Cain Maven

So I guess speaking up does matter sometimes. The Lab has decided not to cut the group count for Basic memberships after all

I'm in favor, as long as they get to keep their inventories. And one year may be on the short side, especially if you're repossessing their land. But those are details -- if this has the potential of improving performance for all of us, I say go for it.

Probably wise. It's quite possibly an illegal copy, too.

Except maybe content theft.

Isn't it implied which way a vector goes? (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Well said, Froukje!

My question exactly. Doubling the fee seems heavy handed and mildly disrespectful. So please?

Oh, I will, if I have to. I'm lucky enough to have a limited number of products, so the effort is quite manageable in my case. Longer term, I will also try changing the product mix, tweaking my promotion strategy, and eating fewer carbs. I have not given up. I am, however, asking Linden Lab to rethink their strategy for recalibrating the SL economy a little.

Hear, hear.

Are you taking notes, Linden Lab?

It's not a bad idea, but the downside might be that it favors the big, established brands and becomes just another barrier to entry for new, small brands. And I think the playing field is a bit uneven as it is.

Good idea -- but why not also let the back end do this? That would also handle cases where the group creator no longer is active. Plus, some group owners may prefer the inflated count...

I understand that it requires coding. But it does seem like a fairly simple task, and one that might have a significant performance benefit if the member count is as important as it seems. So please put that on the to-do

So... why not automatically eject members who haven't logged on in years?

That's exactly right. Even if the direct impact is on the creators, in many if not most cases the extra cost will be passed on to the consumer. That's how it is in any life.

Fair point -- although I'm not sure how many creators that applies to? I would imagine that those who cash out less than $400 / month may not have a full region, as tier would account for over 60% of revenue. I do agree that it doesn't hit all creators equally, though. In any event, I'm surprised that LL didn't increase the Marketplace fees first. The current 5% certainly is below "industry standards" and raising it might provide some revenue as well as having the positive side effects of encouraging creators to maintain in-world stores instead of only being on Marketplace.

I agree. But that's maybe more in the "not worse" column than in the "better" column?

I am aware that LL is trying to shift the economy away from a tier-based economy. I am aware that this is not easy. I agree that it is long overdue and vital to the long term survival of SL. However, the last few rounds -- including this one -- have targeted creators disproportionately. Doubling the credit processing fee actually is a huge deal, and directly affects the livelihood of people who make a living or supplement their incomes here. It may seem like peanuts compared to "industry standards", but that's beside the point; people who depend on SL income are affected by SL fees, not what others might charge. (Reminder: most creators are not wealthy elites who wade in cash and sneer at the riff-raff.) A few of the other changes will also indirectly affect creators. Reducing the group count will make it harder to reach customers. Reducing the number of offline IMs will make it harder to communicate with customers. (As a side note, taking away benefits is a very unfortunate way of treating customers/users -- google "loss aversion" to see why this is a psychological blunder even if it saves a few pennies.) No, I have not forgotten about the $20 cut in full region tier. It is a step in the right direction, although it will clearly not lead to dramatic changes. And it does not come close to making up for the doubled credit processing fee. It is worth remembering that almost all of the content in SL is not made by LL. It's made by us -- some for free, some for profit. It is starting to feel as if LL is taking creators for granted (where else are they going to go, right?) and by extension, taking consumers for granted. Because in the end, this affects consumers as well. If this trend continues, creators will be faced with some unpleasant choices: cut cost through outsourcing and more cookie-cutter products, raise prices, or close shop. Dear Linden Lab: If you want to preserve the creative vitality and healthy economy of Second Life, it's time to rethink and rebalance your strategy. Continuing down this path is not good for creators, not good for customers, and ultimately not good for your business.

Yes, agreed. There are tons of use cases here, and valid reasons for wanting or not wanting this feature; letting the merchants decide is the simplest and most flexible solution. Should we understand your comment to mean that this is actively being worked on? (That would be awesome )

It works! I had to clear my cookies first, though. Prior to that, it kept appending the date range to the URL, thus overriding the filters and showing a week regardless of which filter was selected. After clearing cookies and restarting Chrome it now uses URLs without date ranges, like so: https://accounts.secondlife.com/transaction_history?days=0&lang=en-US#/ I'm using Chrome on Win 10, in case that info is useful.

I've personally never had a need for bookmarking date ranges. It's so rare that I'm interested in anything other than today or yesterday that I don't mind using the calendar controls for those cases. Plus, given that only the last three months' worth of transactions are available, date range bookmarks have a limited shelf life.

Hate? Zero. Love? A lot. Response time? That was awesome. Major kudos!

Nicely done! Voted and watching

Maybe I'm missing something, but I really don't understand how this is a much more sensible approach? At first I thought it was a bug and expected it to be fixed in a day or two. My guess is that the users who check their transactions most frequently are merchants, and they would normally be much more interested in daily sales than in weekly numbers. For us, this change simply means that we need another two mouse clicks to get to the information we want. As for non-merchants, I'm not convinced that defaulting to a week makes sense for those users, either. I agree with Arwen that letting users choose a (persistent) time span would make sense if you wanted to offer an improvement. This change, however, is not an improvement. It's an ill-considered change on what seems to be the strength of one person's request. I strongly encourage you to roll this back and engage with your users in a meaningful conversation first. Then roll out any resulting changes.

Yup, same here. Manually editing the URL doesn't help, either.