - you tell me - what SHOULD I prefer as delivery inventory system? 

OTOH, if this somehow means that I can make my inventory reappear by pressing a reset button only about a dozen times over a period of about an hour, that would make my inventory comparable in utility to a magic box.

Ist that part of the plan?

[Darrius Gothly]

 

---

Rya Nitely wrote:

The change to Direct Delivery is so obviously an advancement.

The reason for complaints is simple - people hate change. They are comfortable doing what they do.

---

 

I agree with your first statement quoted above .. but disagree with the second. I am one of those that is very vocal about the dangers of Direct Delivery. My reason is quite simple, I don't trust LL's software development and testing talents.

They have proven time and time again that they are inept at designing user interfaces, and even worse at testing software for full, correct and complete operation before releasing it.

Direct Delivery is technically an excellent concept and should be done. But if they follow past behavior and turn it out in the half-baked way they did Marketplace (and other similar systems) .. we're doomed.

Think of it this way .. I would LOVE to have a high-powered expensive sports car, but I damn sure wouldn't put it in the hands of a teenager that's wrecked his last three cars on the way out of the driveway.

[Toysoldier Thor]

 

---

Zanara Zenovka wrote:

Everyone needs to stop worrying about this until the technical specifications of its actual implementation are announced, because people are making all sorts of assumptions based on a lack of understanding of how asset storage and delivery actually works.

For example, people are so worried about their inventory.

**The inventory is just a file structure showing the items on the asset server that you have access to. **

When your items in your inventory aren't loading, that's happening at your end - the files are still there on the asset server. Why do you think you're able to fix "lost inventory" by clearing your cache, ie by actually deleting something?

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Inventory

---

 

So lets all stop worrying about this DD until LL comes out with some Technical Specs on its implementation?  How bout seeing ANY DETAILS?  I want to see details of the design - not just the implementation.  Brooke promised this at the last and final office hours meeting.  To date - this has not happened.

So here we are now... LL has teased everyone over two months ago that this demise of the Magicbox is coming.  Some of the details have trickled out from some merchants that have insight on how it works already - even though both them and Brooke swear that there has not been any closed beta to date or information released to anyone outside the team on the details of DD.  Enough details have leaked out that SERIOUS concerns on how LL might be deploying this has escalated in the forums.  Brooke's ONLY forum discussion about my concerns about security and transaction isolation has been "why would we want an ALT MERCHANT as part of DD?".  Nothing since from her or the team that has since mentioned it - even at the last office hours meeting.

NOW... Brooke announces a request for Close Beta testers of DD... even though she has yet to still provide details on how it works and the risks that they Beta Testers might take on (some have actually been willing to risk their merchant / personal  inventory without knowing even how it works to be part of this Beta).

 

Why should we WORRY about this Zanara?  Because if there was NOTHING to worry about, then why the big secrets from Brooke?  Why are there no details yet even though the beta has been announced?  Why does the Beta require NDA?  If there is nothing to fear and you are even suggesting all us merchants shouldnt be worried about it based on your understanding on how inventory works... where is the details that will confirm that a LL DD screwup of the software does will NEVER mess up our personal inventory?

I sure hope I dont have to point back to this posting of your Zanara and say... (just like the Japanese Nuke Plant) "I told you so".

Here is how I say its going to go down Zanara...

 

• The closed beta will start - testers will be gagged with an NDA and testing will begin
• Even though we have brought up concerns that we want to see reflected into th final DD deployment - i.e. the flexibility that the DD SLM Source asset that the DD transaction draws from could be the Merchant's personal inventory OR a rezzed SLM Box OR and Alternative Merchant Inventory OR an Alternative Merchant account... it is likely already too late.  I am pretty sure the DD code has already been written to meet all the functionality that LL wants AND that even if they wanted to provide us this functional flexibility - they cant/wont.
• We are ALL going to get the DD design and coded function that was likely written and internally already tested 2 months ago.  LL almost NEVER changes their initial designs based on customer feedback.  The Beta Testers are simply guinea pigs of the functions developed - they will not have any real say on changing/adding festures that the merchants feel need to be part of the deploy.
• For any missing new merchant demanded feature... we will likely get this statement from Brooke...  "This is a good idea for a future feature - we will look at possibly adding this in an upcoming release".  That will be the last we will ever hear of that.

But at least I feel more comfortable that you feel we have nothing to fear about LL's development of DD - it will be flawless and because of your understanding of how the LL Asset DB and our inventory works... we have nothing to worry about.

The LL I have watched deploy applications does make me worry.

[Toysoldier Thor]

I also want to clarify one point that maybe some of you have lost in my strong concerns about how DD works.

I think that a PROPERLY ARCHITECTED , DESIGNED AND DEPLOYED DD model is very likely a better and more flexible solution than the CURRENT deployment of the Magicbox.

IF DONE RIGHT - I would totally endorse the DD model.

But the fact that Brooked did not even understand why SLM Inventory Isolation for the automated DD model was important - something that most "middleman" sales transation systems would see as a mandatory design component, this is my #1 scary red flag I have.  My other big concern is that the upcoming LL design of the DD will likely follow LL's historical approach to systems/software design and deployment - i.e. LL has a very poor track record for not thinking and designing strategically.  They practice "knee-jerk" "shoot-from-the-hip" "solve the problem at hand" software development.

So.... as much as I would be the first to endorse the DD approach, LL's secrecy, history, and response to flexible SLM sourcing of DD transactions tells me that Merchants should be scared!

[RACHEL28]

I  WANT  A  HOUSE   PLEASE  OR  I  AM OUT AND  GING  IN IMV:womanmad:

[RACHEL28]

 

FOOL

I  WANT  A  HOUSE   PLEASE  OR  I  AM OUT AND  GING  IN IMV:womanmad:

 

[Josh Susanto]

[people hate change.]

I didn't until the Lindens taught me to.

[Ciaran Laval]

 

---

Pamela Galli wrote:

Why all these blank posts?

---

Internet Explorer 9 needs to be run in compatibility mode, it's not compatible with this software, plenty of people don't realise this.

 

[Shannon Danick]

I, for one, think that having a delivery system that does not depend on boxes being hosted on a sim somewhere, with chances of failed deliveries due to sim lag, restarts, etc......is a great idea to implement. By delivering items directly from a special folder in a Merchants Inventory, the chances of failed deliveries will be almost a moot experience. I commend LL for finally doing something that "helps" the residents/Merchants.

[Rya Nitely]

 

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

 

• The Beta Testers are simply guinea pigs of the functions developed - they will not have any real say on changing/adding festures that the merchants feel need to be part of the deploy.

---

Yes, this is generally the role of beta testers - testing systems for errors, not redesigning, demanding and derailing. A beta tester will normally get attention if they raise a genuine problem with the system that will hinder/prevent functionality. A beta tester will probably not get attention if they come up with new ideas and demand implementation.

 

[Toysoldier Thor]

---

Rya Nitely wrote:

 

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

 

• The Beta Testers are simply guinea pigs of the functions developed - they will not have any real say on changing/adding festures that the merchants feel need to be part of the deploy.

---

Yes, this is generally the role of beta testers - testing systems for errors, not redesigning, demanding and derailing. A beta tester will normally get attention if they raise a genuine problem with the system that will hinder/prevent functionality. A beta tester will probably not get attention if they come up with new ideas and demand implementation.

 

---

And that is why I would steer clear from any Alpha testing involvement.  Best strategy is to start implementing my own transaction isolation/protection strategy from DD.

[Darrius Gothly]

 

---

Rya Nitely wrote:

Yes, this is generally the role of beta testers - testing systems for errors, not redesigning, demanding and derailing. A beta tester will normally get attention if they raise a genuine problem with the system that will hinder/prevent functionality.

A beta tester will probably not get attention if they come up with new ideas and demand implementation.

 

---

 

Exactly. The time for those forms of input is during the design and initial implementation stage. But as we've been completely kept in the dark, our suggestions, desires and ideas ignored or not even discussed .. and the entire program designed and developed absent any visible Merchant involvement .. it leads me to wonder if the design will actually have any features that pertain to the intended user.

And that's exactly where my backside starts to pucker. The Marketplace was designed in the same vacuum and upon its release we found it woefully lacking in features and functions that had existed previously in XStreet AND in improvements that would warrant it replacing XStreet. Thus I am concerned that DD is following the same failed pattern. This is also why I have asked for details of the design for many months now.

There's 50,000+ merchants on Marketplace. That's 50,000+ voices that can expand their understanding of what it takes to be a Merchant. To date, they seem to have ignored all 50,000+ .. and that's a damn shame.

[Dartagan Shepherd]

 

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

---

Rya Nitely wrote:

Yes, this is generally the role of beta testers - testing systems for errors, not redesigning, demanding and derailing. A beta tester will normally get attention if they raise a genuine problem with the system that will hinder/prevent functionality.

A beta tester will probably not get attention if they come up with new ideas and demand implementation.

 

---

Exactly. The time for those forms of input is during the design and initial implementation stage. But as we've been completely kept in the dark, our suggestions, desires and ideas ignored or not even discussed .. and the entire program designed and developed absent any visible Merchant involvement .. it leads me to wonder if the design will actually have any features that pertain to the intended user.

---

 

The entire program is a response to Merchant involvement pointing out the flaws of Magic Box delivery, and helping to identify that a scripted object is not the best solution.

By its nature, this solutions rather singular goal pertains to the intended user. Better delivery.

[Zanara Zenovka]

Toysoldier: Reading comprehension really isn't your forte, is it?

I haven't said the implementation of DD is going to be all sweetness and light, I'm merely trying to inject some basic technical information into this discussion, having seen people getting all worried because of erroneous assumptions that demonstrate a lack of understanding of how asset storage and delivery currently works. I'm actually trying to help people by sharing information, and a couple of lines of impassive technical facts from me do not warrant the histrionics and personal attacks you're determined to indulge in.

You need to pull your head in and stop just trying to wind up hysteria for the sake of it, because you are one of the least knowledgable people here.

A week ago you were *amazed* when I explained the basics of how magic boxes work.

A few days ago you were seeing LL conspiracies everywhere because *OMG your messages had been capped for the first time!!111!!! and LL must have changed something!*

You didn't even know how ordinary transfers of inventory and messages occur, let alone scripted ones, yet you want to carry on here like people should listen to you as some sort of expert.

Get a grip, really.

Don't you have some rocks to bang together or something?

[Darrius Gothly]

Many years ago, my aunt commented to my uncle how much she liked looking out the window and seeing the rose bushes in the spring. Being the type of man he was, he took the hint and later that day took one of the farm hands to town, bought a number of rosebushes, returned home and began fixing things up. He removed a peach tree, some other shrubbery and put in a lovely curved row of the new rose bushes right under the front window. Total success, right?

Nope.

My aunt wanted him to open the bedroom drapes so she could see the rose bushes already planted there.

Moral of the story? Oh heck .. you don't need me to explain it really .. do ya?

[Pearl Vollmar]

 

---

Josh Susanto wrote:

[people hate change.]

I didn't until the Lindens taught me to.

---

That about sums up how I feel. I do not dislike change, but my hair goes up in horror when that comes from LL.

 

[Pearl Vollmar]

Thanks for the info Zanara. I think it is always good to know some technical information since I'm not an expert.

I think DD is basically a good idea. I am just afraid about how this will be implemented. And by afraid, I don't mean I am  panicking or losing sleep over it. I've learned it's not worth it. I am more concerned than anything else, but waiting to see what happens.

 

[Sassy Romano]

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

 

---

There's 50,000+ merchants on Marketplace. That's 50,000+ voices that can expand their understanding of what it takes to be a Merchant. To date, they

seem

to have ignored all 50,000+ .. and that's a damn shame.

---

How quickly you have forgotten Bunnygate, they listened to the bunnies...

[Juan Lyric]

I'll give it a go

[Toysoldier Thor]

 

---

Zanara Zenovka wrote:

Toysoldier: Reading comprehension really isn't your forte, is it?

I haven't said the implementation of DD is going to be all sweetness and light, I'm merely trying to inject some basic technical information into this discussion, having seen people getting all worried because of erroneous assumptions that demonstrate a lack of understanding of how asset storage and delivery currently works. I'm actually trying to help people by sharing information, and a couple of lines of impassive technical facts from me do not warrant the histrionics and personal attacks you're determined to indulge in.

You need to pull your head in and stop just trying to wind up hysteria for the sake of it, because you are one of the least knowledgable people here.

A week ago you were *amazed* when I explained the basics of how magic boxes work.

A few days ago you were seeing LL conspiracies everywhere because *OMG your messages had been capped for the first time!!111!!! and LL must have changed something!*

You didn't even know how ordinary transfers of inventory and messages occur, let alone scripted ones, yet you want to carry on here like people should listen to you as some sort of expert.

Get a grip, really.

Don't you have some rocks to bang together or something?

---

 

The alternative to banging rocks loudly NOW while there might be a twinkle of hope that its not too late to convince LL that their solution to the problem they are solving may have some serious flaw (where MAYYYYBEEE they might be able to change the code to address the concerns) ... is to just sit on my concerns and put trust in LL's development team to see the issues I see and hope and secretly pray that they will do it right when it comes out of the secret close beta and right into production.

So... since I have seen how LL operates, following the approach that 1) LL will do it right, and 2) LL will listen to Merchants if they dont do it right... well that has historically being a 100% STUPID ASSUMPTION. 

Look at the SLM deploy (which left alot of merchants hurting during migration and to date has many functions worse than xstreet and a shopping cart of questionable value and potential source of some delivery failures)...

Look at the Maturity Filters (which no merchant wanted)...

Look at the countless fallout issues from LL's TEENIFICATION of the Adult Grid...

Look at LL's tinkering with Search....

 

So, you take your approach and blissfully hope that LL will do things right and LL will fix the Merchant's concerns if / when they screw things up again.  I will continue to waves the serious potential concerns of the DD solution in public until Brooke and team public announces / responds that she understands the concerns we have brought forward and that her team plans to ignore it / or address it.  Until then... maybe its best to just mute my postings.... it will save you a lot of personal grief.

There is a simple solution.

[Toysoldier Thor]

 

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

Many years ago, my aunt commented to my uncle how much she liked looking out the window and seeing the rose bushes in the spring. Being the type of man he was, he took the hint and later that day took one of the farm hands to town, bought a number of rosebushes, returned home and began fixing things up. He removed a peach tree, some other shrubbery and put in a lovely curved row of the new rose bushes right under the front window. Total success, right?

Nope.

My aunt wanted him to open the bedroom drapes so she could see the rose bushes already planted there.

Moral of the story? Oh heck .. you don't need me to explain it really .. do ya?

---

 

Darrius - you always say things just the right way !

That is the best way I would have responded to Dart.

Very few would agrue that there are issues with the current SCRIPTED MAGICBOXES and that a new solution to address the problems could resolve a lot of these issue. But, as Darrius said so nicely, LL sees the problem and complaints and they feel that this is the Merchant Feedback they needed for them to proceed to coming up with a solution.

A form of the DD model / solution has some strong potential merits, BUT, LL has decided to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  It was not the REZZED BOX that was what Merchants were / are complaining about.  Its the process that involves the script in the magicbox and the issues that can happen because of the Magicbox srcipt process as well as the inherent issues of any script operating on a rezzed object inworld (i.e. lag) and its limited abilities to communicate with others.

Since LL never even considered getting a group of merchants together to talk about the issue in more detail, or to even consider some brainstorming of alternatives, or to ask what Merchants actually liked about the Magicboxes... LL just made a load of half-baked assumptions and designed a solution that specifically solved what they thought was the problem.

So... here is something that LL did not think about that would have likely appeased many more merchants.... just leave the MagicBoxes alone - with all their content in place - for the 10's of thousands of merchants and likely 100's of thousands of Magicboxes in place now.... and just develop a DD solution that would use the Magicbox as the SOURCE for direct delivery?

 

1. As Zanara has even pointed out and others - all assets are in the Asset Server.  Both assets that are categorized and processed and handled within the bounds of our account's personal inventory and assets/objects that are rezzed inworld (although not part of our inventory).  As such, why does LL believe that the ONLY form of DD is "direct" from our inventory?
2. A Direct Delivery from the new DD service could just as easy perform a direct delivery (i.e. a process that simply transfers an object/asset from one owner to another owner in the Asset Server without need to use messaging etc) from the current Magicbox rezzed object to the buyer.  This is still DIRECT.
3. By following this model, the DD solution would not require 50,000+ Merchants to go through yet another majore mgration of their SLM items from the Magicbox to this new System Folder in our own inventory. (this will be yet another major inconvenience LL has no problem forcing us merchants to endure).  The new DD would simply start delivering merchant items from the same magicbox via the asset server that the scripts in the magicbox has been doing all these year.
4. By leaving all the merchant SLM items in the magic boxes, LL will not be forcing the 50K+ merchants to bloat their already huge personal inventories even larger with all these "production" SLM items (trust me, most merchants will treat the system folder as an isolated area for SLM even though that is naive - its all still in their inventory).  Basically, with the current DD solution, LL will be forcing about 1,000,000+ SLM items to be transferred into Merchant's inventory!!  We all thought our personal inventories were too large and already causing us inworld lag issues - thank LL for making it worse with this DD solution.
5. The biggest benefit of using the current MagicBox as the source for the new DD is that it give merchants like me - that seem to care about security of these transactions and isolation of my SLM activities from my personal activities/items - a much strong confidence level.  With this model, the DD is only performing transaction on the items that I have deemed safe to expose to SLM.  All my other personal items are safely isolated from SLM and DD's automated processes.
6. This model also would likely provide LL and the Merchants with much higher availability of service - since the DD would be designed to deal with processing from multiple "DUMB" Magicboxes ("dumb" meaning the script would be removed or ignored with the new DD).  Unlike many long know issues that impact our personal inventory (no they are not all related to our viewer's cache}, with multiple magicboxes still in use, the new DD could provide fault tolerance in being able to source content from the magicbox that is available - or even load balance the transactions.
7. With this model... if a Merchant makes a mistake in their own personal inventory - and yes we make mistakes - these mistakes would not impact our SLM transactions or items.

I could go on... but you get the drift.

THIS would have been a much much more acceptable architected solution of a DD, but as Darrius nicely pointed out, LL heard loved the sight of roses and started ripping up the garden to give us more roses - at any cost.

[Ciaran Laval]

Without seeing the details of this, we simply don't know how well it's going to work. I would not like it to be linked to my system inventory, that's for sure, having it stored somewhere else where I send it for storage, would give me a lot more hope.