Gacha category? or still just dump everywhere...

[Ethan Paslong]

2 minutes ago, Blush Bravin said:

We all have a voice in the conversation.

the voice was closed at 12/7/2018 at 6:25 PM that post killed any other possible thought or opinion, everything after that is irrelevant and wasted time.

[Blush Bravin]

1 minute ago, Ethan Paslong said:

as DL responded, you have no opinion, you have the rules, guidelines and marketplace regulations, other things don't matter

Which is why I quoted her response on the matter. But you all keep trying to get LL to change the guidelines. I am just voicing my opinion in regards to the situation the same as you all are voicing yours. I support the guidelines as they are now. I'd rather there not be a gacha category at all but it's there so I will support it. I just don't want them to be swayed to tighten the grip any further.

[Blush Bravin]

My last comment in this thread. I do believe Lindens read these forums. I believe they make improvements based on our suggestions. It has been my intent to lift a voice in favor of protecting gacha merchants and those wishing to buy gacha items. I've probably reached that goal sometime ago so I shall decease in the effort. 

[Ethan Paslong]

51 minutes ago, Blush Bravin said:

 in favor of protecting gacha merchants and those wishing to buy gacha items

and that is simply not the discussion, nobody needs to be protected, it's ONLY to make the mess on MP less and more oversight where to look instead of a load of useless crap before you finally can find what you'r looking for.

[Fionalein]

1 hour ago, Blush Bravin said:

My last comment in this thread. I do believe Lindens read these forums. I believe they make improvements based on our suggestions

They do,...

They read our wish for a gacha subsection.

They created the gacha subsection.

And then they did a Linden thing...

[Tari Landar]

11 hours ago, Solar Legion said:

The solution is simple, yes ... but it isn't anything at all to do with adding in check boxes.

1. Move all Gacha/Gatcha items into the Gatchas category - yes, all of them.
   1. Give said category several basic sub-categories.
   2. Remove any/all found outside said category - no matter when they were listed, no exceptions.
2. Code in the ability to exclude entire categories and sub-categories from Search Results/General Display.

Simple? Yep, for end users anyway. Likely not for the coders. Time consuming? Certainly parts of it would be, yes.

It's certainly a bit more worthwhile than trying to add in new sub-categories for varied Fantasy Races, especially since it would appear that said endeavor is a bit ... skewed.

The code for a required checkbox option, and allowing said option as a search choice(like perms) as well, already exists. It is in place and being used(has been since MP's inception), doesn't need to be written, will barely need testing (because it's already functional), and covers more bases than any other option. Then LL can't complain about needing to hire/pay more people to do work on this addition(the work's done), merchants and shoppers alike can list/shop(or not, through exclusion) for gachas to their hearts' content. 

I do agree that IF LL is going to keep this stupid gacha category (I don't know why they would, I've yet to see a singular reasonable reason for it, lol), they need to make it as mandatory as every other category is. If they can add a parent category, they can add child ones under it (for gachas I mean) rather than a universal all encompassing main gacha category. 

Making this gacha category 100% optional is just so dang stupid, from every single angle. It's actually a bit amusing to me, though it probably shouldn't be (and my apologies if my amusement at this weird new shiny-that's-not-really-shiny offends anyone, it truly does have me chuckling though). 

[Callum Meriman]

1 hour ago, Tari Landar said:

(I don't know why they would, I've yet to see a singular reasonable reason for it, lol)

They are Lindens. Lindens sometimes do real weird things.

But they are honest-to-goodness humans working in an incredibly complex environment, and like every single one of us they are just as entitled to get it wrong too.

Plus, as Patch grumpily reminded us - "we don't know the full story"

[MoiraKathleen]

2 hours ago, Callum Meriman said:

They are Lindens. Lindens sometimes do real weird things.

But they are honest-to-goodness humans working in an incredibly complex environment, and like every single one of us they are just as entitled to get it wrong too.

Plus, as Patch grumpily reminded us - "we don't know the full story"

The other thing that comes to mind when I read these threads about how the MP should work, or what enhancements/fixes should be made, I rarely see a thread where even just the MP merchants (let alone those who just buy from the MP)  are all in complete agreement about how something should work or what the workflow is for a process.   Developers of a system will know how to use the system, at least enough for testing,  but they often don't use it the same way or use the same workflow that the end-users will use.  It is hard to ensure that you have full understanding of a process between developers and end-user representatives, even when you are in a space where you have on-going back-and-forth communication with them as things are being developed. And often I think aspects may be overlooked from a combination of the developer not realizing some aspect needed to be defined better and/or end-users not mentioning something because "of course" the developers would have know that already.

[Tari Landar]

3 hours ago, Callum Meriman said:

They are Lindens. Lindens sometimes do real weird things.

But they are honest-to-goodness humans working in an incredibly complex environment, and like every single one of us they are just as entitled to get it wrong too.

Plus, as Patch grumpily reminded us - "we don't know the full story"

We definitely don't need to "know the full story" to know that ALL of the coding necessary for the options recommended, as soon as gachas started hitting the mp in waves, has been in place since MP's inception. If that were not the case, I would have far, far more sympathy and empathy for them, because the solution would be much more costly in nearly all resources (time, man power, money...) and much more difficult to come by. I'm not saying the solution is necessarily easy, just easier, because the bulk of the work is done-and we know it works. There are, of course, going to be other issues to tackle along with it (like enforcement). The most difficult part though, the functionality, is already done. 

It would make some sense if the category was mandatory, and would make even more sense if said category had child categories. It might not appease everyone, but it would appease, and serve, more than THIS option does, lol. I know there isn't a solution that would make everyone happy, but why not opt for the one that pleases the most people, and solves the most problems? This just made a ton more, lmao. 

And yes, I know they are honest to goodness humans, most of whom work their lil(or not) tushies off, and they get a lot accomplished. They may be horrid at customer relations, communication, an understanding of their own audience..umm...yeah, not the direction I was headed. Anyway, they do get my props for all the things they've done right-sl in and of itself would not be what it is, what I love, without them. They take a lot of flack for the things they do wrong too, and a huge portion of that is quite undeserved. My opinions on those matters have not changed. I'll still maintain this was a dumb move that, to me, sounds like one of those " pick an idea out of a hat, and let's do it" things, no forethought whatsoever, no looking through any existing JIRAs, no looking at all past discussions(and we've talked about this LOTS over the years). Just, no thought process behind it at all, and no real way to understand it, either. 'Its the optional part that makes this a bonehead move, really-well, for me, I dunno about others, lol. 

This is an awful lot like having a bucket, putting a hole in the side, then a larger one in the bottom, filling it with water, and expecting the water to choose the now optional side hole as an exit just because you had a conversation with the bucket and told it that it should (not that it *had* to, tho I doubt it would listen either way...I digress). Sure, some water might go through, but it won't be much.  

Edited December 12, 2018 by Tari Landar

[Fionalein]

I do not need to see the whole picture. What I see is that manpower was wasted on creating a useless category. It fulfills no purpose. If mandatory use of it was retconned last minute it should have never been released at all. Every company wastes money on new stuff they abbandon later, but usually they clean up after and end users never get to see the cuel de sacs...

Someone should try to hire as QA manager at the Lab, there seems to be some serious lack of it right now. As presented this should never have happend but both QA and PR departments must have started holidays already

I understand that Dakota has to present it as success none the less, I don't envy her for having to do so.

Edited December 12, 2018 by Fionalein

[Callum Meriman]

14 hours ago, Fionalein said:

I understand that Dakota has to present it as success none the less, I don't envy her for having to do so.

Could be worse, she could be the whitehouse press secretary!

[Blush Bravin]

On 12/11/2018 at 1:18 PM, Fionalein said:

They read our wish for a gacha subsection.

They created the gacha subsection.

Not an improvement and ill conceived from the get go, IMO.

The issue is spam. Spam on the marketplace is not confined to only gachas, granted it does take up the biggest portion at this time. But spam is the issue and a better way of handling spam is needed that does not penalize a product simply by nature of how it is sold in world. I am just as put out by 20 different colors of the same item being listed separately. But I certainly wouldn't call for the creation of a category just for color variants. 

So far, IMO, there hasn't been a good solution put forth in this thread.

[Tari Landar]

1 hour ago, Blush Bravin said:

 I am just as put out by 20 different colors of the same item being listed separately. But I certainly wouldn't call for the creation of a category just for color variants. 

So far, IMO, there hasn't been a good solution put forth in this thread.

None of us would call for that, we'd call for the same thing we've been asking for since, well, the beginning, a method for merchants to allow (multiple variations) within the same listing. That's a request that was put in almost immediately after MP came to fruition, and has remained there ever since. Whether or not we'll ever see it...eh....there's a better chance we won't, but I'm not going to discount that we will entirely. 

The checkbox option has been a request in since gachas met sl. It lets merchants indicate "yes" or "no", it let's shoppers filter out based on that option as well. Then, the category an item is in, doesn't even matter(well beyond category requirements we have, I mean). We wouldn't need a gacha category at all. Shoppers can shop to their hearts' content for them in the same way(s) they always have. Merchants will have one more required option on the page when making a listing, but otherwise, no more work for them either, especially if the default is "no". The only merchants that would have any amount of extra work would be resellers, and this change benefits them greatly through sorting methods, so it's a wash. The option for making more child categories under the new gacha one, has also been in place for a long time(the mere suggestion of a gacha category, really) too, and it's a pretty sound suggestion as well. I can see some negatives to that one, IF, and only if, the category(ies) was/were mandatory. It would make sense then that some people feel gachas are being sequestered over by their lonesome selves. Since it is not, LL has stated it will not be..there is no negligible negative to having a gacha section with sub categories, either.  

(ftr, not arguing, just understanding your position, promise)

Maybe it'll help someone come up with a better idea if they understand what's exactly wrong with all the other suggestions residents have been making for years on this. LL can't(wont?) tell us, clearly, so, if someone else can, it would prove to be more beneficial for us all, most especially LL. Maybe if all these other ideas really are bad, worse than what we have now, we can use what's bad about all of them to build a better solution. 

[Solar Legion]

Several solutions have been presented, some of which allow better tuning of search results. 

That you do not like those solutions is... Irrelevant. 

[Blush Bravin]

3 hours ago, Solar Legion said:

Several solutions have been presented, some of which allow better tuning of search results. 

That you do not like those solutions is... Irrelevant. 

The fact that you do is irrelevant.

[Blush Bravin]

7 hours ago, Tari Landar said:

The checkbox option has been a request in since gachas met sl. It lets merchants indicate "yes" or "no", it let's shoppers filter out based on that option as well. Then, the category an item is in, doesn't even matter(well beyond category requirements we have, I mean). We wouldn't need a gacha category at all. Shoppers can shop to their hearts' content for them in the same way(s) they always have.

I like this suggestion. Too bad this isn't what the lab decided to do rather than making a gacha category.

[Blush Bravin]

7 hours ago, Tari Landar said:

The option for making more child categories under the new gacha one, has also been in place for a long time(the mere suggestion of a gacha category, really) too, and it's a pretty sound suggestion as well.

I don't want to have to search two different places for hair if I'm looking for hair, which is what I'd have to do if hair sold as a gacha has to be located in the gacha category rather than being allowed in the hair category.

[Solar Legion]

3 minutes ago, Blush Bravin said:

The fact that you do is irrelevant.

I never stated what solution - if any - I liked. I offered a logical solution.

Do try harder next time.

[Blush Bravin]

1 minute ago, Solar Legion said:

I never stated what solution - if any - I liked. I offered a logical solution.

Do try harder next time.

 

3 hours ago, Solar Legion said:

some of which allow better tuning of search results. 

Your use of better denotes opinion and suggests you think it's better than what is offered now. Therefore, pay attention to what you actually saying. 

[Solar Legion]

2 minutes ago, Blush Bravin said:

 

Your use of better denotes opinion and suggests you think it's better than what is offered now. Therefore, pay attention to what you actually saying. 

Except it does not denote opinion - that is you, reading your own bias into what I typed. Do note that I singled out not a one of the offered solutions.

Again, do try harder.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Solar Legion

[Blush Bravin]

1 minute ago, Solar Legion said:

Except it does not denote opinion - that is you, reading your own bias into what I typed.

Again, do try harder.

How is this not opinion? What you think is better others, me for example, think is a very poor solution. Again, my opinion. At least I admit it's opinion.

 

[Solar Legion]

That's nice. Wrong but nice all the same.

Is that really all you have, going back and forth over the word "better" while pretending it automatically denotes an opinion?

If so, move on. I have made my meaning crystal clear - you can choose to accept said meaning or you can continue to place your own views/thoughts on it.

Could I have chosen a more fitting word? Possibly. I did clarify however and therefore the meaning should not be in question at this point.

You do not like that others do not share your viewpoint. That is fine. What is not fine is ascribing your own thoughts/ideas/meaning to what others have written as though it is what they have actually said.

[Callum Meriman]

On 12/14/2018 at 12:46 AM, Blush Bravin said:

I like this suggestion. Too bad this isn't what the lab decided to do rather than making a gacha category.

I think this was back on page 1 or 2. It's been mentioned a lot in other threads too.
 

The Gatcha category is just weird. In a way it's just as weird as the Furry category. I don't get the prupose of either of these.

[Tari Landar]

 

The entire purpose is to make it look like they're listening to us, even when it's also clear(to us) they're not. 

At least that's my interpretation of this particular move. It's the ONLY reason(albeit it, again, a stupid one) that makes even an iota of sense-I don't agree with it, obviously lol. There is no other reason to have made this move, other than try and pretend to appease people, pretend to listen to people.  In most cases, I wouldn't say something like that. I would consider that LL probably went with whatever option/solution they thought was best, even if it wasn't what WE thought was best. But THIS, is not one of those cases. This new category being touted as some awesome, helpful addition, shows a very clear disconnect between LL and their entire userbase (rather than  a select portion). If it was designed to be helpful to anyone at all, I might not think that way. But it's not, the thought process behind choosing this option just doesn't exist. From an outsider point of view, I can see why people would assume LL just pulled any old idea out of a hat and ran with it, because that's just what it sounds like. From an insider point of view, it goes even further, in that it appears more to be "there were no other ideas suggested when we talked about this issue over coffee last night at 3am, so we went with the first thing that popped into someone's head", and then they ran with it. Them not communicating anything beyond "THIS IS HOW IT WILL BE"(sorry, but that's what the posts about this from LL sound like, lol, and I get it, their platform, their rules, so I abide) just speaks volumes about the entire process.

I talk a lot about it for someone not even affected by it, but, it has way more to do with absolutely ineffective programming-, so that's where my head is at, lol. I go through things like this all the time with my project team(scattered about the world) and we argue all the time that this is *not* how you deal with issues. Some of them would rather go with what they think works best for them(or what they think is easiest for them) versus what the actual clients/customers need and want. Bit of a pain in the butt, to be honest, when there are much better solutions that are just as easy, if not easier, to execute that will solve multiple problems. I will never understand why people don't explore those avenues better and instead just jump with the very first thing. It's a recipe for disaster and it's the very reason we now have to re-do 6 months worth of work on this project, because some folks got a lil too cocky, and a lil too lazy.  The folks responsible for the bonehead move in our case, no longer have a job  

Edited December 15, 2018 by Tari Landar

[Fionalein]

OK I wana be first to say IBTL! in here