A question for Dakota

[Peewee Musytari]

---

Dakota Linden wrote:

 

It really is disheartening at times to get complaints, and sometimes very vicious ones, from users who, based on the type of Marketplace Issue they have with their listings, clearly haven't read the Listing Guidelines, but then blame Linden Lab when their product is unlisted.

 

 

---

I aboslutely agree with Darrius on this point, people do not read, they never have and they never will. I am also sure that anyone who posts regularly on these forums would empathise with your frustration about that fact, but that is just the way it is & you can see sooooo many examples of it just by looking around SL and its websites. To name a few:

1) A Knowledge Base FULL of answers to just about any question, with a tab next to the a forum, do people click the KB and get their answer? ...No of course not, they click the forum & post their question and someone else simply looks in the KB and posts the answer to them.

2) A JIRA that clearly states the sort of things that constitute a "bug" and what should NOT be posted there...You only need to search the word "cloud" to see how many people paid attention to that one.

3) Selling a product with a notecard called "IMPORTANT READ BEFORE REZZING" which explains you need to reset scripts or whatever before trying to use....Then sit back and wait for all the IMs that say "My building/object is broken, how do I fix it?"

4) A favourite of mine, selling buildings with a rezzer and a clear notecard explaining how to work it.....Again, constant IM`s asking how to work a rezzer.

5) The categories in these forums, you only need to ask Lexie why the community feedback forum is hidden for an answer to that one, it doesn`t matter how clearly you name it or what message you write saying what should be posted there, it will still get filled with irrelvevant crapola. The same is true of just about every category.

So, the problem is not unique to the Markeplace & to clarify it is not that people won`t read anything, they just won't click a 2nd link or open an info button or manual and read that, if something is right under their nose, then they likely will read it. So if you have vital info on the MP listing form that you want people to pay attention to, it needs to be written right there where they are filling in the form. Particularly where they fill in keywords or category, saying something like "DO <whatever> OR YOUR PRODUCT WILL BE DELISTED". Even something like that is likely to reduce the number of errors considerably.

[Darrius Gothly]

Totally off-topic ...

THAT's the Forum that  is missing from my dashboard .. Community Feedback! It used to be there, but somehow it vanished. GRRRR!

[Josh Susanto]

While we're pushing Dakota to get LL to add the function to correct category, maybe we could at least get them to compromise by offering a way to preserve most of the existing utility and ease of use in the current flagging tool.

That is...

Maybe the part of the flagging operation that allows one to correct the category would not have to be clicked at all, and, if not clicked, would show the default category correction "This product competes with my own product and, therefore, does not belong in ANY category.".

[Darrius Gothly]

This is a GREAT idea .. for one simple reason: It would also eliminate the need to improve the Sales Transaction Reports.

*GRIN*

[Dakota Linden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Thank you for your post, Cudaboy. It answers a question that I've asked twice in this thread but nobody, especially Dakota, chose to answer - and one of the instances was asked of Dakota specifically. So they don't inform the seller that an item has been delisted. I'm not surprised that Dakota chose not to answer the question because the answer is not only embarassing for them but, quite frankly, it's an abominable practise on their part.

The other very interesting part of your post was the experiment you did. Dakota has stated in this forum that flagged items are checked before delisting them. The truth of that has been seriously doubted because it's Linden Lab at the other end. Your test shows clearly that it is right to doubt what she stated, and to actually disbelieve it. Perhaps she isn't aware of the bad practises of the people concerned, or perhaps she merely stated the theory rather than the practise.

Is it any wonder that Linden Lab has the extremely bad reputation amongst their customers that they have.

---

Hello Phil,

Merchants are notified, with a message on the SLM web site. This has been stated time and time again, by me, in posts on the forum.

There is also a Jira asking that emails be implemented notifying merchants when a product is unlisted.

Brooke has even replied to that Jira.

This question has not, and never has been, unanswered.

Products are NOT unlisted on the whim of users. They never have been, and never will be.

All reports of issues are reviwed by a Linden Lab employee before the product is unlisted.

However, if one of those employees is working through the reports and a new one comes up, the item may be unlisted almost immediately from the time of the report being sent if they agree.

 

[Darrius Gothly]

... and yet we have a report of a "test flag" of an otherwise trouble free item reviewed and delisted.

This is the point I've been trying to make for months .. trust.

You've stated time and time again that all Item Flags are reviewed by a human being, yet one single report completely shatters that assertion. If the customer base trusted LL then it would take a LOT of them with full documentation and a real frontal assault to shake customer confidence.

Please understand Dakota .. I personally want to be rid of the trust issues. It's unhealthy and very detrimental to work in an environment where you do not trust your "partner". Yet every time we ask "please do this for us because it will help us trust you more" .. the response is "Pffft .. not important."

(retread of an old tired rant .. off)

[Josh Susanto]

Moreover, whether there's some homeless junkie from Craiglist trading LL flag completion services for day-old pizza or a trained monkey in India being used by some Nth degree subcontractor makes no difference to SLM users as long as the quality of flag validity remains inadequate.

 

[Darrius Gothly]

(why do I have the chorus of Peter Gabriel's "Shock the Monkey" running thru my head now....??)

[Dakota Linden]

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

... and yet we have a report of a "test flag" of an otherwise trouble free item reviewed and delisted.

This is the point I've been trying to make for months .. trust.

You've stated time and time again that all Item Flags are reviewed by a human being, yet one single report completely shatters that assertion. If the customer base trusted LL then it would take a LOT of them with full documentation and a real frontal assault to shake customer confidence.

Please understand Dakota .. I personally want to be rid of the trust issues. It's unhealthy and very detrimental to work in an environment where you do not trust your "partner". Yet every time we ask "please do this for us because it will help us trust you more" .. the response is "Pffft .. not important."

(retread of an old tired rant .. off)

---

Hello Darrius,

Go test it for yourself.

Go flag an item and then check to see if the Product Listing that you flagged was unlisted immediately as a result of you flagging the item.

It does not happen.

All reports and listings that are flagged are reviewed by a member of Linden Lab and are not unlisted only as a result of the listing itself being flagged.

You are willing to accept that it happened to someone else without proof and without testing it.

There is nothing Linden Lab can say or do if you are willing to accept and believe any comment regarding an issue without proof.

 

 

 

 

 

[Darrius Gothly]

---

Dakota Linden wrote:

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

... and yet we have a report of a "test flag" of an otherwise trouble free item reviewed and delisted.

This is the point I've been trying to make for months .. trust.

You've stated time and time again that all Item Flags are reviewed by a human being, yet one single report completely shatters that assertion. If the customer base trusted LL then it would take a LOT of them with full documentation and a real frontal assault to shake customer confidence.

Please understand Dakota .. I personally want to be rid of the trust issues. It's unhealthy and very detrimental to work in an environment where you do not trust your "partner". Yet every time we ask "please do this for us because it will help us trust you more" .. the response is "Pffft .. not important."

(retread of an old tired rant .. off)

---

Hello Darrius,

Go test it for yourself.

Go flag an item and then check to see if the Product Listing that you flagged was unlisted immediately as a result of you flagging the item.

It does not happen.

All reports and listings that are flagged are reviewed by a member of Linden Lab and are not unlisted only as a result of the listing itself being flagged.

You are willing to accept that it happened to someone else without proof and without testing it.

There is nothing Linden Lab can say or do if you are willing to accept and believe any comment regarding an issue without proof. 

---

Actually, it's not me "accepting" it. It's the fact that a single report casts enough doubt on it that others believe it.

Yes, I "get it" that there are always those willing to subscribe to conspiracy theories. I'm not one of them. (I happen to know those were Oompa Loompa's in Roswell, NOT aliens)

And I'm not calling you a liar or even suggesting you are mistaken. What I'm trying to get across is that the Lab has a serious problem with Trust.

Techie companies tend to run on the belief that "with the right technology we can fix ...". But truth is that just isn't so. Doesn't matter if you make toenail polish or state-of-the-art Virtual Worlds, if your customers do not trust and believe what you tell them, they will not put as much money into your company as they would if they DID trust you.

I'm looking at things from the Meta Level, trying to understand and communicate that no amount of keyboard pounding or nifty new features can fix everything that needs fixing.

And no, I'm not going to test it either. The outcome of the test wouldn't matter one way or the other. The real issue isn't a single event or a single problem .. it's the foundation those events and problems are built upon.

[Dakota Linden]

Hello Darrius,

Linden Lab cannot fix trust issues when users are willling to accept and believe any comment without proof.

Whether those comments are ones made by Linden Lab or by another user.

Linden Lab is offering proof to any user who believes that products are immediately unlisted just because they were reported by someone else. Go try it yourself and see what happens.

Users who have reported otherwise are offereing no proof at all.

Yet who is being believed here? The user offering no proof.

 

 

[Cudaboy Lockjaw]

 

---

Dakota Linden wrote:

Hello Darrius,

Linden Lab cannot fix trust issues when users are willling to accept and believe any comment without proof.

Whether those comments are ones made by Linden Lab or by another user.

Linden Lab is offering proof to any user who believes that products are immediately unlisted just because they were reported by someone else. Go try it yourself and see what happens.

Users who have reported otherwise are offereing no proof at all.

Yet who is being believed here? The user offering no proof.

 

 

---

What has me now raising an eyebrow is the line "Users who have reported otherwise are offereing no proof at all." So it is probable others have done the same curiosity test I did and saw the same thing, but now its fixed and it was total fluke it happened so quickly.  NOT A Jab AT LL I've just never seen the labs get anything  done in less then 5 minutes.  

 

The very next line goes on to say "Yet who is being believed here? The user offering no proof."  Sounds like now " the user " aka me is being called a LIAR by having no proof. (Please Read Below )

To Clarify I said "As a curiosity test had a friend go to one of my items and flag it and sure enough it got de-listed. SO you make your own call on what is really happening"

I never said I had hard cold proof of anything, just stated what I had happen and for a person to make there own decision.. (Besides I would like to know how one could actually prove it. That would be like proving favoritism in SL and we all know that doesn't happen. ) 

 

This really is an eye opener

" Linden Lab cannot fix trust issues when users are willling to accept and believe any comment without proof.  Whether those comments are ones made by Linden Lab or by another user."

I hate to nit pick this post apart but  who is the customer / user suspose to beleive  . After reading this comment.



 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Dakota Linden wrote:

Hello Phil,

Merchants are notified, with a message on the SLM web site. This has been stated time and time again, by me, in posts on the forum.

There is also a Jira asking that emails be implemented notifying merchants when a product is unlisted.

Brooke has even replied to that Jira.

This question has not, and never has been, unanswered.

---

The question remained unanswered in this thread in spite of asking it twice, one of which you, specifically, were asked.

I'm sorry Dakota but leaving a message somewhere for somebody is not informing them at all. When a post is deleted in this forum, the poster is informed about it by email. Your method merely leaves a message for the seller somewhere on the off-chance that they will see it in the not too distant future. That doesn't show much in the way of consideration for the customer. For me, you don't inform people at all. You merely leave a message somewhere, in the hope that they will see it before too long. Although, LL probably isn't bothered whether or not the person sees it. If they were, they would have instituted a system to actually inform them.

It's a pity that the jira you mentioned hasn't been acted on, since, imo, it's very basic for running the system - if customers actually matter, that is.

 

I accept that the flagging test wasn't conclusive. If the person had told us which item it was, and which category it was in, it might have been conclusive. He only said that the item hadn't had any problems being in the category where it was, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it was in the correct category. Perhaps the tester will tell us. However, it only takes the result of one test to prove that the system doesn't work the way you say it works. It may work like that much or most of time but, if a single test shows otherwise, then items cannot always be checked before delisting the way you say they are. Without the details of that test item, we can't know one way or the other.

You suggested that Darrius tests the wrong thing. It's not the immediacy that's in question. It's whether or not *every* delisting from flags is actually checked and verified before delisting. I can't test it but it would be interesting if some people did test it. It would show that the system actually works as it's said to work, or that people's doubts were justified.

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Dakota Linden wrote:

Hello Darrius,

Linden Lab cannot fix trust issues when users are willling to accept and believe any comment without proof.

---

It's not that people are "willing to accept and believe any comment without proof". People have learned to distrust Linden Lab over the years - and rightly so. The marketplace people are some of the recipients of distrust *because* of what Linden Lab has done to their paying customers through the years, of which there is ample proof.

[Josh Susanto]

I expect I'll have the proof by this time tomorrow.

If not, I shall apologize.

[Phil Deakins]

I hope that the results of your testing aren't tainted by them expecting some user tests and excercising an unusual degree of diligence. If the tests show that items were checked properly, more tests sometime in the not too distant future, when they aren't expected, might be useful. In fact, relative frequent tests would be very useful to sellers.

[Josh Susanto]

What I did was to use an alt to flag, again, an item that had previously been flagged for exactly the same reason.

The item is a full permissions sculpted prim with the map on the contents tab. The sculpt is a cube in which the edges of the map have all been pulled to one corner, technically creating a seamless cube. 

The first time it was flagged, I had listed it under the category "Sculpted Prims Creator Tools". I figured that this was less incorrect than any other category, including any of the subcategories (and I stand by this).

I relisted the item in the exact same category as before, assuming that if there was some kind of continued problem, no one could possibly doubt that I had been correct in the first place, so, if LL became "consciously" involved at some point, I should have nothing to worry about.

And that's what I'm going to do again; relist it in the correct category, knowing only too damned well that that's exactly where it belongs.

It's a free item, though, so I don't stand to lose anything by getting it repeatedly flagged. Moreover, my alt is now free to put out a magic box with this exact same item in it, listed under exactly the same category, and for a fee, thus demonstrating how, and for whom, the current flagging system actually works.

So if each person reading this message would please flag the same item offered for free by Josh Susanto, Josh Susanto will continue to relist it in exactly the same category and continue to post screen shots of the flagging notices.

At some point, I think it will be reasonable to ask how LL's handling of the flags differs in any practical way from some kind of automated response. It's a bit like a reverse Turing Test. Eventually, even if we can't prove that there's no actual person inside the Chinese Room, we can at least demonstrate that there is no one there making intelligent decisions.

From a legal standpoint, I'm doubtful of the utility of distinguishing between replacing a person with a bot and simply employing a person who behaves in a manner indistinguishable from that of a bot.

(attaching flag notice...)

 

[Josh Susanto]

OK.... the item has now been relisted in the same category as before and my alt (the same alt who just flagged the item) now has exactly the same item up for sale in exactly the same category, but for a fee.

Should I hold my breath for LL to do anything?

What, exactly, and when?

[Peewee Musytari]

Not sure exactly what your test is supposed to be proving, but good luck with anyway.

I would think that if LL has made a decision that an item is in a wrong category, then they are bound to delist it again if its reposted back in the same place.

Having said that, I wouldn`t know where to put your cube either, despite there being several sub-categories there, I don`t see one that really fits a basic prim shape, its fits in all of them and none of them lol

[Anaiya Arnold]

 

De-prioritizing the needed fix, even though not fixing it is creating extra work that ties up those "finite resources" , is ridiculous.  The fact is little jobs like this ought to be prioritized before any big job unless the big job involves a show stopper. 

 

The category re-sort could be months (or years) away at the speed LL moves (or it could just never eventuate if we are honest), and in the meantime, the failure to complete this little task first is not only frustrating your customers, it is also adding to your team's ongoing workload, slowing down the category re-sort even further, while needlessly chewing up those "finite resources". 

Fixing this is trivial, and the category fix is months away at best.  Priortizing the category sort fix over this fix is a prioritization failure.

 

That would be bad enough, but trotting out this arrogant, high handed and insulting nonsense about "educating us" (punitively) while refusing to supply such basic and obviously necessary information, truely takes the cake.  

You seem surprised that an organization that behaves like this would get "vicious" complaints.  

Blaming the customers for this design failure on LL's part, spinning nonesense about needing to punish us to educate us, while refusing to supply the information we need to be "educated" is insultiing and inexcusable, no matter how finite your resources are!  

 

 

 

[Darrius Gothly]

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

De-prioritizing the needed fix, even though not fixing it is creating extra work that ties up those "finite resources" , is ridiculous.  The fact is little jobs like this ought to be prioritized before any big job unless the big job involves a show stopper. 

The category re-sort could be months (or years) away at the speed LL moves (or it could just never eventuate if we are honest), and in the meantime, the failure to complete this little task first is not only frustrating your customers, it is also adding to your team's ongoing workload, slowing down the category re-sort even further, while needlessly chewing up those "finite resources". 

Fixing this is trivial, and the category fix is months away at best.  Priortizing the category sort fix over this fix is a prioritization failure.

That would be bad enough, but trotting out this arrogant, high handed and insulting nonsense about "educating us" (punitively) while refusing to supply such basic and obviously necessary information, truely takes the cake.  

You seem surprised that an organization that behaves like this would get "vicious" complaints.  

Blaming the customers for this design failure on LL's part, spinning nonesense about needing to punish us to educate us, while refusing to supply the information we need to be "educated" is insultiing and inexcusable, no matter how finite your resources are!   

---

For the record .. I did not write the above. However I sure wish I had!! Brava! Well said!

[Phil Deakins]

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

Blaming the customers for this design failure on LL's part .... 

---

It's nothing new. In fact, it's what's expected from Linden Lab when they get something wrong. Remember the Homestead fiasco? It went like this...

LL introduced Homesteads at a certain cost and tier.

People asked live help (when it was manned by Lindens) if they could use a Homestead for <specific purposes>.

Linden helpers said, "yes" and "that's what Homesteads are for".

People buy Homesteads and use them for <specific purposes>.

Linden Lab says, "We have to increase the cost and tier because "people are using them for <specific purposes>, which they were never intended for".

General uproar because, after they had sold a load of Homesteads, LL turned round and blamed the users for using them for the specific purposes that they were given the go-ahead for, saying that they weren't intended to be used like that.

LL refunded money to some people, but did not refund all who were caught in that trap. Some people lost a lot of money.

So it's nothing new for LL to blame the customers for mistakes they make themselves.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

That would be bad enough, but trotting out this arrogant, high handed and insulting nonsense about "educating us" (punitively) while refusing to supply such basic and obviously necessary information, truely takes the cake. 

---

I'm not in agreement with your comment about "educating" customers. To be fair to LL, people do need to be educated to put things where they belong instead of where they don't belong and a good way to do it is to have the customer redo the listing. It's a very good way of learning. Otherwise, some people will seek to gain an advantage by listing in the wrong places. What is *really* bad is not telling people the correct places to list their delisted items. Having to redo a listing is "education" enough.

For the first time, I've seen (in this thread) what a delisted message looks like. It falls short of "informing" the customer (to inform a person, you have to actually inform them - not just leave a message somewhere in case the customer comes across it). What the screen shot does show is that the message is compiled programmatically; i.e. the first part is standard and the list of delisted items is auto-written. Since the list part is auto-written, it would be an extremely trivial matter to add a semi-auto-written bit to state the correct category - select from a dropdown list of categories, for instance.

 

[Ciaran Laval]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

That would be bad enough, but trotting out this arrogant, high handed and insulting nonsense about "educating us" (punitively) while refusing to supply such basic and obviously necessary information, truely takes the cake. 

---

I'm not in agreement with your comment about "educating" customers. To be fair to LL, people do need to be educated to put things where they belong instead of where they don't belong and a good way to do it is to have the customer redo the listing. It's a very good way of learning. Otherwise, some people will seek to gain an advantage by listing in the wrong places. What is *really* bad is not telling people the correct places to list their delisted items. Having to redo a listing is "education" enough.

 

 

---

I read Anaiya's point as saying there's not enough information to educate people, rather than suggesting people shouldn't be educated.

[Anaiya Arnold]

Yes Darrius Ciaran, that is what I meant. 

It's not the delisting in and of itself Phil, although in my view, I do think that for the first three instances an auto-move and warning about delisting if there are further instances would be more customer orientated and would not encourage intentional or lazy mislistings, but I can live without this courtesy. 

The problem is delisting without providing the information about which specific category the item should be listed in.  This is significantly aggravated by having the nerve to claim this is done to educate us because apparently we are too apathetic and lazy to do the job properly otherwise, at best (and are deliberate cheats at worst).  This from a company that launched the market place without this basic functionality in the first place!