JIRA issue on Marketplace item closed

[Snickers Snook]

This is just a general observation on how Linden Lab seems to treat JIRA items. I put in a specific JIRA complaining that the Boolean search did not work any more to exclude DEMO items. So many merchants have figured out that if you list an item as SHIRT_DEMO (concatenate the word DEMO into another word), the search term "NOT demo" no longer functions. So I was a bit surprised when my JIRA got flagged by a Linden as a duplicate and tied to another. Well the other JIRA item is wrong and non-specific to the Demo issue (merchants CAN flag items as DEMO). And it doesn't really address the overall issue of marketplace searches and organization. It's like the surviving JIRA item is vague, incorrect and unhelpful but the ones that got flagged as dupes (which are more specific to the issues) get closed. It's annoying because my item is a bug while the surviving JIRA is a "minor" feature request.

Mine: https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/BUG-134209

Survivor: https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/WEB-3529

It makes me wonder if LL actually understands how their own product works. (I'm guessing no.)

OK cue the nit-picking now that my JIRA wasn't any better, didn't help, Lindens got it under control, blah, blah.

Anyway, it goes to my point that the Marketplace has become almost unusable. Would be nice to see a meta collection of ways to improve it and actually have Lindens buy into it. (I know, dream on Snick.)

[Alwin Alcott]

1 hour ago, Snickers Snook said:

 So many merchants have figured out that if you list an item as SHIRT_DEMO (concatenate the word DEMO into another word), the search term "NOT demo" no longer functions.

if you see those, flag them for screwing up the search results

Edited September 14, 2017 by Alwin Alcott

[ChinRey]

2 hours ago, Snickers Snook said:

Mine: https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/BUG-134209

Please note that that JIRA is closed as a duplicate of your WEB-3529. That means the case is still open, it's just that LL didn't see any point in keeping to active JIRAs about it and since you gave them both options, they chose to classify it as a feature request rather than as a bug.

 

1 hour ago, Alwin Alcott said:

if you see those, flag them for screwing up the search results

Can we do that?

[Sassy Romano]

41 minutes ago, ChinRey said:

Can we do that?

We shouldn't because that's not where the root of the issue lies.

The issue remains that LL should never present items which are already known to be a demo (based on it having a linked full product) in the search results, at all...ever!

End of problem, it's just a matter of a search excluding items which have a related full item, how hard can that really be?

Snickers, I suggest that you create a JIRA to highlight a fault in the JIRA process.

[Alwin Alcott]

1 hour ago, ChinRey said:

 

Can we do that?

yes because using underscores and other characters to avoid being filtered out is trying to screw up the normal search results, and thats not allowed.

[Whirly Fizzle]

I wouldn't worry that your JIRA was closed as a duplicate.
The Lindens have an internal JIRA that Resident's can't see.  When a bug report is verified as a real bug or when a feature request is accepted as viable to implement, the public facing JIRA issue is cloned over to their internal JIRA.

If the Lindens already have an internal JIRA issue about the bug/feature request you filed, your issue will get closed as a duplicate.

It looks very much like the Lindens are going to fix this demo problem, going by Spidey's comment on your JIRA issue.

Quote

Spidey Linden added a comment - 30/Aug/17 5:35 PM

We'll take a look at implimenting this, thanks for the request.

 

[Pamela Galli]

5 hours ago, Snickers Snook said:

It makes me wonder if LL actually understands how their own product works. (I'm guessing no.)

This type comment -- about how clueless LL or forum readers are -- nearly always ends up being ironic. (Along with those that warn against posting certain type answers.)

Edited September 14, 2017 by Pamela Galli

[Sassy Romano]

8 hours ago, Alwin Alcott said:

yes because using underscores and other characters to avoid being filtered out is trying to screw up the normal search results, and thats not allowed.

Please no.  Penalising merchants for their personal choice of naming convention isn't appropriate.  Not when the correct and most appropriate solution is better served by a system change to never present demo's in search results.  This is trivial for LL to action but doesn't happen, further clobbering merchants due to inaction on LL's part is not the way to go.

We already have to dance around LL's special oh so secret silly word list, lets not add more special pretend made up cases.

[Alwin Alcott]

19 minutes ago, Sassy Romano said:

Please no.  Penalising merchants for their personal choice of naming convention isn't appropriate. 

i'ts cheating the search system on purpose... it's simpy abuse and misleading/annoying the costumers

[Sassy Romano]

No, there's no proof that anyone's choice of naming convention is a deliberate anything, even if it were, it's not the merchants fault that LL fail to address it properly.

Fact remains, it's LL's job to not return items already known as demos.

We should not subscribe to made up rules that dance around system problems!

[Paul Hexem]

Alwin isn't wrong. Many merchants absolutely are gaming the system with it. It's no different than keyword spam. Nothing like seeing a rigged (not fitted) mesh piece of clothing, and in the keywords are all the mesh bodies... This is no different.

[Sassy Romano]

It's very different, because returning a demo as a separate item, even having to create a demo listing as a separate item, is utterly pointless.

In one single action, LL could address the source of the demo problem by never returning them in search. That is a far preferable action for everyone than trying to slap random merchants for unproven actions.

We already have people flagging items for unjust reasons and LL agents removing compliant listings erroneously, we don't need more faulty activity.

FIX THE RIGHT PROBLEM.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Sassy Romano

[Paul Hexem]

You can't seriously think that there aren't merchants on the MP trying to game these "features", including the terrible demo system. You're not that dumb.

I will definitely agree though that these are all problems that LL can easily fix, if they weren't so bad at this.

[Sassy Romano]

I'm sure some do but given that there's no specified or required naming convention for products, it's not the merchants that are at fault.  Anyone can name anything and allowing others to have malicious intent (sometimes incorrectly upheld by LL) is just plain wrong.

It's the same with keyword spamming, some is blatant, some is someone else's opinion of it while to another it's promotion.

Fix the system once, problem goes away and the "demo issue" is stunningly simple to fix.

(If random fires kept starting in your house, you wouldn't keep buying more fire extinguishers to put in each room.  You'd remove the ignition source.)

[Alwin Alcott]

2 hours ago, Sassy Romano said:

FIX THE RIGHT PROBLEM.

as long merchants fake, fool,  mislead and fraud ( yes i know it sounds harsh) no system will work.

Why some don't have delistings for the reasons you mention?....indeed, because they don't fool others....

[Sassy Romano]

But Alwin, the "demo problem" only exists because LL have created the problem.  Don't return demo's in search - end of problem.  There's no getting around it.  Patching up the problem by trying to introduce better handling of boolean operators is completely the wrong solution.

To the back end Marketplace engine, a demo is completely identifiable because it's linked to a parent product.  Just don't return the demo item of a main listing.  THAT'S IT!

As for why some don't have delistings for the reasons mentioned, sometimes it's because LL agents haven't got around to it or never will because some are blatantly flouting the rules.

How about "why some DO have delistings for incorrect flagging?" well that's because the people who do the flagging, don't understand the rules and worse, the LL agents just remove the item without checking.

Anyway, we're digressing.  Demo's...never need to be presented in search results - EVER! (Where "demo's" are explicit listings that have been created as a sub listing of a main product)

Thing is, with the current Marketplace system for merchants, now that it's inventory based Direct Delivery, it should be as simple as selecting an inventory item which is the demo object, NOT a completely separate listing.  It's just bonkers now having to create a complete duplicate listing for a demo item and then having to link that to the main item which is essentially the same listing.

[Chellynne Bailey]

Yeah.. I'm inclined to agree with Sassy here. While people will find ways to game the system, seems like the most logical implementation for this issue is for Demos to simply not show up on search results, like ever. Actually.. come to think of it...

1) Demos shouldn't come up in search results period. Since there is already Demo associations in the database, this shouldn't be hard to do.

2) Demo's shouldn't be their own listing, but another folder associated with the listing.  It's frustrating as all get out when merchants don't have a demo, making it easier to list said demo would alleviate the issue a bit.

3) Give us a checkbox on the filter options "Has Demo".  >.> There are certain types of products.. fitmesh, skins, etc, that shouldn't be purchased without trying a demo, giving folks a way to filter out the demoless might light a fire under some bums!

Then after all that, add a flagging option for listings not properly listed as demos.

[ChinRey]

10 hours ago, Chellynne Bailey said:

Yeah.. I'm inclined to agree with Sassy here. While people will find ways to game the system, seems like the most logical implementation for this issue is for Demos to simply not show up on search results, like ever. Actually.. come to think of it...

1) Demos shouldn't come up in search results period. Since there is already Demo associations in the database, this shouldn't be hard to do.

Here a challenge to everybody then: Come up with one - only one - plausible and sensible argument why MP search doesn't have a function for excluding demos and why it isn't enabled by default.

 

10 hours ago, Chellynne Bailey said:

2) Demo's shouldn't be their own listing, but another folder associated with the listing.

Ideally yes but that may be asking for too much. VMM is struggling hard to keep track of one folder per listing, you really don't want to put more stress on that feeble little poor excuse for programming code.

[Sassy Romano]

4 hours ago, ChinRey said:

Here a challenge to everybody then: Come up with one - only one - plausible and sensible argument why MP search doesn't have a function for excluding demos and why it isn't enabled by default.

 

Ideally yes but that may be asking for too much. VMM is struggling hard to keep track of one folder per listing, you really don't want to put more stress on that feeble little poor excuse for programming code.

Oh come on, that's not even a challenge!  There just doesn't need to be a function to exclude demos because that should be the default, showing a demo just makes no sense whatsoever. The only reason it hasn't been done is lack of a project cost centre against which to bill the work.  i.e. It just needs developer effort throwing at it.  It's exactly the same degree of challenge as to why there's no facility for customers to self redeliver items with copy permissions.  That's so darned trivial, it's a basic expectation and yet we don't have that and haven't since years of MP evolution. 

Actually, if Charles Darwin were studying MP evolution, he'd probably have to rewrite his theories.

(Additional reasons, the Linden's don't show inworld, don't understand the problem).

It's worth winding back history a little because demo products largely came about with the introduction of mesh clothing.  At the time, MP didn't have direct delivery, so each item listed, had to be a boxed item in a "Magic Box" with no options to create folders.  However, there was still no need to ever return a demo because the sheer act of creating a link from a main product to a demo, immediately creates a relationship that makes it known that the item is a demo.  What inventory based direct delivery brings though, is the option of just having a demo folder within the product content folder, which reduces the workload on listing items as there's no requirement for a separate demo dummy product listing.

Before anyone speaks up saying "oh but I want to be able to search for demos", you really don't!  You just search for the thing you want and then pick up the demo from it.  Including only items with a demo as Chellynne suggested makes perfect sense too but not to look for only demos and then find the full product, that's just backward.  You don't use a web search engine to find a demo of the actual web site you want do you?  If you're after music, I bet you don't search for a demo of the album first but rather find the album then play the demos.

[ChinRey]

49 minutes ago, Sassy Romano said:

Oh come on, that's not even a challenge!

I think you misunderstood me, Sassy. Yes, demos should be excluded from search by default and I can't see any reason whatsoever why they aren't. But it has to be done the easy way: simply omit the listings marked as demos from the search results list unless the user specifically asks for them.

But fundamentally changing the way demo listings are handled under the hood... Yes, ideally that's what should be done but MP doesn't currently have any function allowing sub-listings of any kind. Adding that would require changes in the core software and with code as rotten as the MP's, who knows what'll turn up if you try to dig that deep into it.

[Sassy Romano]

26 minutes ago, ChinRey said:

I think you misunderstood me, Sassy. Yes, demos should be excluded from search by default and I can't see any reason whatsoever why they aren't. But it has to be done the easy way: simply omit the listings marked as demos from the search results list unless the user specifically asks for them.

But fundamentally changing the way demo listings are handled under the hood... Yes, ideally that's what should be done but MP doesn't currently have any function allowing sub-listings of any kind. Adding that would require changes in the core software and with code as rotten as the MP's, who knows what'll turn up if you try to dig that deep into it.

Ah ok, yes i'll take step 1, just exclude from search.  Step 2 would be a different proposition but it's pretty easy, it just needs a demo folder and a migration would be straightforward too since the demo behind a listing is already identifiable.  Basically, drop demo content into demo folder.  Migrate by associating existing demo content with the demo folder (it's all just database content and references after all ).

That's what it should look like to us, what actual work is of no interest to me because that's the job of the software engineer to just "make it work".  Nobody ever says "look at that swan paddling furiously with it's feet underwater", we rather tend to say "look at that swan gliding gracefully across the pond".

Program like a swan.

[ChinRey]

5 hours ago, Sassy Romano said:

Step 2 would be a different proposition but it's pretty easy, it just needs a demo folder

It's the "needs a demo folder" part that worries me. I discovered yet another VMM bug last week - not sure if it's an old one that has been fixed or one that still exists. I got a complaint from a customer who had only received a notecard, not the shack he tried to buy from my MP store. When I checked, it turned out that at some time the content for that listing had been split into two version folders, the active one only containing the notecard. That is just one of the countless ways VMM can mess up a perfectly simple single version folder listing. And don't forget that this is mostly the same software that is supposed to handle our inventory. Have you noticed all the posts about inventory issues recently? So no, no, no! please do not add any kind of extra function to that software, not until it has been rebuilt from the bottom. It's more than bad enough as it is.

Edited September 17, 2017 by ChinRey

[Chellynne Bailey]

Ultimately, this is just another example of LL Failing to prioritize Usability.

I love LL, but they spend so much money and effort on new flashy features,  and forget that they need to also have Dev Time devoted to refining things like the MP and the UI.  The lack of attention to MP design is costing them real money, and the lack of attention to UI is costing them users. So many folks come to SL cause they see info about it on youtube, flickr, etc and it LOOKS pretty... and they get in here and it's so confusing they just give up.  For the MP.. frankly .. there is SOOO much that could be done to help move more product through Marketplace.  Just like... copy amazon... all of it. They have it figured out. Make shopping easy, and people will shop.