Jump to content

Display names and user account names in the SAME field in transaction history


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3295 days.

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

Recommended Posts

Really why are display names mixed into transaction history at all? Noone who does business in SL cares about those silly "play names".  And with so many users (merchants and players alike) turning off the display name feature entirely, why does the Lab feel the need to continue to shove them down our throats?   This move turns my record keeping into a disasterous nightmare.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Abraxxa Anatine wrote:

Really why are display names mixed into transaction history at all? Noone who does business in SL cares about those silly "play names".  And with so many users (merchants and players alike) turning off the display name feature entirely, why does the Lab feel the need to continue to shove them down our throats?   This move turns my record keeping into a disasterous nightmare.

I don't mind it being there IN ADDITION to the key user account name but I resent the toy name being shown as the emphasized one.  I want to see username as the proper highlighted name and the toy name in font point size 2.

Note:  Any reference to "toy names" here are fictional and do not relate to any avatars known as Toy.  No Toy's were harmed in this post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe it!  How am I supposed to run a business when I can't find customer purchases?  What about when they want a replacement copy of something?  How will I find their transaction to confirm they bought it?  What about when they want a discount for buying a kitchen with a house?  How am I going to check to see that they bought the house?  What about the customer who wants to know the name of the thing she bought so she can find it in inventory?

 

Do I just tell customers "Sorry, I can no longer verify any transactions."?

Of all the bone headed things LL has done, this tops the list. This is it! 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have asked for a lot of relevant data to be included in the transaction record -- did anyone at ANY time ask for this?

This is yet another case of the Commerce Team breaking functionality in order to achieve who knows what goal, because they did not bother to consult with any actual merchant -- because if they had, anyone who keeps records could have told them what an unthinkable move it would be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only is showing the display names in the same field a REALLY bad idea, but the current data dump is also inconsistent between SL Marketplace sales and in-world transactions.

If I sell something on SLM, the "Resident/Group" field reads "Commerce Linden (commerce.linden)". To find out who actually bought the item, I have to look in "Description" and parse out the buyer's name from a mess like this: "Order #1283798654, Item #2613948 (Maire Kidd/TRU Timeless)". And I can't tell if that is the legacy name format, or display name. I can tell you that in this example, "TRU Timeless" is the merchant account that my texture sales are from, and "Maire Kidd" is apparently the customer. The name before the / changes depending on the sale, and I know that the TRU Timeless account doesn't do anything with display names.

On the other hand, any other kind of transaction shows the buyer or seller in the "Resident/Group" field, like this "Star Captain Porter (starchaser.webb)"

I would much rather see the "Resident/Group" field show ONLY the legacy name in the resident field in the downloaded XML (minus the last name Resident where applicable). I really couldn't care less about their Display name that week, but if it is to be provided, then it needs to be in a completely different field.

The SLM sales need to have the buyer's namd in the same place as any other transaction type, not jumbled together with the purchase description. And describing what was sold on SLM only by an order number and "item number" is unnecessarily cryptic. I guess I have to look up the transaction, parse out their actual name, then note the item numbers in all the transactions for that user (which are impossible to sort on!), and then go into SLM's merchant controls to figure out whaic code represented the item they asked about?

This is utterly pathetic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you would think that if they were going to tinker with the transaction record they could make any number of changes to provide us with usable information such as what it was someone bought on SLM.  I am astonished they instead choose to destroy the most important functionality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And.... for all of you that are once again witnessing just how bad a solution development team is at the helm at LL with this bonehead idea of using a changing NICKNAME in a transaction log, remember that this is the same team that has come up with something vastly more complex and will impact us all.... DD!

If they cant understand the basics of solutions and SL busines functions.... how will they get DD right?

Now Paladin might realize the fear many of us have about LL deploying DD.  Its beyond they skillset to get it right and we will all suffer on deployment. 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Luna Bliss wrote:

Are you sure this is an accident? I'm starting to feel like they don't want serious merchants here anymore.

Maybe I should message Josh..

 

LOL...  One really needs to wonder when you see LL Commerce and Development teams making such a design decision mistake that I.T. students could tell you makes no sense.

This is why so many of us Merchants are so openly vocal about getting as much details of up-coming systems - even the most basic of details - from LL's team.  And why we get frustrated when LL's team doesnt answer.  And when we are told by LL's white knight defenders that we are being too critical and negative about LL's solutions that have not yet been deployed......

We are this way because of examples like this.

One needs to wonder if LL is simply trying to destroy the Merchant's ability to make an SL living in SL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to be rude Commerce Team, but If anyone with a voice, knows anything about business, or just thought about it for 10 seconds, they should realised how ridiculous this move is.  They should have spoken up at brain-storming meetings (or whatever type of get-togethers LL has), and said so.  And others should have listened. It's not rocket science.

I only need to know my customer's' real name, the one they will always have, not the one they change whenever the wind changes.  From a business perspective I have no need, whatsoever, in knowing this week's display name of my customer. 

What is astounding me is the lack of brain power with some in the LL ranks.  This is just so elementary. Even though some have suggested merchants should have been asked, anyone with say, half an understanding of how SL business works, should have known how stupid this move is. 

My suggestion - all LL employees in decision making roles, no matter how small - at minimum, learn the procedures of running a business, and how a merchant goes about reconciling reports from the Marketplace and Transaction History. Then how to follow it up and learn how a merchant uses that information for customer queries.  All LL employees, especially decision makers, should have a good understanding of how all aspects SecondLife works, and actually "use it". 

If this is too "hard", then consult merchants, who can advise you.   And then listen.  And listen some more.

Seems to me, with many of the decisions made, select LL staff have no idea at all, and we'd all be better off if they looked for employment in a field more suited to their expertise. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Toysoldier Thor wrote:


Luna Bliss wrote:

Are you sure this is an accident? I'm starting to feel like they don't want serious merchants here anymore.

Maybe I should message Josh..

 

LOL...  One really needs to wonder when you see LL Commerce and Development teams making such a design decision mistake that I.T. students could tell you makes no sense.

This is why so many of us Merchants are so openly vocal about getting as much details of up-coming systems - even the most basic of details - from LL's team.  And why we get frustrated when LL's team doesnt answer.  And when we are told by LL's white knight defenders that we are being too critical and negative about LL's solutions that have not yet been deployed......

We are this way because of examples like this.

One needs to wonder if LL is simply trying to destroy the Merchant's ability to make an SL living in SL.


^ This

Pulling up my report this morning for the past 30 days, the entire report is changed to show just the stupid, ridiculous Display Names!  Great! 

Commerce Team:  Listen to Toysoldier and the rest of the merchants!  Get rid of this and I mean right NOW!  What in heck were you thinking?!  Or...were you thinking at all? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a customer whose purchases now show up under the name  â„‘αđчη Tøҳҳ. Her other ones show up under her user name, of course, but the transaction record does not understand that these are the same person. 

 
Link to post
Share on other sites

So to see how effective this new personal attention @lindensupport Twitter account is, I have Tweeted the Jira to them this morning to see if anything will happen. 

I also tweeted the stupidity once again of LL's solution team for coming up with this unsolicited (no customer asked LL that they needed this stupid change) hairbrain idea and angering LL Merchants once again.

I think Rodvik has given up on the antics of the LL Commerce Team as anything he plans to clean up.  I think the Commerce Team and anything to do with the Commerce / Merchant activities of SL has just become a dirty little secret that Rodvik doesnt want to address at all.

His team is in way over their heads in running this unit of the business and they have proven to have near zero customer relationship, customer support, and knowledge of the Merchant business operations in general.

I think this change shows clearly that LL is using the Commerce area as a place for their junior techs and management to cut their teeth in their respective careers.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ohh ohh...

LL is TRYING??

LL is "Fixing"?

When LL tries to fix something it normally means "how can we leave the change in place that we refuse to back out of and make the newly created mess tolerable for the Merchant to stop their yelling?

This is not good.  I suspect for some korny obscure reason, this change may be related to the Sep 13th Pre-DD-Prep changes and the DD rollout.  Of course they would not admit that they are continuing to sneak in DD components into Production and hoping that their changes are not noticed - but the changes are either poorly tested or so hairbrained that they cannot be missed by us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3295 days.

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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...