ChocolateEclair

Its a little nuanced, but theres a small error that you're not perceiving. Its basically a chicken and egg scenario. The bodies weren't made to follow SL UV 100%, usually requiring the skin creators to kinda tweak placements of certain parts to align properly due to stretching of the existing UV. So when you wear a skin made for one body, it won't line up for another and be off in little spots. Basically you're thinking a lil backwards, but not incorrectly. Since for a long time, before BOM that -was- how things were handled. Match to the body, rather than make the body match standard. Now with BOM, its more in the interest of the body creators to tweak their UVs to fit standard, rather than force everyone else to conform to theirs.

I chose that one in particular, because its the only one that I can possibly think might be stretched enough to fit through process of elimination. There was no profanity, none of the issues were outside of the creator's contro, I did not post chat logs, was not advertising, and I do not make anything to be a competitor to begin with. The only possible one that -could- possibly fit, would need to be hate speech or flaming, however I think you'd need a fairly liberal approach to flaming or hate speech in order to qualify. Also, I made sure to get opinions on the review before I posted it, and showed it to a few friends after. So if it were inflammatory, none of us caught it. If you have any advice for perhaps handling this better/getting my point across better I'd love to hear it. I'm not without faults, and if I can improve in some ways to make my argument better I'd like to know.

Again considering whats happened recently, I'd say thats not enough. Contacting the people involved probably should be the next step. However, as I said this should be only reserved for extreme cases such as fraudulent reviews. Everythin else should be just left alone. Conversely, allow people to post reviews after one has been flagged for removal. Or maybe allow people to see -why- something was removed, rather than just have it blanket removed with no reasoning.

No, I'm describing a review process that'd require a more hands on approach that would involve fact checking. Which is not what they do currently. Right now its down to opinion and whim of said Linden who receives the report.

Bolded this so you can see. And hell, thats a suggestion in and of itself. LL should actually confirm whats being said is true before removing any review. If they're unsure, then it should be left. Removing reviews without any review is a problem and should not be done.

There you go again with that statement. I've already said thats not what I want, but if you wanna keep believing that go right ahead.

Agreed, though it was more in response to Pamela demanding suggestions while at the same time trying to say that. It would however fix some issues, or allow some customers to make better more informed choices if it was required by all.

Maybe you should try contributing something yourself? Theres clearly a problem here, even if you're unwilling to admit it.

Not what I said at all, and can you stop with that, please? You keep on making these gross assumptions and trying to pin them on me. I -am- saying however that the current system is flat out not working if legitimate grievences in reviews are being removed completely. Extremes like fraudulent reviews should be removed. However, steps should be taken to ensure that they -are- fraudulent to begin with, cause otherwise again you come to this situation where actual problems are removed because a seller claimed otherwise. I can not pin down what needs to be changed off hand, because I'm frankly unsure as well. My best guess is that at least one Linden is taking a VERY liberal understanding of hatespeech or flaming and is using that as grounds for removal. Also, if you're going to say stuff like that, then perhaps it should be mandatory for all items to have demos in order to be sold on the MP? Though I doubt you'd want that either because it'd be a hassle for merchants.

As I've stated before, my point is that the current system is exploitable and in heavy favor of the seller. Due to the nature of the rules and the crusory glances that LL give, it can allow for well.. Sellers to exploit the review system, and I'm citing my current experience as an example of how. In all honesty, I don't think LL should be removing reviews at all unless there are extreme cases. 1. Originally, the mesh had holes in it. And I don't mean viewer doing something funky. I mean the mesh itself wasn't aligned the way it was reported to be. 2. Initial review is gone, initially reviewer had demanded I take down the review in exchange for an update, and threatened to ban me should I post another negative review. Which in turn lead to me putting up a worse review largely centering around that interaction since I was forbidden from actually seeing said update. No qoutes were used, no hateful text. Nothing that honestly should have gotten removed in my opinion. 3. Review first. There was no demo on the product, and I don't normally contact reviewers over their products prior to reviewing. I'm usually quite happy to take down and revise reviews if the problems are fixed however. I generally write reviews for other people seeking the product, so that they can know what the current state of the item in question was and any other info they should need to know. That said, I did contact the merchant upon their request, and initially they seemed like they were going to just paw the problem off as an unfixable LL bug, even though they seemed to have no problem fixing it when I said it was unfortunate but the review would need to say. The ironic bit however is that despite me saying I would happily take it down and change the review, the seller decided to threaten me upon actually putting out said update.

Gee, how could I possibly know? Could it be because, as I said, it isn't an isolated instance and I'm not the only person its happened to? Could it be that, maybe, I've spoken to other people and have seen them say similar things? Though its hard to gauge how often this seems to happen considering that comments which say the same thing get flagged and removed. So maybe LL isn't in cohoots with creators, not that I ever said they were. However, if they're making mistakes, it seems to be the same mistake being repeated at nausium here.

Cool assumption, but completely wrong. In this particular case, whats being discussed and removed is how the creator handles their customer service. In particular, that they treat their customers poorly, and has and continues to ban/block literally everyone who has a problem with their product. Even legitimate complaints, such as the mesh having errors in it. You voice any opinion other than 100% approval of said product, you go on a black list which denies you further access to any updates. Which is of course ironic, but does reflect the quality of said product. So I'll ask bluntly, are you trying to imply that the continued updates and denial of them is not something a customer should be informed of? Is also poor treatment of customers something they should be left to discover for themselves the moment they need assistance something they should be kept in the dark for? And keep in mind, these are not isolated cases. Also, I may not have been clear enough, but this isn't like they're not updating the product. The product has been updated already, they're just picking and choosing who gets said updates. Less than 5 star review = No Update.

Somewhat difficult for them to pay attention to anything when said negative reviews and comments are being purged however. Hell, in my case I've been watching this creator literally flag every negative review and comment. Not sure exactly why they're having so many taken down either, especially when they all say the exact same thing. You'd think LL would maybe stop and consider that hey, all of these people are saying similar stuff. Maybe we should not remove these comments that are trying to warn other potential buyers?

Considering that I've experienced "problem that does not exist" I'll have to strongly disagree with you. The current system is fairly gameable. Especially if you consider that unhappy reviewers are going to be more likely to fall under the rules that has them removed. Its pretty simple to flag everything thats negative. Even if only one out of five negative reviews are removed, if that one had a legitimate complaint having both their review, and score removed is a net gain for the seller. Doubly so because once a review is removed due to flagging, it can not be replaced. So not only is the consumer screwed out of a product, they're also screwed out of giving warning to other customers and expressing their dissatisfaction. So yeah, while a Linden gets the final say in the matter, there is an immense benefit towards sellers to flag every negative review they get in order to improve the appearance of their product. Hell, apparently its also okay to not only to bribe, but also threaten people into giving positive reviews, and when they don't? Flag the review for removal. And as a reminder, this is not a what if, nor a hypothetical situation. This is what I have experienced personally.

Sort of. Merchants can not remove a review themselves, correct. However they can flag one, and a Linden can remove it. Which a series of problems. First, if someone's review is flagged, their rating is removed AND they're not allowed to post a new review. Which DOES allow sellers to manipulate their score. This is straight fact. Secondly, it is very possible for Lindens to be in the wrong as well. Especially if they only take a cursory look at things without trying to confirm anything.