Drayke Newall

Think this sums up mine and others feelings when we get up in the morning and look at this thread.... Moles would look the same just with toothpicks under their eyelids I would guess...

btw would never be able to guess he is 58.

So nothing really changes then. How can a person know whether they need a modesty layer if 'they' think they look 20 and comply and then find themselves AR'ed and banned because they actually needed one because LL thought they looked younger. Is this the reason LL included as part of their new rules regarding modestly layers "Child avatar content creators"? Is their meaning that only creators that make specific bodies for child avatars need to comply? This then would mean that all that child avatars need to do is not use those bodies and use adult bodies and get around it that way. Dont get me wrong, I believe the rules are good, but they cannot exist without clarification of what is (age look), who is (human, furry, anime, etc) and who needs (all bodies or just those specifically made for) to implement such things. You will never be able to stop all. Everyone gets that, but with very clear and easy work arounds you may as well just remove the rule completely.

That's the problem though. It is all open to perception and looks. Just like users will AR or region ban an avatar that looks to them 16 doesn't necessarily mean that LL will not think they actually look 18. This is why baseline definitions need to be provided to ensure that there is at least some form of acceptance of what constitutes a 'child like appearance'. If this doesn't happen then all LL have done is zilch to resolve any future allegations of inappropriateness. Just as before a reporter or user can easily accuse LL of not enforcing rules due to that baseline definition not existing. It is the sole reason why in RL those that 'look' younger are asked for ID for 'adult' things. The ID is the baseline provided by the government. Now I am not saying LL need to issue ID's to users, but they certainly need to state what will constitute in their minds at bare minimum a child looks like. As for furries and anime, I dont think they have the balls to go after 3 communities at once.

Lol I would like to see how LL manages to remove their system body or their new mesh bodies when both those can be made to look child and both dont have a modesty layer.

The problem is that, LL (or whoever wrote these rules) seem to be not aware that child avatars are not just made using specific mesh bodies made for child avatars but also from adult bodies, furry bodies, anime bodies, etc or child specific skins. The rule is clearly a half baked rule to cover themselves with them actually not realising that their proposed rule just doesn't work as intended. The only way their rule will work as it stands is if they 'trust' all users to do the right thing of which will never happen. We are 114 pages in and you are not going to get an answer at all until Monday - if then. Clearly from the FAQ not being updated to answer this question but updated to clarify others, and the multiple tags requesting confirmation shows that LL are in an oh-oh situation and dont themselves know how they are going to fix and enforce it without a big staff meeting to discuss.

Then even under the old rules you would be in violation of LL's Policies. The old Policies stated that a child avatar is not to be any where in proximity of sexualised objects, content, scripts or sex beds. You being 3 houses down would be a cause to AR you or ban you from the region. This is why many adult regions banned child avatars from their land because you being there could get them in trouble due to the 'proximity' rule. Also, you didn't mention this however others were talking about it... these 'family friendly nude beaches' would also be in violation of the old rules. I'm surprised they even existed at all and LL didn't take them down as sexualised objects and scripts would also include genitalia. The old policy included a statement that said that sexualized objects or adult poseballs etc could not be placed nearby places that could be considered 'children spaces'. For example, if an adult region had a playground on their sim, despite the intention of said playground to be used by adult's only, a child visiting such an area and seeing poseballs for adults in proximity could allow them to AR the sim owners to get them in trouble. So to be safe many Adult sims would refuse entry to child avies. Just like the new rules now, the old were just as ambiguous and confusing leaving it open to interpretation. As Zalificent has stated in the past, the rules are written by people (usually lawyers) who have no understanding of how people 'play' and engage with SL which means people play guessing games with the rules. This is also why other platforms go so far as to ensure they release everything (i.e. what something is to look like such as modesty layers) as part of an announcement and not just 'you must wear a modesty layer' and leave it at that for everyone to interpret what LL mean, when LL dont actually mean what everyone else thinks they means. To announce a new major policy change the day before the weekend when they are not in office and wont comment is also so LL. No they were hiding on general, moderate and adult rated regions with public access if the instigating article of all this is to be believed. Where did the announcement say that they found nothing wrong or that the article in question that started this was all complete rubbish? The announcement of these changes said nothing of the sort. It simply said that Linden Lab found no wrong doing of their own employees or contractors. It never said that they found nothing wrong with users, content or regions within second life in relation to their policies that were changed.

The policies would not have changed because of just public child avatars being naked but also to stop what goes on in private of which was the main issue that article was about that caused the review of policies. As you said (and I have said earlier) it is pointless to create a rule that is so easy to break and cannot be enforced. The problem is that the rule demanding that all child avies have a baked on modesty layer is just that, a rule that is easy to break and cannot be enforced in its current form. The only way it can be enforced in some feasible manner and not easy to break is to make it so that any child mesh body is not BoM. It is the only way it can be to have that rule stay. By doing that it would reduce the amount of IR's as then you are making it harder for them to abuse the rule in both a private and public place. You will never be able to completely enforce it as people could just use adult body's shrunk to suit. That just wont happen however, at least LL can tackle the bodies that are made specifically for child rp.

It would and potentially could (depending on the outcome) resolve the situation once and for all. There will always be the "yeah sure you did" response if a company investigates themselves and from that those same coincidences and conspiracy theories will continue. Even in this thread and LL's posts in response to those same questions of "did you really?" doesn't and by the tone of the response posts hasn't stopped such thoughts. The fact that LL stated that they were getting an outside investigation done was one of the key things, I would dare say, that gave people peace of mind when all this happened. A statement from them saying we investigated and nothing untoward was found, however, have recommended x,y,z be implemented to provide further resolution to the issue would go a long way. It would also mean not needing to repeat lies of the past or from the current article as one would assume that the investigation covered all current and past accusations.

True, however, some would and are arguing on the depths of the internet and elsewhere that there is a big coincidence that 5 years ago such accusations were published and here we are again with similar accusations. I'm not saying any of it is true or that LL are lying or what have you however, the coincidence is there and I am not the only one that has seen the same coincidence.

When I heard about the latest article that produced all this reaction I wasn't surprised. Whether it was true or not, the fact that it was published didn't surprise me at all especially if you have kept up with LL's issues regarding all of this. I'm surprised you haven't heard of anything happening to them in the past. Even the 2019 court case where they fired their information security director (for what ever reason - it is irrelevant) and their claims in said case of high ***** numbers every quarter and those offenders simply being able to return. From this article: Second Life Is Plagued by Security Flaws, Ex-Employee Says | WIRED "Pearlman says that her concerns were only amplified by violations of Second Life’s “*****” rules" "According to the lawsuit, in 2018 the manager of Linden Lab’s fraud team “presented information to Linden board members in quarterly fraud reports that acknowledged a high number of such ***** [sic] violations were actually occurring on a regular basis each quarter.” The suit says Pearlman “was concerned that Linden Lab was apparently allowing the users to violate ***** rules, by not implementing appropriate procedures to prevent violations from repeating at the same levels each quarter.” From previous information, this current article isn't an isolated case nor are we talking about a small number of offences. Trust me. This latest article is not the first time it has been brought up that LL have been ignoring taking preventative action and simply hiding behind their rules. I am not saying what LL should or should do or if they are correct or not but when even their own teams have shown concern in the past it surely means something.

Not really. All it simply implies is that if something is covering skin (scales for example) or doesn't represent a human skin-like appearance then it isn't needed (fur or metal for example). If that is fine for Roblox the most kiddy friendly creation place out there then surely the same is ok for LL. Right so we can expect another article of much the same, in that a person goes to a region that may be mature and not adult and sees a whole lot of content and avatars nude not complying and LL just say oh we covered ourselves with rules so no harm done. That worked so well for them this last time and the time before that etc... Rules only have not served them well in the past or covered them. It will end up the same. I understand that autoalpha does that but when all that clothing is removed then that is the problem. If wearing clothes to autoalpha those parts is all there is to it then fine that is all in the public areas. I would dare say that 99% of child avatars will be covered up in those areas when in public as has been the case in the past. This change was the reaction to an article about a completely group locked regions i.e. private places and what went on behind closed doors (well what they though were closed doors) up in skyboxes and in houses etc. That's also the problem in that it doesn't prevent anyone getting nude if it can be overidden by other measures. It's a rule that is just there for no reason if not enforced. Just like in the past the same rules didn't prevent an article showing that Second Life has content that is illegal. It may all be for Linden Lab to say 'we covered ourselves' but it does nothing for the reputation of Second Life if the same can still be done.

You seem to be missing my point Ceka. How does this resolve the situation of people abusing the age system that got LL in trouble in the first place (the infamous article)? The request of a modesty layer is pointless if it isn't enforced. Yes moan and groan, I'm going to mention Roblox. Roblox has a modesty layer they introduced. Because of the nature of Roblox being catered for kids they enforce the modesty layer on all avatars not just child like. Now I am not proposing by any means that should be done in second life nor am I suggesting SL is Roblox. That said however, it is enforced. What is the point of having a modesty layer and saying it cannot be turned off, if it can be simply 'turned off' by BoM. Yes, the user did it, but the user shouldn't be able to do it at all on any child mesh body if such a rule is to exist. This has never been about the creator didn't do that so cant blame them. It is and always has been to ensure preventative measures are put in place to stop the USER from misconduct. Something that can be bypassed is just pointless. Yes you cant stop everything, but a body SPECIFICALLY made for a child avatar should ensure it cannot be turned off, otherwise throw the rule out. Also Linden Lab could take a few points from Roblox's modesty layer policy section and publicly show what does and doesn't need a modesty layer. Roblox has pictures to show what doesn't need it for their avatars which would certainly answer @Coffee Pancake's question regarding furry and non human avatars. Can find those comparisons here: Marketplace Policy | Documentation - Roblox Creator Hub. Which I hope the same exclusions would apply for Second Life's avatars (i.e. anything non smooth/flat skin-like doesn't need one).

I understand what you are saying, even though that has always been the case, the user is to blame for how they conduct themselves. Ok lets use your logic then. Sure the skin maker is now not to blame because they put a modesty layer on their skin (baked on and permanent) but then that means that the body maker is to blame because they made the body with BoM and allowed the end user to overrule the skin makers modesty layer. So does that mean that the Body maker can now get flagged for making the skin makers baked modesty layer irrelevant by allowing BoM? That is what I am saying, you cant have it both ways. Either both the skin AND the mesh body need to comply (skin baked with modesty layer and body made not BoM so it cant remove said modesty layer) or neither at all as it does nothing more than what was before.

That is my point. The rule means NOTHING. It is a rule that breaks content for no reason what so ever and resolves nothing. I agree. Clarification needs to be made on that, though as per the past 20 years worth (and even current rule changes) of this issue, LL refuse to clarify and define what THEY believe is the baseline for a child avatar.

No one has ever blamed the creators for such things - not even the article that started (renewed) all this made such a claim nor has Linden Lab. I would imagine the rule is placed as such to try to ensure that the user (or buyer) of said skins cannot do anything untoward with them (or at least make it harder). All of which said rules do not do as said rules can be completely ignored unless the body is not BoM.

But therein lies the problem. What is the point of enforcing a ruling that a modesty layer cannot be removed from the skin when you can simply remove it from the skin by wearing another BoM skin or Layer on top that also allows you to add any 'adult' looking parts back on. I have no concerns that the ruling is for 'identifying' avatars as child or not, but enforcing a rule that can be broken in 1 second by applying something over a skin using BoM is just pointless.

No, when 'may not' is used in the meaning of denial of permission it means the same as can not. So in LL's policy update where it says 'may not' be removed then it also means it 'cannot' be removed. Has to be permanent.

Good Grief that was a lot of reading! After all that I can only wonder whether (as I have in the past) Lindens actually use Second Life realistically or not as, clearly from their new policy regarding Never Nude Child Avatars, they surely mustn't. All those people posting in this forum about just having the skin complying as per Linden Lab's 'or' definition of skin 'or' bodies. It entirely depends on the body itself not the skin. Whilst I have never used a child avatar body so dont really know if this is the case or not, however, I would assume that they are designed to utilise BoM or at least the latest ones. Additionally, for those child avatars that use Adult bodies that do use BoM, this definitely applies. The rule states: Being fully nude. Child avatar content creators are required to add a modesty layer which is baked into child avatar skins or bodies, is not transparent, does not match the skin tone, and may not be removed Plain and simply BoM CANNOT be used on a child avatar according to Linden Lab's new policy rule above unless the mesh itself contains the unremovable non BoM modesty layer (unless I am somehow reading it wrong). Whilst the policy does state a modesty layer is acceptable being baked into the skin, surely this must be under the assumption that ALL child avatar mesh bodies (or adult ones used as such) do not allow for BoM. BoM is designed in a way that it goes over the skin itself. For example, I have recently being shopping for human skins and whilst some do make the skin as a skin, many have started to just use a BoM tattoo layer for the skin. This means that if only the skin has the modesty layer any person can simply override it (remove) by adding a new BoM layer over. Same with the onion body method which will also not comply. While BoM exists in its current state and if used on these Child Avatars, no child avatar can be complying with Linden Lab's ruling of 'may not be removed' as BoM can and will REMOVE any modesty layer on a skin (due to being designed to COVER the skin) unless the mesh itself is designed to have forced undies on the mesh that is not BoM...

You seem to post under the assumption that no-mod specifically relates to editing an object only. That is to say, changing its appearance in some form to something that differs from the creators 'vision' - changing the texture or pulling it apart. It doesn't and the no-mod function is deeper than just that. Whilst, yes LL gave the tools for an object to be no-mod, the creators that do insist their 'creations' to be no-mod never take into consideration that the no-mod feature affects other areas as well, not just stopping someone from editing their creation appearance wise, like you also seem to think is the case. As has already been mentioned, no-mod also stops a person renaming the object to something they can find or categorise easily in their inventory so, I wont expand further on that. That said, a very little known and obscure feature tied to no-mod objects also relates to how a group can manage items on a group owned region. If an object is ticked shared and then deeded, people assume that is the end of deeding. This is not the case though. If an object once deeded and share is re-ticked (selected) any group member can move, rotate, etc that object as should be with share being ticked. HOWEVER, when deeded and the object is re-marked as share, this also governs whether an object can be deleted or returned by someone of the group without having specific group role permissions to do so. For example, I set an apartment as furnished for rent with the clause that the renter can move, rotate and/or return the objects set to group due to them being deeded and shared (to have them not need to buy anything or for them to redecorate as they see fit). I do this by deeding and sharing the object so that that person can move, rotate or return those objects without me granting dangerous group role settings to them that would allow them to return or mod any/all group owned objects, i.e. they can only return or move the group objects in the apartment. This means I also dont need to create a separate group just for renters. In this case modable and non-modable objects perform a key and very specific group and region management role. That is to say, if an object is MODABLE and set to the group as deeded and shared, a person of that group without the group role permission to do so CAN return or delete said deeded object. If however, the object is NO-MOD and set to the group as deeded and shared, a person of that group without the group role permission to do so CANNOT return or delete said deeded object. So no-mod isn't just a case of stopping people from reverse engineering, resizing, unlinking, retexturising, etc as 99.9% of these no-mod advocates think it is. You and others arguing FOR no mod are not only denying users the ability to correctly organise their inventory but also specifically denying region owners' (and hired region landscapers) abilities to manage their sim content as well. It is also why when you say other platforms dont allow this or that is irrelevant as other platforms do not manage no-mod/mod objects the same way as Second Life does.

I did mention that the received Items folder should be made to have the category folders of the MP (if LL made the categories better and more organised) so not only items are delivered to those folders but also means a new users could copy that layout to use. But that hasn't been implemented. For now, if you are wanting a ready-made folder structure that someone has done and uploaded to the MP, you can find those here for free: Second Life Marketplace - INVENTORY ORGANIZER HELPER (Animations) Second Life Marketplace - INVENTORY ORGANIZER HELPER (BodyParts) Second Life Marketplace - INVENTORY ORGANIZER HELPER (Objects) Second Life Marketplace - INVENTORY ORGANIZER HELPER (Clothing) Second Life Marketplace - INVENTORY ORGANIZER HELPER (Wearables) You will have to go through and delete the objects within the provided folders labelled "Delete Me" as you cannot sell just folders on the MP. Subfolders shown in the demo vid wont be delivered either due to a limit on the amount of subfolders that can be given.

I went through my 46 pages of posts last night when I wrote that and those are all the latest points I have ever made relating to what you said and that I have repeated since being on the forums. Apparently according to you my post activity is incorrect 'cause I somehow have a miraculous set of other posts hidden somewhere from my view but only visible to you. Well then please find the post where I have mentioned another game to compare things to simplify the viewer UI if you dont mean BDO as that's the only thing I have referenced game wise for that. But once again those must be hidden in some mystical post storage that doesn't appear in my post activity and even if you did you probably read them wrong. Additionally and again reading comprehension would show that I used the pie menu as an example of it being different to the norm hence why it was changed. Didn't make any hint of suggestion it is still in the viewer. I also did not praise the interaction menu style being a circle I used it as an example of how you could have something appear when you hover your cursor over someone for a period of time that has options LIKE BDO does. You seem to be under the impression that showing something as an example means a person agrees with everything about such a system. So lets see... let me hover my cursor over someone in the default viewer... oh look fancy that, a hover on avatar mechanic is there like BDO but more basic with a users name and needs to be clicked. Now instead of having to left click the user name that appears, the same box that appears when clicking should appear when I hover on that name and have some options to select like add friend pictorially displayed LIKE BDO does. No radial menu to use suggested at all nor in my previous post simply a slight change to a mechanic already there. Like usual you imagine other things are said. It is a complicated process and you have just explained why. A new user should not have to know that if something in their inventory is worn and removes some other body part that they then need to find the object, right click, find which body part is correct for that option and then select that attachment point and then repeat the process when the item gets updated. Even if wear is kept it needs to be renamed to replace as wear and add imply the same and need to have people to correctly select the attachment point. Its not even hard to do, just add an option in the mesh upload window that is mandatory to select a attachment point for an avatar mesh upload. Just by providing that little option would make people mostly do the right thing. Absolute rubbish. Such a thing is not a full 3D modelling app as you suggest at all. The ability to mesh within second life in a basic form is completely doable with relative ease. I have never indicated that the modelling should be complex like a external program, just simple build with prims and convert to mesh and the ability to use a 'void' prim to specify to cut with that shape (though I am sure you will bring up some point about imaginary posts again). Having the ability to build in prims, specify texture faces, what faces to remove and keep, what to cut and then merge to a single mesh is simply a matter of programming and not even that complicated programming either. Give LL devs some coding credit at least, unless you are implying that they cant do (and slightly modify) what users have created since 2013 and have been used by many people since then. Like those other user made systems, you can even export prims to a .dae file in Firestorm, with texture mapping as well as transparency face ignoring and then reupload as a full mesh object - the only thing missing is the cut shape option. Why cant LL make it all automated within the viewer without the need to save it and reupload. Its all there for them to utilize all done by others. You mean for Linden Lab to update/maintain systems so that they keep with current systems even if they take time *the horror*. By your logic, we shouldn't have the following as it wasn't in Second Life from day 1: mesh, bento, fitted mesh, animesh, pathfinding, windlight, eep, MARKETPLACE, outfits... the list goes on all taking lots of manpower and a couple of years each to do. Fine I will do it for free and I am sure many others would moderate it for free as well under the approval of a linden employee like the moles build. But then I'm sure you will come back and say 'but those people dont know how I organise my inventory so why should they do it when they will miscategorise most things according to how I manage things'. Great a TPV and one at that. Only another 5 or so to go including the DEFAULT viewer and the most used tpv viewer. So all those other TPV's and LL must be stuck in the past as well according to you because one TPV has it.... absurd. But I am sure you will just come back saying "oh but those magical posts that say x,y,z" (and probably you misreading them anyway if they do exist) and otherwise refusing to acknowledge and accept that systems that are already/now created by LL or users exist that can be adapted/improved/managed/organised EASILY to improve the whole experience including to the inventory and its management. So unless you post something in reply to do with the topic and what I have said regarding the topic, I will not post further to you as your usual antics are derailing the thread like usual.

Oh here we go again. I see you are still spouting the same old nonsense without any evidence to back it up. You keep saying the same stuff over and over to discredit me but fail to realise you keep saying things I have never said. So let me show you how wrong you are... WITH evidence of the very posts you are talking about linked. 1. All I have ever said is for them to remove from the right click context menu options that are greyed out due to not being available for that specific action like every other program does (for example my post here). Along with upgrading systems to make the viewer more user friendly (i.e. on hover help menus - found here , as well as removing the 15 thousand ways a person can open specific windows like the people menu. And no sorry, making the avatar customisation system/outfit system better does not equal simplifying the viewer. When I talked about simplifying it was in relation to decluttering the UI not removing features like you seem to think. SL is a very complicated program and it is necessary for it to be complicated in certain areas i.e. the build menu. However there are a lot of features that SL has that are complicated for no reason i.e wear and add functions. Inventory wise wear is irrelevant since rigged mesh came about and creators do not attach body parts to their right attachment points. This means if someone selects wear for legs, their head may disappear. Therefore the wear/add mechanic needs to be SIMPLIFIED by removing wear as it no longer and cant function in its intended purpose. 2. Never said such a thing to introduce a full featured modelling app into the viewer. That would be absurd and impossible. All I have ever said is to introduce the ability to cut a prim intersecting another prim shape wise (complete Boolean Operations and expansion to the already existing cut and slice operations) and to allow the ability to merge linked prims into one object instead of having them separate prims linked. If you seriously think that is a full 3D modelling app then you clearly have not used a 3D modelling app. 3. No I never said to copy the UI from BDO. I used it as an example of how specific games can use systems like hover on a character to reveal interactions instead of right clicking and having those interactions clearly visible. I also used it as an example of how context menus can be used to slide over the view without reducing the screen size instead of having a gazillion windows popping up and having the need of only one menu option instead of 5 drop down menus at the top (Black Dragon has this now). That post is here. And to simplify the login screen and used the BDO one as an example (of which LL did simplify the login screen somewhat). I.e. decluttering. But of course in your imagination that equals replicate and copy.... 4. Looking like viewer 1.23... Sorry what? That was the most horrible garbage viewer they created. I know some people like its look, but no I DO NOT LIKE IT. Why would I ever say I want the viewer looking like 1.23 with pie menus and a theme that looks like it was made by a kindergarten student when I dont like it at all? So I have posted all the links to my points you argued all of which say nothing to what you claim. Now please let me know who you are talking about that wants a full 3D modelling app and a simplified viewer that looks like viewer 1.23 that copies a games UI because it isn't me. And yet just like MAGIC; VRChat, Roblox, Sinewave, Opensim, Unreal, IMVU, Avakin, etc, etc all manage to do it just fine where people put the items in the right place because those right categories exist. So once again it is an SL problem because those categories are wrong in sl. And YES, somebody in LL should go though and manually sort them when they introduce new categories. Every other company does that and if they need lots of sorting or data entry they simply hire (cheap to pay) temps to fix such things just like every other company. Ah.. no it doesn't, I stated in my post (you clearly didn't read properly) that for items not sold via MP (i.e. in world) the user should, when purchased, have a 'save to' window popup where they can select where it should go, just like Landmarks do now. So it would work.

Did no such thing. Just need Linden Lab to organise MP categories/filters better than it is and it could be implemented. No other Digital marketplace of user created content or delivery system from said MP's have any issues with creators adding content into the wrong categories as, those marketplaces have their categories simple, clear, relevant and organised not to mentioned managed by the dev team. It is only Second Life that suffers from this and it does so because LL have refused to fix and clearly define the categories themselves and also refuse to take a hands on approach to item management, moderation and approval. Hopefully with the new UI upgrade LL are working on for MP these issues will be addressed. I do find it amusing though that despite those same user created content marketplaces showing it is possible, people such as yourself and those other regular stuck in the past forum users continue to say it isn't possible when the evidence says otherwise just need LL to actively manage MP more.

There is no need to assign metadata. All LL need to do is make it so that MP delivers stuff from MP directly to the inventory into MP categories (when they are actually sorted correctly which will never happen) that objects sold are already assigned to on MP. They also need to get rid of the whole, rez a box, attach a hud, add an object, etc delivery methods and have the items delivered directly into a folder system without the need for the end user to open a box. Second Life is one of, if not the only, game/software platform that delivers items in 6 or so different ways instead of just delivering what you bought separately in a folder (which is possible on MP). We already have the received Items folder where MP delivers to. There is no reason why this folder/section cant be made with folders based on MP category sorting and everything delivered by that method goes into those folders in received items. Make that section the default with the option to switch to the old inventory for older users or those that want to use it. At the very least it will allow people to categorise their inventory based on a decent (when correct) MP structure and easily allow them to create folders in the inventory to match. Lastly, they then just need to introduce a 'save to' function for inworld purchases so that if a purchase is made not using MP then a 'save to' window appears where a person can save to the folder they want. We already have the system made like that with Landmarks, so wouldn't be a stretch to create a similar system. (Kind of off topic however also relevant if the MP categories are to be used as a filtering system for the inventory per my reply to Persephone above). That isn't a case of the creators fault (though they get the blame most times) but Linden Lab's fault for not offering more or clearer categories (and not managing them) and plain and simply LL's own stupidity. For example, having Avatar Accessories, Avatar Components and Avatar Appearance categories instead of just the category AVATAR and then sub folders. Of which the Appearance category was left after adding the other categories later because (not my words but a Lindens) they couldn't be bothered transferring the items from the old category to the new ones. So now we have a main category with a mere 2118 items which, apparently is still to many for them to simply recategorise those items manually and delete the unnecessary main category. Then there is the fact that the categories just aren't labelled right from the get go. For example, a person in the inventory has the system folder BODY PARTS and CLOTHING yet for some brain dead reason Linden Lab call the category on MP Avatar Components and Apparel respectively. Then for 'reasons', LL, even after 15 years of having mesh heads and bodies (and other body parts), still don't have a subcategory for those items so it is left for the creator to try and work out what is the best category to assign them. But then why stop with the ridiculousness there. Even though they have Avatar Components as a category they have the categories of Hair, Adult parts and Wings under Avatar Accessories instead of Components. Then they have the body part categories of Feet and Hooves, Ears and Tails and Horns and Antlers in avatar components under "Cosmetic Enhancements' next to makeup when the afore mentioned have nothing to do with Cosmetics. Then of course to add insult to injury LL decide to put the sub category Furry Accessories (which includes heads, legs, etc) under Avatar Accessories, however, then have the main category Furry whereby they have a Furry Component and Apparel subcategory, but leave the accessory category in the wrong area. But never fear, in their infinite wisdom they then put the sub category Anthropomorphic (i.e. Furry) Accessories in the Furry main category whilst still leaving the Furry Accessories (exactly the same thing) sub category in the Avatar accessories category. Then on top of that they have the Furry Apparel category under Furry main category instead of the main Apparel category. Now whilst you would think that was the end of it, they then decide to create a subcategory of Hands and Feet in the Furry main category (despite furries generally not having as such) but then have hooves as well as horns and tails under Avatar Components instead of under the Furry main category. Now granted some items are used by both furry and human such as tails, hooves, horns, etc, however, by creating the unnecessary Furry category (and other categories) they have separated items to much. This has two negative impacts, firstly a person searching, for example, clothing or body parts for a furry will generally search in the main Apparel or Avatar Components category not furry meaning people miss items being sold (impacts user and creator) and if they search in the latter they will miss out on the furry category stuff in the former. Secondly, it means the creator needs to know where those categories are which they dont because they are not in the right spot or are in multiple locations and need to pick (often wrong) a category that they know will get the most hits. The same applies for Human related items as well. TL;DR: Marketplace is a mess due to mislabelled and badly located categories which LL created which forces creators to put things in the wrong place or not know where to put them. LL need to seriously look at what they have done in MP and fix it.