Direct Delivery questions

[Zanara Zenovka]

---

Josh Susanto wrote:

>I gave you the answer, Josh, in the following line of my post that you decided to delete when quoting, LOL.

Or maybe I didn't. Check again.

I also know how the back edit button works.

Don't assume I won't start taking screen shots of your posts, Zanara.

---

ROFL

That's the most ridiculous claim I've heard from you Josh (and there's a bit of competition for that, lol).

Anyone who uses the forums knows that a lot of ppl get thread updates sent to email, so you'd be stupid to try to edit something after the initial post and claim it had been there all along. (I don't subscribe, but I prolly should - I'm sure I'm missing some of the really good spaz-out posts before they get nuked by mods, lol).

Anyone who subscribes, and cares to check, can see my answer to your question in my initial post.

[Toysoldier Thor]

Paladin,

I read all your posts and your responses to my posts to you and your LL defending posts to others here on your complete faith in the Maturity and capabilities of LL Development team and I wonder what planet you have been on inside SL for these past 4 years.

When you make statements like:

"If I was, I would be under NDA and couldn't say. But no, I was not. My comments were based simply on  knowledge of how software development works, and a basic understanding of how a business works. The one thing I consider a given is that the company will not do anything intentionally to hurt themselves; businesses always strive for the best possible outcome. Making life difficult for merchants will hurt their business, therefore if there are issues, it is not intentional. If only a few of us help test the product, then there will be undiscovered bugs. Software always has bugs, there is no such things as bug-free software. The goal in software development is to create the fewest possible bugs, and to triage known issues so that those that remain will affect the fewest possible users.

That's why I am convinced that LL will not do anything intentionally to harm themselves. Harming their own business and marketplace model is not one of their goals. It's just common sense."

What kept running through my head was "was this person on another grid when LL has proven time and time again how poorly they have developed code, and deployed and caused tons of grief to the Merchants, Customers, Residents????

If you didnt swear up and down how you are just a lowely hobbyist scripter in SL, I would swear you are one of LL's actual software developers and are here to defend the 100% proven immature development / deployment processes that most OTHER than you see of LL.

Come on!!  You cant be for real to actually believe - specially if you really say you are a software developer in RL that LL has followed proper development / deployment processes.  If you do and if you are a SLM Merchant, then how do you explain the PROPER LL DEVELOPMENT / DEPLOYMENT that happened on September 13th on the MP?   Is this how you run your RL development company?  Remind me not to contract out to your firm.

Unlike you - that seems to have been on another grid than LL's, most of us have seen LL's skill.  We saw how they deployed MP and transitioned us from Xstreet.  We saw how they screwed up the adult filters into MP.  We saw how they followed proper processes of code testing and change communication on Sept 13th.  

Whatever motivates you or has driven you to post in this thread defending LL's competance in software development... that is your call.  But you are trying to convince most of us with past LL experiece that the Sky is purple.

Just remember this talk Paladin in 2012 when LL releases DD into production.  I will.  And you can tell me then and shove it in my face if LL deploys DD with no serious glitches.  I am pretty confident I will be the one shoving this talk into your face.

[Zanara Zenovka]

---

Mickey Vandeverre wrote:

ok, well I object to an anonymous person deciding who is "stable" and who gets to ask questions without becoming someone's whipping post for the day.  Everyone needs to ask every single question because some are just reading and that's the only way they can get a grip. 

These questions have been asked for months on end.  Generally, the only time we get a response is when someone becomes "hysterical" - - if that's become the method to get answers for the non-tech oriented or the outside-of-the-LL-circle-getting-personalized-service merchants, than it is what it is. 

 

---

 

Oh Mickey

I don't think you need a pyschology degree to work out when people are being hysterical and irrational and just plain making things up. And since you say you do have one, then it should be even more obvious to you.

Calling people out on histrionics and fabrications is not making someone a "whipping post" (they wish! ;p); it's what reasonable and informed people do in a debate. All it takes for lies and crazy ideas to take hold in the world is for intelligent people to stand back and say nothing.

Hysterics achieve nothing here, apart from show who's got a few stray sheep loose at the picnic, and shed a bad light on merchants in general, and make any Lindens who do wander into this forum much less likely to take anyone seriously.

And this idea of some merchants getting personalised service - where does this come from?

 

---

Mickey Vandeverre wrote:

 

I don't have a clue what Aditi is.  Step One.  The information starts off with assuming that everyone knows what Aditi is.  Never heard of it.  Sounded like an app that I would have to buy.  Even after reading - don't particularly care to mess with any settings on the program in order to use it.  If I mess up on that - it will be a week before a support ticket is answered.  When it is answered - it generally is so aggravating that I want to kill off Mickey and leave.

So, on that simple Step One - have concluded that one will have to be a tech geek in order to even experiment with the thing.  Yeah - skimmed the rest, but it doesn't do much good if you can't get past step one.

---

Well I didn't know what aditi was either until I read the instructions and tried it.

If you've ever logged in on an alt, or to another grid, it's easy as that.

But if the instructions scare you; don't do it. /shrug

 

---

Mickey Vandeverre wrote:

Sounds to me like they can't answer a ton of questions because they are not sure yet.  After a year?  Pretty basic questions here - - if the basic process has not been nailed - - that is worrisome.  But.....NOT A TECH GEEK.....just an assumption.  That's all I've got.

 

---

The DD beta has been going for less than 6 months.

You know they've been working on infrastructure, which means tying in with the testing and release schedule for the regular SL code updates. Would you like this rushed?

The SLM transition was rushed, and those of us who lived through that, esp those of us who worked hard trying to get things fixed after the rushed launch and stupidly short public beta, would much rather things be done properly.

Forced adherance to arbitrary deadlines set by those who don't know all factors involved are bad, mkay?

 

---

Mickey Vandeverre wrote:

 

 To rebuild and re-list and re-categorize within your inventory - to unbox - to start counting items in a box - to think that you might have to re-work your whole packaging concept - to think that you might have to re-list each product.....

 

---

Um... where did you get the idea that you'd have to do any of that? At the simplest you can just upload your existing boxed item, and they're trying to automate that step anyway - ?

See that's what happens when people start fearmongering and posting all sorts of false info here - it just gets others confused. It's destructive and it really needs to stop.

 

[Josh Susanto]

>Anyone who subscribes, and cares to check, can see my answer to your question in my initial post.

Not impossible.

I'll be interested to see whether the pertinent version of your post was received in email before or after the initial time stamp on my response to it. 

[Mickey Vandeverre]

They came in and answered Sassy's question.  They generally do for Sassy.

The rest of the questions were not attempted until after the "hystrionics"

As I explained to you earlier, which you must have missed.....it seems as though that's the only way to get answers now, and it seems as though that is the mode now.  Not a fan of it, but if that's the only way, it is what it is.  I don't believe that mode evolved because of "us" - - I believe that it evolved because of poor communication from the service provider.

We were pretty much conditioned to accept that mode, but at the beginning of the year, they made strong statements that communication would improve.  When you make strong statements like that to your customers - you should probably back it up.  After all - you were probably making those statements to keep them.  They kept some - so deliver.

If asking questions bothers you  - there is a log off button. 

If you understand everything entirely, and are totally confident that you won't have to rework your entire listing process, then not really sure what you have to gain by poking at those who have far more inventory than you do. 

Wazzup with that?

 

[Marcus Hancroft]

---

Mickey Vandeverre wrote:

They came in and answered Sassy's question.  They generally do for Sassy.

The rest of the questions were not attempted until after the "hystrionics"

As I explained to you earlier, which you must have missed.....it seems as though that's the only way to get answers now, and it seems as though that is the mode now.  Not a fan of it, but if that's the only way, it is what it is.  I don't believe that mode evolved because of "us" - - I believe that it evolved because of poor communication from the service provider.

We were pretty much conditioned to accept that mode, but at the beginning of the year, they made strong statements that communication would improve.  When you make strong statements like that to your customers - you should probably back it up.  After all - you were probably making those statements to keep them.  They kept some - so deliver.

If asking questions bothers you  - there is a log off button. 

If you understand everything entirely, and are totally confident that you won't have to rework your entire listing process, then not really sure what you have to gain by poking at those who have far more inventory than you do. 

Wazzup with that?

 

---

^ This

I have almost 500 items in my MP inventory and having to rework every single one of them is going to be a daunting task.  Even if it's just going into each items Edit Screen and toggelling MagicBox to DirectDelivery.  /me shudders

[Toysoldier Thor]

---

Mickey Vandeverre wrote:

They came in and answered Sassy's question.  They generally do for Sassy.

The rest of the questions were not attempted until after the "hystrionics"

As I explained to you earlier, which you must have missed.....it seems as though that's the only way to get answers now, and it seems as though that is the mode now.  Not a fan of it, but if that's the only way, it is what it is.  I don't believe that mode evolved because of "us" - - I believe that it evolved because of poor communication from the service provider.

We were pretty much conditioned to accept that mode, but at the beginning of the year, they made strong statements that communication would improve.  When you make strong statements like that to your customers - you should probably back it up.  After all - you were probably making those statements to keep them.  They kept some - so deliver.

If asking questions bothers you  - there is a log off button. 

If you understand everything entirely, and are totally confident that you won't have to rework your entire listing process, then not really sure what you have to gain by poking at those who have far more inventory than you do. 

Wazzup with that?

 

---

Completely agree Mickey.  and you are also right in that Zanara completely missed your point.

 

The LL Commerce Team's past history of open communications with its customer base (the Merchants) has been rocky for most of its life (at least in the 3+ years I have participated). 

Over the past 2 years - pretty much after the November 2009 Listing Tax Strategy announcement/fiasco - the team's already poor and "favored few" communication strategy transitioned to a SAY AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE TO THE COMMUNITY approach was entrenched.  This was developed by Pink Linden when she and her team realized that the near Merchant Revolt from her team's announcement strategy on the forum was like a wildfire they couldnt stop. 

Instead of listening to and addressing the Merchant's legit anger and concerns at the horrendously developed policy they released with near unanimous rejection of the plan, Pink and her team took the common sense approach, they decided to stop defending their stupid policy and just went into their LL Bunker and started to TRIED to execute the policy.  Listening to their customer's deep concerns / rejection of the policy and its logic was NOT AN OPTION FOR LL.

In the 7 months after the announcement as LL tried to execute on the flawed strategy, the anger in the community didnt reduce much, many merchants shut down their Xstreet stores, 100's of thousands of listings (many of them good ones) were removed from xstreet, and many merchants established new accounts with competing services to xstreet. 

Finally, after constant "calling LL to the carpet" in the forums on the timing of the long delayed delivery of this horrid policy (often by hysterics and ridiculing of the team by ppl like me), LL Commerce Team quietly announced that they had to shelve the strategy.  They realized what the community told them all along - the plan was not feasible or even executable with xstreet.

If Pink and team would have taken the high road and backed out of the stupid plan right at the beginning, she would have established a strong and healthy communication between them and the customer.  But, she didnt and the plan still failed and she destroyed the Merchant's trust in the team as well.

So the moral to the story - LL Commerce's stubborn "we know best" attitude, lack of listening and responding to their customers, and childish "just dont talk to the the public and the problems / anger will go away" communication strategy started by Pink has become common Team strategy.  Brooke's team is doing exactly what Pink started in 2009.

And.... as Mikey has correctly stated, it developed a culture within the Merchant community on the forums that the only effective way to get the Commerce Team to post at all is to expose and rehash their weakness and allow a lack of answers from LL convert to posted theories, guesses, and legit FUD from the community.  When Brooke and team realizes that their childish "SAY NOTHING - LET OUR FORUM FRIENDS SPEAK FOR US" communication strategy is not working anymore. they eventually pop out of hiding and make a post.

Is this a good way to get LL Commerce Team to step up to their responsibilities?  NOPE!  But so far it has been the only proven way to get LL Commerce to step up every once in a while to talk to us.

Of course, you can tell in the forums whom among us has these special backroom communication lines to Brooke and team.  Its those that open defend their inaction and their lack of communication.  Its the Merchants that seem to speak on behalf of LL and answer our questions to LL.  They seems to know the answers to our questions and speak with authority to know.  They seems to not be scared about what most of the community is concerned of.  They are the ones that brush off horrid LL mistakes like Xstreet to MP migration and the Sept 13th change and pretend that LL never makes development deployment mistakes.

These few merchants (as there has been generations of them before this team) are there to be LL's communication strategy.  Sadly this fails every time since most of us do not want to hear theories and answers from a Merchant that should be no better in the know of the deployment like DD as us but yet they are.  We get more angry as LL makes promises to answer questions month after month and then says very little.

So yes Mikey... the only avenue the Merchant community has in the forums to get Brooke and company to answer us is to post increasing concerns and fears of unanswered questions that could affect us.

[Lasher Oh]

Over the years I have observed that LL are consistent with only one thing . Mainly that  when it comes to introducing something new they seem to actively go out of their way to find the most difficult clumsy inefficient methods possible.

For example - Just look at the arcane set of  group tools we have had to live with for years. Or even Viewer 2.
 
It's as if there is some  secret 'make it tough' committee that sits and reviews each new proposal and assess it  for ease of implementation. If looks simple and easy than it fails the test. And is sent back to the workshop to find a more awkward confusing way of reaching a solution.

"Can't make this game too easy you know." says the Fat Controller Linden.

So when it came to replacing the magic boxes all it needed was to create  a Magic Folder in our inventories. Then  just decant contents of magic box into Magic Folder. Simple - done dusted tested and rolled out.

But nooooooo,  Fat Contoller Linden says that it can't possibly be that simple - "why not make it so we can deliver folders that are already opened so they don't need to do what is traditional practice - mainly rezz a box" He says "Then we can have fun telling them that everything is now turned on it's head and we do it different from now on. Like  it or lump it"

"PLUS we can spice it up a bit by giving the merchants the run around by requiring them to create new folders for all their stuff  - that will get them racing around a bit - hee hee"

Looking  over the top of his glasses with his beady eyes "Off course all our buddies who were selected for the beta test will have a head start just like they did when we launched the new marketplace."

Then with a sly smile he asks " Don't you think that perhaps just creating a Magic  Folder is a bit basic - can't we do something like remove all the content from that same folder and put it somewhere else where they will have to jump through lots more hoops in order to make  changes if they dare"

Cheers all round the  the table "Brilliant"  shouts the team that's bound to win us extra gold stars from the 'make it tough' committee.

Fat Controller Linden then rubs his hands and says 'Now all we need is someone who is incapable of writing understandable instructions and then we can bury them in some hidden corner of that useless wicki - Shall I have go?"

[Josh Susanto]

>Wazzup with that?

If Zanara actually wants to make use of this forum to give and receive technical help, I support that, and I think she does some of that, as do many others. 

Where she and I disagree seems to be on the question of whether this is an appropriate forum for discussing merchant issues which are not strictly technical.

She seems to believe that exploring non-technical angles of issues treated here somehow detracts from people giving and receiving technical help. 

That might at times be correct, but she seems to spend about about as much time policing non-technical discussion as she does giving and recieving technical help, policing which I'm not convinced is helpful at all, much less in any way necessary.

Moreover, when the technical help I've got from LL has been just plain wrong, I think that's a pretty decent reason to demand better of them. Zanara seems to think not. 

If Zanara actually believed that the information LL was giving me was correct, it might make sense for her to tell me to shut up and follow the instructions. I get that. But things I have been told by LL are very demonstrably wrong, and yet Zanara defends LL for making such statements, in spite of what has been demonstrated. 

So Wazzup with THAT?

BTW: what does this line of text look lik in your email?

 

[Josh Susanto]

>I have almost 500 items in my MP inventory and having to rework every single one of them is going to be a daunting task.  Even if it's just going into each items Edit Screen and toggelling MagicBox to DirectDelivery.  /me shudders

OTOH, it's a pretty effective way to discourage people from selling component-level items, especially if they cost less than 10L each.

That is; it's at least more effective than (again) just borking the low-class box locations and predictably trotting out ralph to explain to us that the thwarted products are a bunch of crap anyway.

(... not that we won't see ralph again when DD turns out to underperform the shopping cart/magic box combo for high-volume component level merchants who are already disgusted with the complicated, non-optional migration process...)

[Paladin Pinion]

---

Lasher Oh wrote: 

So when it came to replacing the magic boxes all it needed was to create  a Magic Folder in our inventories. Then  just decant contents of magic box into Magic Folder. Simple - done dusted tested and rolled out.

 

 

---

Uh...that's pretty much what they're doing. It's just about exactly what they're doing.

You will not need to create folders unless you want to, and you won't need to create any at all if you continue to sell your objects as boxed items. You just need to drop copies of all your items in there at once. They will be sent to the marketplace in batches of 50.

The outbox folder is exactly a "magic folder", just as you want it to be. I don't know why LL can't read our current magic box and transfer the listings but if there is a technical problem with that, I don't have any problem dragging copies of my stuff into the folder manually. It only has to happen once. If you have 500 listings, just drag all 500 boxes in there and that's all you need to do. No other preparation is required.

LL has said they are implementing a way to auto-link your folder items to your marketplace listings. That means you won't need to change anything in your store. Could this screw up? Sure. That's why we'll test it before it goes live.

Again, everything I know about this process has come from reading the same online materials that are available to everyone. I still have some questions the same as the rest of you, but the things people are talking about here are already answered in those materials. I have not yet seen the system in action because the beta grid won't activate the tests until December. When it does, I'll tell you how it goes. I do not consider testing to be "free labor" for LL -- I consider it self-preservation. I'd think that anyone who has a vested interest here would jump at the chance to see what's going to happen and find any problems before the public starts relying on it.

Toy asked why I entered this discussion. It was because I don't like fearmongering and unfair accusations before the facts are in. Until we see the process in action, the things that people are afraid of are conjecture. I don't like conjecture. I like facts.

[Toysoldier Thor]

---

Paladin Pinion wrote:

yada yada....

Toy asked why I entered this discussion. It was because I don't like fearmongering and unfair accusations before the facts are in. Until we see the process in action, the things that people are afraid of are conjecture. I don't like conjecture. I like facts.

 

---

---

and guess who has the facts?  The persons that - as Darrius said - are the most silent here.  You dont have the fact (as you have mentioned many times you know no more about the development of DD than anyone else here and if you or zanara or other did and were on the closed beta you would be in violation of the gag order).  Zanara doesnt.  Only LL and the closed Beta testers - and none of them want to answer questions.

So you say you read what we all read and yet now you say a new number that I have not read about the bulk of uploads to MP... 50??  I read 100.  Where did you pull 50 out of the air?  Again, unless you know something.

PS... stop saying the new OUTBOX is anything close to the Magicbox... ITS NOT!

The magicbox has one layer flat structure and has no folder structures inside  - Outbox does.

The magicbox ALWAYS holds its content even as it transfers - Outbox does not (LL in their wisdom felt they need to upload and delete instead of making it a master source like Magicbox could have.

The magicbox is a stand-alone rezzed object - Outbox is a special fodler in our inventory

Magicbox is the actual source of content distributed to a customer - Outbox is only used as the entry portal to the MP wormhole to our new MP content storage.

So... stop promoting it as just another Magicbox.

Here I thought you knew more than the rest what DD was about that you understood what little infor LL posted on DD.  Seems not.

Lasher was completely correct - LL could have made this so simple by making Magicbox the source for the DD upload and not throwing in the kitchen sink ot added features no one asked for when solving the delivery problem.  They could have just stuck to fixing delivery failures and stuck to delivering BOXED ITEMS. 

But nope... as Lasher said... LL in their continued history of making something simple into a major complicated and inefficient solution.  LL Developers never fail to disappoint. 

[Josh Susanto]

>I don't know why LL can't read our current magic box and transfer the listings

Please do not encourage LL to take unnecessary control over additional parts of the process. You know why.

>I don't like conjecture. I like facts.

Not to address only your own preferences, specifically, Paladin... but where the same people are articulating an intolerance for conjecture by merchants and have shown a previous tolerance for straight-up lying by Lindens, that seems a little inconsistent to me.

[Sassy Romano]

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

 Only LL and the closed Beta testers - and none of them want to answer questions.

 

---

I suspect the reason is that when they have, they have either been ignored or feel that any post they make is one to be jumped on and called out as "one of them, the LL defenders".

Accurate answers have been given, the FAQ decoded without being in breach of any NDA since the information is already public but if people choose to ignore and attack the information then it's no wonder that further input will be sparse.

I understand what Paladin is saying, she's not saying that the Outbox IS a magic box, only that it's the new process.  Like it or not, that's what it is, at this point further berating of the process is pointless.

As to fixing "delivery issues", it seems to be the problem that Ruby on Rails is single threaded and gets backed up with the inherrent delays with LSL script functions.  Magic box uses outdated protocols.  It would seem that they'd either need to re-code Ruby on Rails to be multithreaded (unlikely an option), update all the magic box scripts as an alternate option or use something completely different.

Does it really matter if the source of delivery is a magic box that you can look at or if it happens to be the asset database?  The objects aren't really in the magic box anyway but are merely pointers to the item in the asset database.  The method IS, upload to MP and that's now your "master".

That's it, that's what it is.

[Madeliefste Oh]

---

Josh Susanto wrote:

>I don't know why LL can't read our current magic box and transfer the listings

Please do not encourage LL to take unnecessary control over additional parts of the process. You know why.

---

Maybe they can but choose not to do so.

Dropping your boxes from a magic box to a folder is not that much work. But to do so you must be still active in SL.

It might clean up the marketplace a bit from old junk that people did put in on slex five years ago, and who left SL without even knowing they are still having a magic box rezzed somewhere.

[Josh Susanto]

If the stuff isn't really in the box, but only points to stuff somewhere else, why not just reconfigure the stuff from box orders to be sent from the same place via the same route to be used by DD instead of the current route?

And why not let boxes work while they're in inventory?

They already work when worn as avatar attachments, for f###'s sake.

[Josh Susanto]

>Maybe they can but choose not to do so.

Thank God.

>Dropping your boxes from a magic box to a folder is not that much work. But to do so you must be still active in SL.

Just to clarify, I actually was not being sarcastic the first time.

I seriously hope LL will let me move the stuff rather than deciding to migrate it for me.

No point in throwing them a second ball to juggle before we're sure they can juggle with one ball.

BTW: how does this line of text appear in your email?

[Paladin Pinion]

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

So you say you read what we all read and yet now you say a new number that I have not read about the bulk of uploads to MP... 50??  I read 100.  Where did you pull 50 out of the air?  Again, unless you know something.

---

Yes, sorry, you're right. I thought I remembered 50, but I just re-read the Linden note here and they do say 100.

[Paladin Pinion]

---

Josh Susanto wrote:

>I don't know why LL can't read our current magic box and transfer the listings

Please do not encourage LL to take unnecessary control over additional parts of the process. You know why.

---

 

I agree with you. Someone asked why LL couldn't just grab our box contents and use those as the source, and I didn't know why. But now that I think about it, I'd much rather be in control of the process, and maybe LL considered that too. It's likely that most of us will want to start with only a few transferred items, and then gradually move the rest over after we see how it goes.

[Paladin Pinion]

---

Sassy Romano wrote:

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

 Only LL and the closed Beta testers - and none of them want to answer questions.

 

---

I

suspect the reason is that when they have, they have either been ignored or feel that any post they make is one to be jumped on and called out as "one of them, the LL defenders".

Accurate answers have been given, the FAQ decoded without being in breach of any NDA since the information is already public but if people choose to ignore and attack the information then it's no wonder that further input will be sparse.

I understand what Paladin is saying, she's not saying that the Outbox IS a magic box, only that it's the new process.  Like it or not, that's what it is, at this point further berating of the process is pointless.

As to fixing "delivery issues", it seems to be the problem that Ruby on Rails is single threaded and gets backed up with the inherrent delays with LSL script functions.  Magic box uses outdated protocols.  It would seem that they'd either need to re-code Ruby on Rails to be multithreaded (unlikely an option), update all the magic box scripts as an alternate option or use something completely different.

Does it really matter if the source of delivery is a magic box that you can look at or if it happens to be the asset database?  The objects aren't really in the magic box anyway but are merely pointers to the item in the asset database.  The method IS, upload to MP and that's now your "master".

That's it, that's what it is.

---

Thanks for this, Sassy. I do feel it isn't politically correct here to actually like Linden Labs, and woe to those who are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

[Mickey Vandeverre]

If you have that many items (the example was 500) -  and you don't have 10 hours a day to work SL (anyone that does that should get a job at Mickey D's btw)....and if you rely on the income daily.....

....then you MUST plan ahead.  Took a few disasters to learn that.

I went so far as to start another business until they get this working.

I wanted questions answered way back as to how we could plan ahead and be ready.  I would assume that is why some are asking in this thread.  Any adjustments that you have to make - even if it is as simples as a click - we are talking big numbers here. 

Planning ahead would involve boxing correctly, not boxing at all, moving to a temporary folder, adjusting # of products in a box. 

It takes me over an hour to box one offering.  Another hour to produce package pic and another hour to count prims, list prims on listing, do listing, add pics, then blog to two different blogs, then tweet, then count hits.

I wanted to know months ago - if there was any kind of way to prepare in advance - or to re-do the offerings - or whatever - as did others.

You are counseling on how to be good business people - (you can save it on me - I've probably run a dozen more retail businesses than you have) - - and to not prepare with the above, someone would be an idiot.

You are telling us to wait.  The above cannot be adjusted overnight.  For some it might take weeks and months.  I remember back when we went to new marketplace - and people were still adjusting listings six months later, trying to make it through a long inventory list.  They were minor adjustments - as might be the case this time - but you have to consider the numbers involved.

You are telling us that we are wasting energy.  I don't think so.  Sounds to me like people just want information in order to get organized. so that they don't get thrown off course pretty rapidly.

You're wasting far more energy by poking at people who have an entirely different set up than you do.  You simply do not have the investment in time and product.  Of course you don't have to plan ahead.

[Toysoldier Thor]

---

Sassy Romano wrote:

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

 Only LL and the closed Beta testers - and none of them want to answer questions.

 

---

I

suspect the reason is that when they have, they have either been ignored or feel that any post they make is one to be jumped on and called out as "one of them, the LL defenders".

Accurate answers have been given, the FAQ decoded without being in breach of any NDA since the information is already public but if people choose to ignore and attack the information then it's no wonder that further input will be sparse.

I understand what Paladin is saying, she's not saying that the Outbox IS a magic box, only that it's the new process.  Like it or not, that's what it is, at this point further berating of the process is pointless.

As to fixing "delivery issues", it seems to be the problem that Ruby on Rails is single threaded and gets backed up with the inherrent delays with LSL script functions.  Magic box uses outdated protocols.  It would seem that they'd either need to re-code Ruby on Rails to be multithreaded (unlikely an option), update all the magic box scripts as an alternate option or use something completely different.

Does it really matter if the source of delivery is a magic box that you can look at or if it happens to be the asset database?  The objects aren't really in the magic box anyway but are merely pointers to the item in the asset database.  The method IS, upload to MP and that's now your "master".

That's it, that's what it is.

---

You know Sassy,

I dont mind and I have already posted early in this thread (to other's response that this is not possible) asking that anyone that was in the Closed Beta speak up and give us their impression.

Since it becoming clear that LL Commerce would rather take a position of  "lets let our friendly and in-the-know merchants - those that were in the closed beta - speak for us in this thread" , I would rather that Paladen or whomever else from the Closed beta would at least come clean and say...

"I was in the closed beta and I do have deeper knowledge on how DD works that the rest of you Merchants that were not part of the closed beta.  Since I was a closed beta tester, I am providing you educated interpretations of the screwed up cryptic LL FAQ.  I am not providing answers of what the confusing LL FAQ mean because I am smarter than the rest of you - its just because I know what LL means because of my close beta participation."

Right now, those providing answers have not come clean to explain WHY the rest of us should trust them as an authority.  Since so far they have openly denied that they were even in the closed beta, this means that their answers / interpretations of the FAQ can be just as much a guess as those of us that were not part of the closed beta.

SO.... at this time... the ONLY AUTHORITY to provide the correct answers to the FAQ as well as to answer our questions that were not in the confusing FAQ is the group that should be stepping up.....  LINDEN LAB.

 

[Josh Susanto]

> I do feel it isn't politically correct here to actually like Linden Labs

I DO like Linden Labs. 

I like Linden Labs A LOT.

That's why I hate to see so much of their other excellent work spoiled by their dysfunctional enabling of what is quite probably just one bad egg. 

[Sassy Romano]

---

Josh Susanto wrote:

If the stuff isn't really in the box, but only points to stuff somewhere else, why not just reconfigure the stuff from box orders to be sent from the same place via the same route to be used by DD instead of the current route?

And why not let boxes work while they're in inventory?

They already work when worn as avatar attachments, for f###'s sake.

---

As to the first part, it's not how it is.  No point trying to push water uphill.

As to working in inventory, scripts don't run if not rezzed in a simulator.  Why ask for a magic box in inventory when what is being offered doesn't even require a box?  It's not how it is, see above.

[Josh Susanto]

>SO.... at this time... the ONLY AUTHORITY to provide the correct answers to the FAQ as well as to answer our questions that were not in the confusing FAQ is the group that should be stepping up.....  LINDEN LAB.

Even if I should find the nicest possible way to say things, I could hardly blame them for hesitating to step up while I'm here.

So if that's part of the reason they're not already in here telling you a bunch of stuff that might just turn out to be wrong later, I guess I should say "you're welcome".