Try out the new Received Items Beta

[Jessicka Graves]

So with an overwhelming "no" to this particular..."feature"/downgrade, when can we expect it out? 1-2 months?

 

LL has a history of either A. Showing it a few weeks fews to a month or two before a new "feature" is about to be crammed down our throats, or B. Asking our opinion, making us believe they care, and then cramming it down our throats in the same time frame.

[Cerise Sorbet]

---

Ciaran Laval wrote:

What is the exepcted behaviour for llGiveInventory and llGiveInventoryList? Should items be going to the received items folder? They did when I tested them but others say that in the same region, they don't.

---

That turned out to be the result of a characteristically inept Linden Lab rollout. Only two of the four regions documented by them to have Received Items enabled, actually had it enabled.

[Tari Landar]

I'm going to give you the mommy answer....(and yes I did actually read the thread, too, wasn't sure I'd make it, phew)

This is for the commerce team, of course...

"Please stop touching things, without asking first"

That's my answer to about 99.9% of what you do. Okay?

edited because I had to fix my emphasis.

[Ciaran Laval]

---

Cerise Sorbet wrote:

---

Ciaran Laval wrote:

What is the exepcted behaviour for llGiveInventory and llGiveInventoryList? Should items be going to the received items folder? They did when I tested them but others say that in the same region, they don't.

---

That turned out to be the result of a characteristically inept Linden Lab rollout. Only two of the four regions documented by them to have Received Items enabled, actually had it enabled.

---

Thanks again, I ended up downloading the beta viewer and then the project viewer to get it to work, now that I think about it when I used the project viewer I did go to a different region.

[Snickers Snook]

Well said Darrius. Unless CTL actually makes this work as they first started off to do (Marketplace only items), the described implementation should be scrapped. And your main point about listening to customers and basing Lab actions on the feedback vs. paying lip service (aka lying) is right on.

[Alicia Sautereau]

After all these years in SL i am so proud that LL keep their values in such regard and consistency that i will not touch the marketplace ever again, even as half the items that are listen are not sold inworld!

Lying bastards...

I will just vote with my money, your not getting my % on any merchant sales!

[Marcus Hancroft]

CTL:  This thread has now surpassed the total number of posts that were posted on the "MP Down?" thread during the Valentine's Day Massacre.  We are STILL waiting for your responses!  And you know what those responses need to be right? 

"Hello, Merchants!  We have read through your feedback and understand your concerns about the Received Items folder.  As a result, the Received Items folder will remain as it was first announced, as receiveing only Marketplace purchases!  We thank you for your feedback on this matter!   -The Commerce Team"

 

You may copy and paste the above response if you wish!

[Josh Susanto]

So the SLM continues to be set up for massive delivery failure, whereas in-world stores do not?

Did I already mention my suspicions about Malefactor Linden probably having an in-world store that he believes has competitive difficulties with SLM stores?

I'm pretty sure I did.

[Sassy Romano]

Commerce Team Linden...

I've just been back to GC Test 9 and have some questions.

First, have you intentionally changed the behaviour of the Received Items folder?

The behaviour is now such that inventory offers via llGiveInventory and manual take copy are NOT going to Received Items.  If you have changed this behaviour then by asking us to test and then changing behaviour without announcing such a change should now be considered to totally invalidate any testing since asking people to comment on variable behaviour makes such judgements utterly moot.

If on the other hand you have NOT changed behaviour then i'll just summarise by saying "yer sim's bust"

Second question, under the current behaviour model, intended or not, inventory offers to #RLV/~foldername which should be redirected by the viewer are not going to the #RLV folder at all.  Confirmed by the main developer of RLVa which goes into several of the TPV's.

At this point, it's understandable if the response is "that's not an LL viewer or function" and I understand that but yet again, has LL any grasp of the number of items that this stands to break if this is intended functionality?

Also, may I remind LL of the graphic below.  If this is correct, whoever came up with the idea of dumping everything in the folder for which it's very clear what the purpose was supposed to be?

[Zanara Zenovka]

http://i.imgur.com/z6Pet.jpg

[Marcus Hancroft]

---

Sassy Romano wrote:

Commerce Team Linden...

I've just been back to GC Test 9 and have some questions.

First, have you intentionally changed the behaviour of the Received Items folder?

The behaviour is now such that inventory offers via llGiveInventory and manual take copy are NOT going to Received Items.  If you

have

changed this behaviour then by asking us to test and then changing behaviour without announcing such a change should now be considered to totally invalidate any testing since asking people to comment on variable behaviour makes such judgements utterly moot.

If on the other hand you have NOT changed behaviour then i'll just summarise by saying "yer sim's bust"

Second question, under the current behaviour model, intended or not, inventory offers to #RLV/~foldername which should be redirected by the viewer are not going to the #RLV folder at all.  Confirmed by the main developer of RLVa which goes into several of the TPV's.

At this point, it's understandable if the response is "that's not an LL viewer or function" and I understand that but yet again, has LL any grasp of the number of items that this stands to break if this is intended functionality?

Also, may I remind LL of the graphic below.  If this is correct, whoever came up with the idea of dumping everything in the folder for which it's very clear what the purpose was supposed to be?

---

Good lord. 

Thank you for testing and then posting this information, Miss Sassy. 

I'll say this...if the changes they are proposing and experimenting with breaks the #RLV folder, they will have a revolt on their hands!  I know a LOT of people who use that (and love it)(I was one of them) and to lose this functionality would be a huge blow. 

If the Received Items folder is now behaving completely different than before, then yes...all previous testing is moot.

We need clarification on this, CTL. PLEASE!

[PrimTwist Wizardly]

MartinRJ Fayray isn't a Linden alt.

Anyone can close a JIRA is the VWR section.

Look under History of the issue to see what he did... closed it as misfiled.

Now look on any awaiting review JIRA in the VWR section. Go to the Workflow tab & youll see all the choices there to close the JIRA, including Misfiled.

Thats all he did, something any resident can do. Unfortunately some people misuse this ability, but you can always reopen your issue if its closed in error.

Just wanted to clear that up :smileywink:

[Josh Susanto]

>We need clarification on this, CTL. PLEASE!

The clarification is that they're essentially conducing trials on Paxil in order to get Prozac approved by the FDA.

Apples and oranges. 

Pig in a poke.

Bait and switch. 

The only thing I'm not clear about is what's unclear about this at this point.

[WADE1 Jya]

Ho hum

I don't see what all the fuss is about on this one.

Seems to me like a tiny organizational change, barely worth mentioning.

I sure won't lose any sleep over it *Yawns* :matte-motes-sing:

[CommerceTeam Linden]

We have posted an update to the original blog on the Received Items Beta. Please take a look and submit your survey responses if you would like to speak with us about the feature.

 

[Sassy Romano]

shoot first, ask later stuff deleted

[Hope Dreier]

They have stated the the release will be only for DD.   What they are asking is do you see any other usage that will make things easier.  Give them a break,    we won.

 

[Arwen Serpente]

Thank you for responding to us. I agree with Sassy that you will most likely hear the same responses to the survey as posted here in the forum with regard to the "Received Items" folder. I completed the survey in any case.

I do have a question regarding the post updating the roll out. It says:

"UPDATE: Feb 29, 2012

We’d like to thank everyone who has provided feedback on the Received Items Beta. We will be launching Direct Delivery without the Received Items feature. (Direct Delivery purchases will still be sent to the Received Items folder). We will be soliciting additional feedback on Received Items by contacting Residents who respond to this survey by 5pm PT March 1, 2012. We will do our best to speak to as many of those who participate as possible as we move forward with work on this feature."

How can DD be launched without the Received Items feature if DD purchases are sent to the Received Items Folder? Perhaps it is just not well-worded? Does it mean there is a Received Items folder JUST for Marketplace purchases and none of the other things that were proposed (i.e., landmarks, lost and found, notecards, etc)?

 

[Sassy Romano]

I don't read the same as you Hope.

The blog says " Received Items is a new subsection of Inventory where all incoming items, including purchases, gifts, shared, and returned items, will be placed. Received Items is displayed in a separate section of your inventory panel in the Second Life Viewer, making it easier for Residents to see and manage incoming objects."

Oh... heh. yeah my bad SORRY!

Guns are still smoking...

Just to clarify, does this mean that Direct Delivered items will be sent to Received Items, what about items delivered via llGiveInventory from a Magic Box?  Will they still now go to Objects?

Also... when can we talk about removing Commerce Linden as the intermediary from the transaction process in the very dysfunctional Marketplace architecture?...

[Toysoldier Thor]

Well as we all predicted.....  you can read the LL Commerce Team like a book.

Pages and pages of 100% instant

WE DONT LIKE THIS FEATURE LL!!!!!!

and what was LL's response to our "Critical Feedback" ???

Thanks for all your feedback.... we have ignored everything you said and we are ramming this big unwanted smoker down your throats - just as you said you didnt want.

And then LL wonders why their customers are so utterly frustrated with them.   You just cant win with them.

At least the incompetance of the Commerce Team has spread to Oz Linden as he started doing the same garbage as Brooke and company...but the LL Commerce Team is the leaders of the pack in NO CUSTOMER SERVICE!

 

[Toysoldier Thor]

There really is no need to fill out the Survey - its a complete waste of time.

We gave LL Commerce Team 9 pages of feedback in this forum and they didnt listen.  They have already made a commitment to deploy what we all see in the next 3 weeks.

The Survey is just LL's shot at trying to make it look like they are listening when they have just proven they care as much about our CRITICAL FEEDBACK as they care about general customer service.

Save your time and effort folks.... you are doing a feedback survey in futility.

[Darrius Gothly]

How I responded to their survey:

To the question "Can the behavior of RI be changed to meet with approval", I answered: Yes

Under the explanation, I wrote something to this effect:

Firstly the RI list of items should always be sorted by date/time of arrival with the most recent items at the top. Purchases from the Marketplace (and any future online or offline delivery mechanisms for that matter) should deliver to the RI Folder. The purpoase of the RI folder thus being as a place where objects coming from sources that can be triggered by the user while offline must always go only to RI.

For all other sources such as llGiveInventory and llGiveInventoryList, offers from other users and other sources that may be triggered when a user is either online or offline then RI will only receive these objects when the user is offline. While online the objects will trigger the typical accept or deny dialog. If given while the user is offline then they will be placed in RI and await disposition by the user at next login.

For sources that can only occur while the user is online, such as take, take copy and similar, RI should never be used.

When an object is contained in RI then the user can right-click on it and either Accept or Deny. If denied then it will vanish as though it was denied at the normal dialog. If accepted then it will be moved into the existing inventory folder tree as if it was accepted now.

In short, RI becomes only a temporary stash folder for stuff that can and does come in while the user is offline. Rather than be dependent on IMs to trigger the Accept or Deny dialog, RI accepts everything when the user is offline and then the user can choose later to accept or deny as desired.

[Arwen Serpente]

Darrius, I totally respect your response to CTL.

For perspective, I was much simpler in my response wrt the "RI" Folder: I asked that it be renamed "Marketplace Purchases" and that only MP purchases be deposited there (that's what the RI was supposed to be wrt DD). As far as anything else that residents receive in SL, I would keep the same system as we currently have. For exisiting residents, it is an "easy to understand" addition to our hierarchy of folders; for new residents, it will be much easier for older residents (or Merchants) to guide and help newbies when the system mirrors what we have all been using with the one addition of a "Marketplace Received Items Folder".

For me, I'd just like to keep it as simple as possible.

[Toysoldier Thor]

---

Arwen Serpente wrote:

Darrius, I totally respect your response to CTL.

For perspective, I was much simpler in my response wrt the "RI" Folder: I asked that it be renamed "Marketplace Purchases" and that only MP purchases be deposited there (that's what the RI was supposed to be wrt DD). As far as anything else that residents receive in SL, I would keep the same system as we currently have. For exisiting residents, it is an "easy to understand" addition to our hierarchy of folders; for new residents, it will be much easier for older residents (or Merchants) to guide and help newbies when the system mirrors what we have all been using with the one addition of a "Marketplace Received Items Folder".

For me, I'd just like to keep it as simple as possible.

---

I am totally with Arwen on this.   This is what all Merchants that understood what DD was going to deliver would have.  This is what we were willing to accept (relunctantly for me).  

And for LL to decide to throw in the entire kitchen sink and solve problems that went WAY PAST WHAT WAS EXPECTED AND ASKED FOR... big mistake!!

DD is already a HUGE risk with how LL develops and deploys technologies - this is like saying "we will stop all wars on earth .... and ahhh heck why not ... lets solve world hunger too!!"

We all know they wont listen and what you see in Beta is what will be going in.  They didnt listen to pages of responses on this forum..... why would they listen to a survey AFTER they already announced the delivery of this solution????

We know they wont.

BUT on a miracle if they did.... I agree with Arwen

[Zanara Zenovka]

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

How I responded to their survey:

To the question "Can the behavior of RI be changed to meet with approval", I answered: Yes

Under the explanation, I wrote something to this effect:

Firstly the RI list of items should always be sorted by date/time of arrival with the most recent items at the top. Purchases from the Marketplace (and any future online or offline delivery mechanisms for that matter) should deliver to the RI Folder. The purpoase of the RI folder thus being as a place where objects coming from sources that can be triggered by the user while offline must always go only to RI.

For all other sources such as llGiveInventory and llGiveInventoryList, offers from other users and other sources that may be triggered when a user is either online or offline then RI will only receive these objects when the user is offline. While online the objects will trigger the typical accept or deny dialog. If given while the user is offline then they will be placed in RI and await disposition by the user at next login.

For sources that can only occur while the user is online, such as take, take copy and similar, RI should never be used.

When an object is contained in RI then the user can right-click on it and either Accept or Deny. If denied then it will vanish as though it was denied at the normal dialog. If accepted then it will be moved into the existing inventory folder tree as if it was accepted now.

In short, RI becomes only a temporary stash folder for stuff that can and does come in while the user is offline. Rather than be dependent on IMs to trigger the Accept or Deny dialog, RI accepts everything when the user is offline and then the user can choose later to accept or deny as desired.

---

 

 

 

Nice.

Sorting absolutely.

llGiveInventoryList really shouldn't matter for offline since it only works reliably for same-sim transfers and should only be used in local presence (eg touch) events anyway.

I like the idea of the offline storage + accept/deny, but I'd also worry about the volume of status check calls if every inventory transfer becomes subject to that test (unless you can tie it in with a pre-existing check - maybe that could happen after capping is identified, since there'd already be some flag for that i assume).

And we still haven't even touched upon the spam/griefing filters that will be necessary if offline inv offers are auto-accepted.

There are so many unknown sequelae at present and it's really going to need thorough testing, which is going to be a challenge because you can't get the necessary numbers on Aditi, and it doesn't seem well suited to RC release testing (imagine if your inventory behaved differently depending which region you're in?).