Jump to content
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1050 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

Hello i;am not sure this  can be on here ? here it goes i bought a wedding dress on mp  while bk .  never received it  the  creature  is no longer on sl . i think  LINDEN LABS should  change there policy   too stop  people  from  losing  there Lindens  when someone  leaves secondlife  not  sure how  they  can  stop that from happening  other then maybe  freeze an account that not active for  a certain time  till the owner comes back ? or  maybe  have a redelivery terminal for all of  second life stuff  maybe  add it too there terms  when they open a marketplace  store  an  have already  store owners up dated too agree  too it  i wasted 500 lindes  for  nothing  iam sure  iam not the only one that happen too lindes are not free  or cheap for some  so its  really  not fair .if  you  agree  then  help me change it  please   any ideas are welcome thank you   pusssycat whitesong 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Pusssycat Whitesong said:

i bought a wedding dress on mp  while bk .  never received it  the  creature  is no longer on sl .

First question, how far back is a while back?! Why did you not contact the seller immediately after you purchased the item and it was not delivered? 

There have been instances where folks setup accounts to sell "false" goods on marketplace, then ditch the account before people even wise up to the scam. The best thing to do when shopping MP is keep an eye on reviews. If the seller is actually creating the items, not just re-selling gatcha items, they are going to take pride in their marketplace store. If I see someone selling things for as expensive as 500 Lindens and they have no reviews on any of their products, it's a red flag for me. Also, look at the sellers profile in SL. Do they link to their store and offer support via their profile? Chances are they are safe to purchase from. 

All in all it seems like this situation might have been avoidable if you did a little research. I will repeat my suggestion that you should have messaged the creator as soon as your item was not delivered after purchasing from Marketplace. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Depending on how recent the purchase was, you may be able to file a support case (include the order number and the exact name of the undelivered item) requesting re-delivery.  

Also, you checked your 'received items' folder?  (MP deliveries all go into that folder, instead of being a folder by itself or in the objects folder).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly why I keep asking for the merchant last logged in date to be shown against each listing.

Completely agree with there being a redelivery feature, there's no excuse for not implementing this either.

You won't gain any traction though, many of us have tried for years, it's just pointless wasted effort so I don't bother anymore.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/11/2017 at 10:26 AM, Sassy Romano said:

Completely agree with there being a redelivery feature, there's no excuse for not implementing this either.

You can't redeliver no copy content like gacha items. No copy content is no copy for a reason. If you can request redelivery for it, you circumvent the no copy aspect. For all other items, I surely support the idea.

Edited by lavalois
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, just as a vendor system copes with copy vs no copy, i'm referring to a general, customer instigated redelivery capability (that's really nothing more than a button on the product listing page, followed by a database lookup to see if they've purchased before and then an API call to the same delivery mechanism that delivered the item in the first place.  It's less than an afternoons work.)

Honouring the permissions is trivial and would of course only offer redelivery for items with copy permission that expectation is implicit.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I know although their implementation of the review system is flawed because it doesn't work properly when gifting. Regardless, it's a trivial piece of work to permit a recipient to self redeliver, LL just won't do it for a reason that entirely baffles me.

There is nothing new that needs creating to make this work, it's the simple process that I outlined above, an afternoons work for a new starter even.  This isn't difficult stuff, it's really really basic.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love a LL MP system like the caspervend one..  Drop your items into a box/or folder, i kind of like the folder idea as it works even when your sim is offline. Then you just create the listing online and boom, its in the MP and on a vendor. It would be great if a LL system allowed reviews for inworld purchases. I just think a liked system would work better as it could eliminate issues such as the MP borking out. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a poll in the SLCM inworld group, on the notion of a review system that worked like that.  Not really much traction for it but it made sense to me.  Way back, you may remember that there was a suggestion of an inworld vendor system coupled to Direct Delivery, before that was then replaced with inventory based delivery.

The only factor would be that LL wanted a %age of revenue from that system and the amount suggested seemed too high to me, higher than the 5% if I recall.  It made sense but the argument of 5% commission on MP can be balanced against the tier paid for an inworld premise.  However paying for tier upon which to host a store and then pay again to use LL's vending system inworld didn't seem to have traction.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you all for your replies i thought maybe if  find someone else  this happen too   there  fix too it.    i guess the only fix really  is  learn a  lessen   go in world  an buy  know for sure  the one u buying from is on sl . if  i read the  reviews behind  too i would see there was only 1 revew it was   bk in 2012 i bought the  dress in 2014  i did  contact  LL  an the  creature none  were  able too help  not  even the  person in the creature profile it  said too contact them  if there was a problem  she wasn't    partners no more too her with her  store .i just  hope no one  else  falls in too that  loses Lindens too  get no item , iam just a bit upset i fell in love  with the dress  have a great day  thank you again smiles 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/11/2017 at 11:36 AM, Sassy Romano said:

i'm referring to a general, customer instigated redelivery capability (that's really nothing more than a button on the product listing page, followed by a database lookup to see if they've purchased before and then an API call to the same delivery mechanism that delivered the item in the first place.

And how would it handle me buying something, and clicking the button for a redilvery? Your idea relies solely on whether or not I've bought it before, and not whether or not I've still got it. LL should not do what you suggested.

Edited by Phil Deakins
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

And how would it handle me buying something, and clicking the button for a redilvery? Your idea relies solely on whether or not I've bought it before, and not whether or not I've still got it. LL should not do what you suggested.

 If it’s copy why would it matter? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

And how would it handle me buying something, and clicking the button for a redilvery? Your idea relies solely on whether or not I've bought it before, and not whether or not I've still got it. LL should not do what you suggested.

It should simply deliver your purchase, and then deliver the redelivery request. If it's a copy object, what does it matter whether you still have it? In normal redelivery systems like Caspervend, I can get the same item redelivered over and over again, for as many times as I want. I could fill my inventory with thousands of the same object. But I could do that with simply copying the item as well.

The fact whether you bought something should be the only variable to decide to redeliver. Basing it on whether you have the object or not would not only need excessive scripting so Marketplace can read the contents of your inventory, it will also break several privacy laws, not to mention LL's own TOS.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

I was thinking of no copy items. My mistake :S

No problem. I  agree with you that LL should never incorprate any system that would be able to redeliver no copy items. Implementing such a thing would likely result in LL receiving DMCA claims themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only speak from a buyer's perspective, but Marketplace has so many fundamental failures in its general usability and operation. However, all the moaning and groaning in the world isn't likely to get anything changed. We get what we got.

Having said that, I wish: -

1. we could flag a store so it doesn't appear in our search results (user operated store ban list).
2. demos had their own listing setting so we could opt out of demos returning in search results, for example.
3. demos return with black&white images by default (option set by sellers when creating ads for demos).
4. there was a greater choice of pages to jump to.
5. I could retain preferred search criteria, such as; 48 items per page, lowest price first etc..

That'll do for starters :D

I often use Marketplace in preference to a shop because I have some minor level of redress by way of the Review option. Buy in-store and you have nothing if the seller decides to ignore you.

Despite the pain I find myself browsing Marketplace almost always whenever logged into SL, commonly triggered by something someone else was wearing or something I want to complete an outfit.

I'd hate it if it went away, even with all its niggles and failings 9_9

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Candice LittleBoots said:

2. demos had their own listing setting so we could opt out of demos returning in search results, for example.
3. demos return with black&white images by default (option set by sellers when creating ads for demos).

The OnRes store put everything under one heading.  All the color options, packs and demos were in a drop down list on the one product entry.  But OnRes was the newer of the two and SLX had the most customers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1050 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...