Melita Magic

Pamela Galli wrote: Melita Magic wrote: That was the general "you," which I should have specified. (I thought it implied; I was talking about all in the situation, not just one person.) I really don't think your analogy holds up. Someone working FOR an employer is not the same as a customer who is purchasing something. Kind of a telling comparison though - so some merchants do apparently feel it is the customer's "job" to bring things to the merchant as if they worked for them. Wow. You are really confused. In my analogy, YOU would be the one held accountable, like the merchant, and your employer would be the one you would be accountable to, like the customer. And I notice you did not answer the question -- even if you are not employed and never have been, surely you must have had some responsibilities to someone at some point, whether you were paid or not. Did you "get it right the first time" 100% of the time? And if not, did the person to whom you were accountable offer you feedback to help you correct the problem, or did he announce it over the intercom? Which would you prefer? It's still a clumsy analogy Pamela, poorly explained, and does not work either way. Let's say it's an office setting - reviews are not normally part of that process (there is no 'product' - I'm not talking about job performance reviews, which are intrinsic there.) You still seem to think between customer-seller one is there to "give feedback". Analogy just doesn't work no matter how it's turned, sorry (And I'm not sure how to better explain to you just why your analogy is poor.) (It also presumes that the person IS the product - bit of a giveaway there. Merchants need to distance themselves and their 'feelings' from what they sell. Period. That's kind of the point of this topic in my opinion.) You also seem to think I 'owe' you some sort of justification for my opinion and even to lay bare my life history here. I have taken pains to 'explain' which might be misread as a 'defense' but I have no reason to feel guilty, so it is not. I wouldn't bother this long in IM but this goes straight to google and many more read than post. About the slams toward me in your post above: At least take half responsibility for a faulty communication before the huge insults come out. (That was rhetorical.) And the personal slams? Really - bit disappointing. /counts down until she comes back with "why would that be a slam?" As for not answering your question - are you serious? And besides you didn't answer mine still, which was at least germane, not about you personally (your life or history), and on topic. PS if a merchant hates the entire thought of a review then in my opinion they should either not sell in a place which has reviews built into it, or perhaps not put their product out there at all. If a customer had a wish that wasn't met in a product, that is the purpose of a review. Very simple.

Trinity Yazimoto wrote: Well, at least for me, review and iming the merchant for whatever is congratulation or a asking for a fix, doesnt have the same purpose. Review is for rating, evaluating the product from the point of view of the customer. what doess/he think of the product. Nothing more. That has nothing to do with an im. I may of course im a merchant for congratulate or ask for a fix or even pester. I do. But when i do a review im not in the same approach at all. Im just give an evaluation from my point of view. Nothing more. When you bring something publically, like when you sell your items, but it s same if you just show art, you have to face the fact not everyone will like it... I know there are unfairs reviews, some with even nefarious purpose. That's a fact.. but that s not a generality. A review still remain a rating way. and if i think an item i bought only desserve 1 or 2 stars, ill say it and explain why. The fact i contact the merchant or not is totally another story. Thank you, you've said it more simply and elegantly, and I agree with all of this. I don't understand why such a simple concept is even being disputed. A customer paid money. A customer gives their thoughts and impressions of the product and maybe includes the experience of buying it as well (did it arrive on time, did it perform as expected, if they had any interaction with the 'merchant' what that was like, etc.) Simple system, it's worked for decades, before internet, in the newspaper, or on television, there are things even called 'reviewers' who do this for a living. Food critics, etc. I wonder if it's the food critic's job to go and tell the chef "It wasn't very tasty today, can you try again?" or whether he or she writes the review. Pamela: Both your first and recent posts to me were so very rude I should not even have replied. I took quite a bit of time in my reply instead. Yes I misunderstood your analogy and realized that after I hit send but did not change my reply because it works still. A customer and seller do not have a symbiotic employer-employee relationship in either direction. Someone creates and sells and puts it out there, if they expect the customer to come back (which still is true in your analogy, changes nothing, so I'm not sure why I'm to react as if you're being genius there) and whisper gently in the seller's ear "hey did you know this didn't work" ... As Trinity pointed out quite deftly: they are two different things. A review is from customer to customer, really; which in the end benefits the seller too. I've taken pains to say why and so have others. You know coicidentally tonight I tried to IM a creator about their product stopping working. No reason it should; it just did. Without going into detail I'll just say I waited a while with no reply they were not in busy mode and were online. So in the magical world of symbiotic nirvana customer and seller relationships maybe that doesn't happen but in reality usually there's no reply as I took pains to point out and which you completely ignored. I also outlined other reasons people tire of or stop trying to work with creators to change things or improve things but bottom line it is not their job. In your analogy the customer still is working for the merchant if their duty is to come back and report to them. About the rest of your post...I don't have to answer personal jabs and I'm not going to Pamela, your insults were completely unnecessary.

That was the general "you," which I should have specified. (I thought it implied; I was talking about all in the situation, not just one person.) I really don't think your analogy holds up. Someone working FOR an employer is not the same as a customer who is purchasing something. Kind of a telling comparison though - so some merchants do apparently feel it is the customer's "job" to bring things to the merchant as if they worked for them. Pamela Galli wrote: Melita Magic wrote: Pamela Galli wrote: in particular about the idea that any creator that makes one mistake ( or appears to, since the apparent mistake is not always an actual one) should receive a negative review instead of / before being contacted. If you meant my posts, that is not what I actually said (or meant.) I said they have the right to do that, and they do not have the OBLIGATION to contact the merchant/creator first. Huge difference between that and saying "don't ever contact a merchant about a problem...make sure to give them a terrible review instead." Again, I was explicitly responding to Reeva's statement, which I quoted in its entirely. I don't think anyone claims that buyers don't have the right to post whatever they want. Let me be clear what my point is: I work very hard to make good products, but I do make mistakes. I appreciate the graciousness of my customers who notify me of those mistakes and give me the opportunity to correct them -- instead of posting a negative review. In your post above you say: "Why do you feel that's your entitlement as a creator who's being paid to get it right the first time?" I suppose you could say that everyone who is employed is being paid to "get it right the first time", but the fact is, few us actually do that, all the time. Do you, Melita, "get it right the first time"? All the time? If so, you must either be a very special person or have a very easy job. And if not, how do you want your employers to handle it when you fail to get it right the first time-- do you want them to give you feedback that will allow you to correct mistakes or do you want them to broadcast it?

Tari Landar wrote: I ran into this problem once with a friend. I don't buy shapes, or really anything with a style card, but she does. She also tends to follow more blogs and such than I do. I was helping her out to find a few things when she came across a couple creators who include style cards-which is a great idea-but they were soooo vague. We had a hell of a time matching them. Being that I am not a fashionista, and she's still not really there yet either, it was tricky. What was worse was when she contacted one of the creators and got some of the rudest answers I've seen to such a simple question. The nicest answer was "stop being lazy and figure it out for yourself, I included the damn card". Which although precise and quite true on all but the lazy part, just totally rubbed us both the wrong way. I think that was for part of an outfit, but to be honest I don't remember now, I'd have to ask her. We never did match that card, and in the end came to the conclusion there was either some hefty touching up or the product no longer exists. The OTHER creator, was quite kind and I guess just didn't realize how vague the card was, lol. She, or he, has since changed the style cards used to be a little less vague. I'm going to guess, as a merchant, that's a +1 on their little scorecard. Not that the cards are expected, or should be, but I'm guessing they help for a lot of folks. It serves you-the merchant making the card-as well as any you list on the card well, to cross-promote like that. I tend to be more of a "I'll put it together myself" kind of gal-so I don't need the cards. But I know lots of people love them, and I can see why. As for the skin OP, I'm a terrible judge because I don't think either one looks right and I believe there's some touching up going on there. I'm probably 100% wrong though. I see too many differences(mostly in the shading/details*) and I'm not sure if it's the lighting use, touchups in an external program, or my blindness. Most likely, all of the above. *edited to clarify... where the collarbone sits, doesn't seem to match up in what I see. If all three have the same shape on, those accent areas ought to be the same, but they aren't. There is a more downward angle in that area in pic c, but a and b have the same more horizontal look. I just don't know if that's a product of the windlight, touchups, or because that's not the same skin. I just wanted to say - would you please post this story in the "harassment and a bad review" topic, because that's exactly the type of merchant response other merchants don't want to believe exists. THAT is why people post a review instead of going to most merchants with an issue or concern or complaint or question. That, right there. (And, of course, if it was not bought on MP they can't do that either.)

*coughs*

I do have a question for merchants who feel the customer is obligated to contact them first before they can write a review (like raising hand for teacher.) This is to any Merchant. And, I am being serious (except where obviously facetious or hypothetical, although those are serious in a way, as they are connected to my main points.) How long should the customer wait for a response before they are allowed to write and post their Marketplace review, in your opinion? I have in fact asked about a product if the merchant seems very professional in their business, has an SL presence (in world), their profile is not unfriendly, their profile does not state 100 stipulations for any sort of redress, etc. etc. If I get a negative feeling from a profile or it's blank or evident they haven't logged into SL in years, I leave a review. My experiences in dealing with merchants in similar situations (too many variables in products to list here) is they run the gamut from missing in action (no longer in SL or shop gone), angry (at being contacted at all), to disinterested, to hobbyist without a real policy or wish to address something, to egotistically involved with their creations, to impossible to deal with. I am sure their customer stories are similar. And some are very friendly, apologize for any inconvenience, try to address the problem whatever it was, or reply in some way that is helpful (even if it isn't a refund or improvement or exchange.) In short once in a while a merchant/creator is a joy to work with. Those are almost always the ones whose profiles and creations show real joy in their work to begin with. I am much more likely as a result, due to intuition and past experience (myself and others I've heard about) to contact a person like that. Not because "I will post a bad review otherwise" but because in a few select cases, in which need and situation dovetail well, that is the logical next step. (Example: A request to make something slightly different, that fits my wish better; my expectation outside the product range is not the creator's 'fault.' For instance a smaller or taller chair, which can be hard to judge from a photo in Marketplace.) I then post a review regarding the entire process, including their excellent customer service response. And again such details do help shoppers who might also want to know those details which are not on the page (and I suggested up thread that merchants write thorough product descriptions - you will avoid those types of reviews or at least, that type of content in a review - they won't be necessary. I think I even gave an example: mesh/not mesh. People also like to know if resize is scripted or manual or not at all.) So, again, every review is doing you a favor as well - the 'troll' ones ("this sucks" being the entirety) are ignored by all, and are therefore inapplicable to my point. I also post reviews glowing about a product for the slightest level of customer satisfaction. So I like to think I have increased business for many people. I have not sought to decrease anyone's business but rather to post a warning if something is amiss or not as described - in one case an item had some sort of negative script attached. (I believe it required more money sent to creator before use and/or required people to pay to use it, with most of that going to the creator. No, not a mere or legitimate debit situation as in game tables.) Plus, the product itself did not work (I believe it was outdated.) I also believe that if a product requires RL info from the buyer, or to download things outside SL, customers need to know that. Not everyone wants to do that just to buy some little tchotchke in a virtual universe. There are some nightmare merchants out there just as there are some nightmare customers. I don't have time in the day to hand hold them all. I'm going to choose who I approach with a concern about something and who I do not - end of story. I would like an answer to the above question though (top of post.) I would add a follow-up question, on further thought: So let's say the customer wishes to write "I wish the skirt had a resize script, but it did not." But instead, they have taken time from their day to go through whatever process the merchant has dictated, in an attempt to beg permission to express their opinion. So the customer does said process and waits. If the merchant promises a 'fix' to the product or a replacement, or says "yes I will put the resize scripts in those skirts" or whatever it is (hypothetical), how long should the customer wait before they are allowed to post a review, in your opinion? (Or are they still not allowed at all?) How long before the customer is allowed to then write "I contacted Merchant; they said they would change X, but never did?" Or maybe the customer is never allowed to review anything except 5 stars and OMG, and the real purpose of that duct tape kit on Marketplace has been revealed? (It is for a customer's mouth and hands.) And why do you feel it's the customer's obligation to take time from their real life for all those IMs and/or note cards and/or contacting this and that and the other customer service rep or filing a ticket or clicking a well-hidden-in-a-laggy-corner this or a that in the enormous, flying-disabled, TP-routing-disabled store (or mall) in SL, and make reminders to themselves to check into SL and go back and see or IM to find out if the promised change has been made, description page has been updated with details, or product problem addressed? Why do you feel that's your entitlement as a creator who's being paid to get it right the first time? Also, please note the title of this topic - replies within it are in response to that situation - being harassed by a creator because of a tepid or a negative review. That should be the focus here - not how horrible a customer is not to come on hands and knees saying "can I please write one yet teacher?"

Angry cats rule. I like the version where the ginger cat says "you have shamed our family!"

Pamela Galli wrote: in particular about the idea that any creator that makes one mistake ( or appears to, since the apparent mistake is not always an actual one) should receive a negative review instead of / before being contacted. If you meant my posts, that is not what I actually said (or meant.) I said they have the right to do that, and they do not have the OBLIGATION to contact the merchant/creator first. Huge difference between that and saying "don't ever contact a merchant about a problem...make sure to give them a terrible review instead."

I think you are assuming a lot about customers (in general), Pamela. Their motivations, their responsibility. You are correct, in my opinion, to assume your cusotmers are doing you a favor to call your attention to a flaw in the product. (Which is just what I also said, up thread.) Don't assume that because someone has written a review in which they say anything less than OMG 5 stars I saw fireworks and the earth moved, they are a cretin or jerk who just wants to downgrade someone, and can't be bothered to 'fix' something (it's really odd to me anyone would think that's their duty.) How in the world is the customer to read teh creator's mind and know they 'made a mistake' vs. not freaking caring. How are they to know the creator will be easy to deal with, or waste time with IMs going back and forth and put them through a long rigamarole just to try to begin the process of a refund, or exchange. I would think most creators would be annoyed and offended at a customer IMing them to say "please change t his about your product" since I would personally think the creator knew what they wanted to make. Creators who wish feedback can certainly state that in their store or product descriptions and/or have a mailbox or suggestion box in their in world shops. A customer has every right to post a review with honest detailed feedback about that product and if a creator wishes to 'fix the product' after that, they have still done the creator a favor. They have absolutely no obligation to go begging to the creator beforehand, and that is often a waste of everyone's time. If three stars is going to result in butt hurt, the 'merchant' is not being professional to begin with. They should improve the product and come out with version 2 fixing those issues. If you sent someone something that is not what was advertised, or it doesn't work, not because they did not read the note card or did not understand basics of SL (and obviously the 'customer is an idiot' stories are offensive to me), then that's on YOU.

How do people save chat logs in such situations, if they wanted to?

braylasana wrote: Honestly, they need to hire people who USE second life. If that is the case, it would stand to reason, one would think.

Interesting. I found this topic which I had not seen before creating my own. Some here had posted in that one - strange they'd accuse me of being a solitary Luddite. That's two topics in one week, three years after the inception of the graceless interface, designed by people who are unfamiliar with the world some of us frequent. Not the first time; rather the negative feedback has been thoroughly consistent and from varied users.

Sam16 Clarity wrote: Singularity has a tools format that Iove and I am not liking the new viewer tools format. How about making both types of formats for those of us who dont want to have to switch and relearn. We just wanna play the game not have to relearn the tools over and over again. I undertstand that you are trying to help by having better tool formats but maybe you can just improve on the format at hand and still have it look the same. Its harder to keep playing on a game you get frustrated with. Also the prices of things in SL are ridiculously high and Im sure you will find lots that are willing to keep paying for land that is low in prims but high in price but some of us are downsizing and a lot of us are starting to not want land because its just to dang expensive and too low of prims to deal with when you want nice things. With todays economy you are going to lose out no matter how much nicer the look of something is, or how well it rezzes... people want to have a nice place to play and not have to go broke doing it. They would rather play the free Sims and many of my friends are already going over there. I had not even seen this topic but it will be interesting to see the responses you received. Interesting, isn't it; but will the Lab listen?

Phil Deakins wrote: Theresa Tennyson wrote: That first post was my practical comment. This is my editoral comment: A few years ago broadcast television changed from analog to digital. A retired schoolteacher from New York put up a guest editorial in the New York Times basically whining, as she was one of the handful of people in the US who didn't have cable TV and she apparently couldn't be jazzed to do enough research to figure out how to get and install a converter box, which were widely available and even had their >$40 cost subsidized by government coupons. She was confused and wondering why she had to change even though this was a known situation for months - years, really. At the time, I was also not on cable, just got a converter box for my antenna TV, and was watching TV reception that was much better than it was before. I was thinking - this editorial writer also seemed like she'd be the sort of person who'd say "Young people are so lazy and have no initiative these days." Seemed like those traits weren't exactly confined to the young.... That's incredibly rude, and it's based on such a huge lack of understanding that it's hard to believe it was written by a sensible person. Your fundamental error was that you assumed that Melita wants a return to a previous viewer, when all she wants is a previous UI. I.e. all the advances but with an earlier interface. Perhaps you can now see how totally wrong you were, and perhaps you might even realise how very rude you were and offer Melita an apology. Like a great many people, Melita would be very happy with the Singularity V1-style viewer, which incorporates all the current advances, if she would use a TPV. She is not alone. Posts in this forum show that a huge number of people prefer a V1-style interface, and not one of them is desirous of a V1-style viewer without all the advances, and that includes Melita. @Melita. You mentioned security as being the reason for not using a TPV but, by 'security, you mentioned LL not dealing with bugs/faults if you are using a TPV. LL won't deal with faults that pertain to viewers when it's a TVP. E.g. is things don't rez as they should, and you're using a TPV, don't go to LL about it because they won't handle it - and rightly so. But if there's something wrong with a sim, for instance, then LL will deal with it. The viewer doesn't come into it. The other type of security that you may also have had in mind, is that of not trusting unknown people's programmes to run in our computers. That's a genuine consideration, and it was the reason why I wouldn't use TPVs for years. What happened with the very popular Emerald viewer vindicated the lack of trust in unknown people's programmes. There's no way round that. As individuals, we either take the risk (and it is a risk) or we don't. Nobody can say TPVs are safe, as the Emerald experience shows, and nobody can say that any particular viewer is safe, so it's up to each individual to decide for him/herself. Thank you so much Phil. You've said exactly what I had attempted to say and which some have apparently missed, completely, in the rush to condemn anyone who criticizes the viewer or questions (tongue in cheek, at least halfway, I might add...if they care to know) whether changes might be made. You have also perfectly addressed my concerns and validated them - thank you. To me, a viewer that has from its start faced the same criticisms about its interface almost unanimously among those who have spoken about same, might one day improve. It stands to reason or logic, to me at least, that "after three years" as Theresa put it, someone would think "oh gee they still hate it. Maybe there is a valid reason." I also would not think it primary in any for profit business' concern to continue to allow its competitors to do better when there is such an easy way to put a stop to that. They have the original as it is; it isn't like I have asked for cold fission. Thank you also (and Trinity too and others) for pointing out that what I was talking about had nothing to do with being unable or unwilling to accept 'progress' but simply had to do both with aesthetics and graceful design. I'm sure the Edsel ran well too but if something is clunky and ugly and counter intuitive it will be less than popular, and customers will flock elsewhere - as they have done here, running to the TPV. The thread title was tongue in cheek, but these are legitimate questions, and from a long time user of Second Life who loves the thing and wishes its prosperity - not mere survival. Google and others are bringing forth competitive virtual worlds. I want this one to have every advantage. I can't pretend to know why decisions are made but I do question why seemingly - I won't say 'bad' not knowing their game plan but - unpopular - ones are kept. Not all innovations are successful ones, as some of us realize. Trinity, exactly; I think for myself and what works for me. I highly appreciate your posts here. Coby thank you for the additional information about Singularity. Marigold, I'm not sure if you've been following my past posts on the topic but I've had the same question for a while - why would something still be constantly beta testing if it's not going to really hear customer feedback and implement same? There must be hundreds who've said the same as I have about the interface itself. As Phil pointed out, not the new functions, which are wonderful; especially the land functions in my opinion; I also think it's great they brought back early SL features such as makeup layers. Not the new functions but the interface itself, which really is such a simple thing to change...if they should ever wish to. What I had hoped to have help figuring out in this topic as well is why they would not wish to. I can't think of a single logical reason. Others have pointed out as well that the new viewer was designed by people who are not actually in Second Life themselves. Maybe that makes sense to some; it does not make sense to me. For those who blow their cool at mere questions I would like to offer them a ride in an Edsel and some New Coke in hopes they will cool down. xo, Melita

Theresa, I find an apology accompanied by further patronizing speech and insult to be less than genuine. You've completely ignored Phil's point that you misunderstood my post/thread from the start, which was the basis of your lecturing me as if I were two. Unless you are on the decision making team for LL I doubt you can shout in huge red letters that there is zero chance of anything regarding same. I didn't need telling the sky is blue or grass is green. I think you just wanted someone to yell at.

On your knits and woolens, definitely.

Looks like skin A to me - get the skin demo and try it on your shape.

Thank you Tari. There was a breedable I can't remember the name of that wanted old nests and other breedables and would give their products in return. Was that this one? There's been more than one breedable that made a big splash and either never got to beta or never got to sales because I never heard more of them. Maybe it's me, and I'm not going to the right sims.

Marigold Devin wrote: Just don't feel like you have to struggle on, Melita. Your mental health is just not worth the aggravation that comes from swimming against the tide all the time. I liked your post until that bit. Lol Looks like one more disclaimer is necessary (at least, for my mental health.) I am not mentally ill. I also do not swim against the tide, often, let alone "all the time." (I am not that spectacular a swimmer.) I am not especially struggling. I had some criticisms and a legitimate question. But, thanks for the concern. Reading the topic, one would think I was the first ever to question the official viewer.

Yeah, I'm not sure why finding issues with the current viewer would make me a Luddite (I do appreciate quality no matter where or when it is from), old fart (matter of perspective), technophobe (as I type on my computer?), stupid (matter of opinion or test), or lazy (having priorities is being lazy?) I know what year it is. I don't make crank calls to my cable company when they make changes. (I don't make crank calls period.) I don't like Twinkies. I had a few Little Debbies as a child. I would not personally stand in line for a Cronut. Time is linear? Ask Dr. Who!

Since you were slapped into next year...did you happen to peek at any Lotto numbers?

Perhaps apply some conditioner?

What is Imaginimal? A friend has a rare breedable right now and is not sure what to do. The problem is the breedable community at one end of hte scale are the extreme price gougers, and at the other end are those who breed for enjoyment or 'love' of the 'pet' (roleplay) and don't want to sell. To sell could mean buying into (pun sort of intended) the whole competitive, cut throat, price gouging end of things. It's no different than in real life business so it's an interesting development to roleplay I think.

Very welcome. Thanks for letting us know.

Trinity Yazimoto wrote: Melita, you will find the link to your feed on your dashboard, left column, under "Connect and Share".. this is the "my second life " button. but you can also access to it just with https://my.secondlife.com Thank you! I will probably check that out next week sometime.