Since when can customers do an MP redelivery by themselves?

[Callum Meriman]

1 hour ago, Iren Tinkel said:

I have listings since 2010 that I updated many times. Added animations, scripts, mesh instead sculpts an so on. Sure I increased price and if to compare thing from 2010 and now - thing is drastically improved and price is raised.

Relisting the improved version - with same name but different description and a higher price - as a new product would seem to be the proper way to do this.

[Pamela Galli]

Looks like some are just going down the list and redelivering everything they bought. Just in case. Which is fine.

[Dakota Linden]

Greetings!

Disabling & relisting items is not permitted under the Marketplace Listing Guidelines.

Iren does have a very valid concern, and one that they should feel free to have addressed and answered by the team.

Iren, I would recommend that you create a Jira Ticket to request that the ability for a buyer to have a Copy Enabled items redelivered through the Marketplace Order be restricted to a specific time frame. 

For example, only allow a buyer to request a an automatic redelivery of the item if the purchase was within the past 30/60/90 days, or 6 months, etc.

This way recent buyers can get a limited number of updates, but anyone who purchased the item years ago would be required to buy an entirely new copy.

 

 

 

[Fionalein]

2 minutes ago, Dakota Linden said:

This way recent buyers can get a limited number of updates, but anyone who purchased the item years ago would be required to buy an entirely new copy.

You mean the ones that actually need redeliveries in most cases - most times on non updated items? Where can I file a counter-Jira?

[Iren Tinkel]

1 hour ago, Ethan Paslong said:

no you don't gift. If it's a improved version of the old it's pretty normal to get a update so a redelivery isn't wrong. They did pay for it.

It will be different if you made a total new version with other functions. But in that case it won't redeliver because it's a total different listing and name.

I dont promise free updates since it is new animations there, meshes, new scripts. People need to pay price difference and it is terms of my service. Customer pays for actual items, updates are not free. But they are now. So guys pay now full price and people who paid before less gonna get same item.

Edited November 30, 2018 by Iren Tinkel

[Fionalein]

7 minutes ago, Iren Tinkel said:

I dont promise free updates since it is new animations there, meshes, new scripts. People need to pay price difference and it is terms of my service. Customer pays for actual items, updates are not free. But they are now. So guys pay now full price and people who paid before less gonna get same item.

Duh, just put it in a no copy delivery HUD then - no copy items cannot be redelivered - why make it complicated when it would be as easy?

Edited November 30, 2018 by Fionalein

[Dakota Linden]

7 minutes ago, Fionalein said:

You mean the ones that actually need redeliveries in most cases - most times on non updated items? Where can I file a counter-Jira?

Greetings!

This isn't about filing a "counter jira". This is about merchants who wish to limit the time frame in which a buyer can get an automatic redelivery of Copy Enabled items that they purchase.

https://jira.secondlife.com

This would not affect a sellers ability to redeliver any item they wish, at any time, either manually in world, or by using the link that they now also have on the Sales Order.

 

 

[Ethan Paslong]

15 minutes ago, Iren Tinkel said:

I dont promise free updates since it is new animations there, meshes, new scripts. People need to pay price difference and it is terms of my service. Customer pays for actual items, updates are not free. But they are now. So guys pay now full price and people who paid before less gonna get same item.

i do understand, but shouldn't you rename the item because its not really the same as the first delivered one?

also i was thinking a re-listed or new item would be handled as a new one, so only redelivery for the older listing with the old object.

[Fionalein]

7 minutes ago, Ethan Paslong said:

also i was thinking a re-listed or new item would be handled as a new one, so only redelivery for the older listing with the old object.

The dilemma here is: Because Irene did it wrong and put a new item into the same one listing all the time in the past she is now forbidden by TOS to deactivate and relist it to fix that problem.

Edited November 30, 2018 by Fionalein

[Cindy Evanier]

We've recently been working our way through our back catalogue updating scripts, adding more animations and in most cases new mesh.  All customers get an update sent free of charge.  That's just the way we do it but I do understand Iren's concerns. 

[Solar Legion]

8 minutes ago, Cindy Evanier said:

We've recently been working our way through our back catalogue updating scripts, adding more animations and in most cases new mesh.  All customers get an update sent free of charge.  That's just the way we do it but I do understand Iren's concerns. 

If the product being offered only looks the same/similar but in reality has a new script (or several) in it and wholly different animations (not just new ones) then it is not the same product - technically.

Some avatar makers will actually do that: "Update" an old product (say a prim and shape based avatar) so that it looks similar (sculpt or mesh that retains all or much of the original look) but utterly replace the scripts and/or animations with brand new ones. They then offer it at a new price while often offering a discount to those that bought the now outdated avatar.

[Grumpity Linden]

1 hour ago, Dakota Linden said:

Iren does have a very valid concern, and one that they should feel free to have addressed and answered by the team.

Iren, I would recommend that you create a Jira Ticket to request that the ability for a buyer to have a Copy Enabled items redelivered through the Marketplace Order be restricted to a specific time frame. 

For example, only allow a buyer to request a an automatic redelivery of the item if the purchase was within the past 30/60/90 days, or 6 months, etc.

This way recent buyers can get a limited number of updates, but anyone who purchased the item years ago would be required to buy an entirely new copy.

 

 

 

I think we should do the more generic case - allow a merchant to disable redelivery for 1) their entire store or 2) on a per-listing basis.   Otherwise, we may get caught up in carving out a variety of exceptions.  Thoughts? (I don't mean from Dakota, I mean from everyone  ).

[Fionalein]

2 minutes ago, Grumpity Linden said:

I think we should do the more generic case - allow a merchant to disable redelivery for 1) their entire store or 2) on a per-listing basis.   Otherwise, we may get caught up in carving out a variety of exceptions.  Thoughts? (I don't mean from Dakota, I mean from everyone  ).

Yeah, sounds like a good plan, please also display wether it is enabled - it highly influences buying decisions.

[Cindy Evanier]

34 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

If the product being offered only looks the same/similar but in reality has a new script (or several) in it and wholly different animations (not just new ones) then it is not the same product - technically.

Some avatar makers will actually do that: "Update" an old product (say a prim and shape based avatar) so that it looks similar (sculpt or mesh that retains all or much of the original look) but utterly replace the scripts and/or animations with brand new ones. They then offer it at a new price while often offering a discount to those that bought the now outdated avatar.

Its the same product we have just given them more; more animations, sometimes texture change and the mesh only difference because he might have cleaned up something that niggled him about the mesh.  Essentially its the same product just with extras and we don't change the price.  Their old item is perfectly fine but hey have some extras if you want.  

[Solar Legion]

1 minute ago, Cindy Evanier said:

Its the same product we have just given them more; more animations, sometimes texture change and the mesh only difference because he might have cleaned up something that niggled him about the mesh.  Essentially its the same product just with extras and we don't change the price.  Their old item is perfectly fine but hey have some extras if you want.  

That's just it - if all that was done is to update the look and add in newer animations/tweak a thing or two in the script .... it's an update.

In Iren's case: Similar look to the original with (according to their post) wholly new scripts and animations. That's not an update - not by technicality. Hence why I mentioned how some avatar makers handle such things - in that instance it boils down to how the creator views it. is it actually the exact same product, just with some updates or is it a similarly designed (even named) but different/new product? If it is the latter, do customers have to buy the new product and if so, do they get a discount for owning the prior one or not?

Iren is calling it an update but treating it like a similarly named but actually different product, one which must be bought again.

[Pamela Galli]

I just deactivated a bunch of things because originally they were transfer, and at a lower price, but now they are copy.  Yes, people who bought the trans version are now helping themselves to the copy version as well.

I will not be selling those items anymore on the Marketplace u til I can set a time of purchase  limit on them.

note to devs: there is hardly any sort of update you can do that could not be improved by consulting the end users first.

[Dakota Linden]

1 hour ago, Fionalein said:

The dilemma here is: Because Irene did it wrong and put a new item into the same one listing all the time in the past she is now forbidden by TOS to deactivate and relist it to fix that problem.

Hi!

Actually, the MKT never permitted disabling and relising items.

Under SLX/Xstreet, Aphotheus did allow updates that made more than 50% in changes to the item to be listed as a new item. If the changes that Iren did weren't equal to a change of more than half of the item, then they would have been in violation by deleting the original and creating a new listing for the item. 

It is possible, therefore, that over the 5+ years that an item has been listed, a merchant has made small, incremental, changes over time, such as that today the item would be more than 50% different from the original item, but because of the minor changes, did not permit creating an entirely new listing for the item each time.

 

[Whirly Fizzle]

10 minutes ago, Pamela Galli said:

I just deactivated a bunch of things because originally they were transfer, and at a lower price, but now they are copy.  Yes, people who bought the trans version are now helping themselves to the copy version as well.

I will not be selling those items anymore on the Marketplace u til I can set a time of purchase  limit on them.

note to devs: there is hardly any sort of update you can do that could not be improved by consulting the end users first.

Just to note - customers can redeliver from inactive listings.

BUG-225891 - [Marketplace] Users are able to redeliver items from inactive listings.

[Pamela Galli]

Here’s a jira

https://jira.secondlife.com/secure/Dashboard.jspa

[Pamela Galli]

11 minutes ago, Whirly Fizzle said:

Just to note - customers can redeliver from inactive listings.

BUG-225891 - [Marketplace] Users are able to redeliver items from inactive listings.

Well I guess there was no point in deactivating them. 

Really sometimes I just feel like throwing in the towel. It’s not like these problems could not have been foreseen if end users had been consulted before the update went live.

Note to powers that be: shut it down until it is fixed. 

 

Edited November 30, 2018 by Pamela Galli

[Iren Tinkel]

2 hours ago, Ethan Paslong said:

i do understand, but shouldn't you rename the item because its not really the same as the first delivered one?

also i was thinking a re-listed or new item would be handled as a new one, so only redelivery for the older listing with the old object.

It is not new item. It has same name, same idea, but v4-5-6....etc. I am not obligated by TOS to create new listing on update and yes, to version 10 after many years it has more quality, more content, more improvements and yes, it costs more just because it is tons of work. And it is pity that LL before does - after thinks. File JIRA? Yeah, i think after some years they add something new.

[Iren Tinkel]

Feature is crude and should not be represented like that. At least there should be choice for merchant since it is his problem to redeliver items. I already got email for redelivery items from people who bought version 2 for 200 ld and now there is 4.5 for 500 with new scripts which i paid big money to create customized for me. Thanks LL.

[Pamela Galli]

I am going to have to activate the listings I had deactivated, then put the original transfer sets back. But that evidently means if someone bought the copy set they will not be able to redeliver it. Or maybe they will. we don’t know. Because it looks like no one has actually tested these different scenarios. 

 

[Arwen Serpente]

I agree that the Merchant needs to be able to indicate which items (active or inactive) are eligible for re-delivery. It could be a field that is checked when a Merchant initially lists an item, and then a corresponding notation on the listing itself. And since we can bulk edit, it would be relatively painless to update if a Merchant wants to change/update numerous items at some point in the future.

As a side note, for those who create clothing, when BOM becomes adopted, (I think) there's gonna be a ton of re-deliveries of outfits that include old system layer clothing.  I've been doing this for almost 10 years and get numerous requests for appliers for those early creations.  I've deactivated most of them for various reasons, but if inactive items can be re-delivered by this system, I bet I'll see a slew of them get sent.

[Pamela Galli]

Well at the very least, if we deactivate something, for any reason, LL should not take it upon themselves to reactivate it, for any reason.

 It should be my choice what to sell, not LL’s.