Phil Deakins

That's a huge gripe of mine. SL was a place where loads of people had a go at building, and a great many of them had a go at selling from their inworld stores. It was a huge part of SL, almost to the point of being what SL was about. Now, virtually nobody has a go at building with a view to selling, because it would require a great deal of time using a completely different programme. And the relative few who do go that way don't even need an inworld store. Just stick the stuff in the marketplace and, if it sells, it sells. If it doesn't, it doesn't. SL is vastly different in a very negative way to what it was. I'd go so far as to say that it's been scuppered by LL.

Since I first blocked someone, the blocked people's posts have always been listed in my 'unread content', but it's never shown me the normal first line of their posts. I click to see the threads in case others have added to them before the blocked people. I recently thought that something had changed though. Clicking the Ignore User option doesn't block them, and I thought it did that automatically. You have choose what to block - posts, signature and something else. Those choices were always there, but I don't remember having to choose before. I thought that clicking Ignore User automatically blocked their posts. I decided that I must have been mistaken.

Better still. The users need to learn how find the avatars inworld

LMAO! BRILLIANT

There is no rule about not being allowed to state the names of those who have posted in the thread. She won't state them, because she knows that there are none that match her claims. Her claims, incidentally, keep changing as she learns that her previous claim was wrong. Here is her first claim (from her op):- "This is one of the things that have long baffled me is why people can have names on the forums that do not correspond to an actual avatar inworld. It's not that people have let their old account lapse inworld and still chat on the forums; it's that names are used that have no equivalent inworld." She soon learned that she was wrong, so, rather than admit her mistake - something that never does because, in her mind, she doesn't make mistakes or get anything wrong - she morphed the claim to include GOOGLE, and then into what she wrote a few posts back:- It's no longer that some people "have no equivalent inworld" because she now knows that that's wrong, even though she'll never admit it. It's now "don't show up inworld" and "don't have any regular my.secondlife.com profile". Her orginal claim was totally wrong, and she now knows that. Her current claim is that some people can't be found in the places where she wants to look - GOOGLE and web search. She's right about 'b', but still wrong about 'a' because they all show up inworld. She has yet to learn that part. When she's learnt it, her final claim should be spot on

Not you.

@halebore Aeon The best way to deal with some people here is to add them to your ignore list. That way, you won't know what they say, so you won't feel anything about it. I have very few on my list, but Klityna is one of them. In fact she was the first. Not because she annoyed me, or anything like that, but because she never has anything of value or interest to say, and the way she says nothing of any value or interest is always idiotic, imo. It's like she writes for her own benefit, so that she can read it over and over, and feel good about having written it. Ignoring her means that I'm not tempted to read anything she writes, even when I get a notification that she's quoted me. If someone quotes her, I can see the quote, but I usually ignore it anyway.

I realised that I'm not sure about what I wrote, so I deleted it.

This is your op in its entirety:- Perhaps you could point to the bits in it where you mentioned several times that IT COULD NOT BE FOUND IN GOOGLE. I refer you to both the title you gave to this thread, AND to the bit of your post that I've just quoted. If you didn't mean that nicks are allowed in the forum, why did you ask why they are allowed? I'll put it all down to just another thread in which you make no sense at all - none that anyone can determine, anyway.

I don't know where that came from, but I can tell you that the op lost all respect from me many years ago, and, since then, has continually confirmed that it was the right decision - including in this thread, I might add. Unlike you, though, I sometimes do post good replies to those who I have no respect for. My first post in this thread was intended to be helpful, and is a good example. But look at her response to it.

She wasn't saying that. She thought that nicknames were being used in the forum, and that they cannot be related to any avatar/account inworld. She was wrong. She may have incorrectly used the word 'nick' (nickname) when actually thinking of alts, but it doesn't make any difference, since there are no avatar names in the forum that can't be found inworld. I agree with you about "why does it matter". It's difficult to come up with a reason, but, since it's not true, the question doesn't arise. My guess is that the op wanted to find out about someone who had been negative to her in the forum, but she didn't know how to do it.

I'm wondering if the OP has made the same mistake that I used to make, and that I've seen others make here. I used to misread the name Phorumities as Phorumites, not realising that it has an i near the end. And I've seen it written as Phorumites in posts. Searching for Phorumites brings nothing up. I wonder if the OP did that and jumped to the wrong conclusion.

Wrong! You were not talking about people having nicknames in the forum but "no avatar inworld visible", or about "simple GOOGLE". Read your op again and remind yourself what you were talking about. You were talking about "no equivalent inworld", not "no avatar inworld visible". (1) You actually believed that nicknames (not alts) are allowed in this forum, and that we can't relate them to any SL avatar (inworld equivalent). We've shown you that that is not true. And they are all visible inworld anyway. (2) You weren't talking about any kind of search - not web search, not legacy search, and not "simple GOOGLE". We brought search up, because that's where you can find the inworld equivalents for all names that are used in the forum. Your were mistaken in your op. You need to accept it, instead of beating about the bush, trying to find something to cling on to.

In your op, you wrote, "It's not that people have let their old account lapse inworld and still chat on the forums; it's that names are used that have no equivalent inworld." That is a plain and clear statement. There is no mention of Google anywhere in your op. Instead, you wrote "inworld", so that's what you must have meant. Several people here, including me, have proved that your statement is wrong. Accept it. Claiming that you meant they can't be found in Google doesn't work, because you'd have said that if it's what you meant. Heck you didn't even mention search. You said "no equivalent inworld", and you were wrong. I find it quite astonishing that, after all the evidence that all accounts have equivalents inworld, you can write that. You say "people right in this thread have nicks on the forums but no avatar inworld visible" and "Try them and you'll see". You need to name at least one of them. The only one that's had a mention is Phorumities, and s/he shows up inworld. So give us a name please. The bottom line is that nobody has an account name here in the forum without having an inworld equivalent. You were wrong. Incidentally, when you search for an account, use the SL search and not Google. LL does not employ Google to keep a database of SL accounts. ETA: To post in this forum, you have to have an SL account. If you have an SL account, you show up inworld, and, therefore, have an equivalent inworld, regardless of whether or not you've ever logged into SL. It's as clear-cut as that.

Thank you, Drayke. I have a bit of chip on my shoulder about the disappeared ability to create and successfully sell objects in SL. Well, perhaps not a chip, but a very big, permanent moan. I've posted it several times. SL just ain't wot it used to be, and I think it's a real shame. LL has let the basic brilliantness of SL slip away, and I'm all for your ideas.

Done more testing, and this is what I found... All tested accounts show up in the legacy search, so they all correspond to an inworld avatar. The first 3 accounts showed up in the web search, but they had all logged in, although 1 of them not for several months, and the other 2 for much longer than that. The last test I did was searching for an avatar that hasn't logged in at least since the GSA was abandoned for the web search, and a freebie search engine used instead. Like the others, it shows in the legacy search, but unlike the others, it doesn't show in the web search. Two possible reasons spring to mind. One is that LL did what they were planning to do, and limit the avatars database (for search) to those that have logged in within the last nn days. 30 days was talked about but, if they did that, then they've extended it because 3 of those test avatars haven't logged in for months. The other, and more likely reason imo, is that, when the freebie search engine was started, the avatars database for it started from scratch (empty), and avatars were added to it as they logged in. If that's the case, the avatar in my 4th test would not show in the web search, because it hasn't logged in as far as the freebie engine is concerned. It does show in the legacy search though. So, based on that, and assuming that Prok meant alts and not nicknames, new accounts are not added to the web search unless they log in. My guess is that new accounts are included in the legacy search, and correspond to inworld avatars, but that can only be known by creating one.

I've done the test with an avatar that hasn't logged into SL for a lot of years. She comes up in both searches - web and legacy.

Don't need a new account for it. I have loads of alts that haven't logged in for years. I'll PM you.

I think you will show in search. I don't know why you wouldn't show up in the web search (I think you probably do), but I'm sure you will in the legacy search. ETA: Correction. Many years ago, they reduced, or they were looking at reducing, the size of the database (and web search results) by only including those who had logged in in the previous 30 days. If they did that, and still do it, then you'll be right about not showing in the web search, but I still think you'll show in the legacy search. I could be wrong, of course.

But it still corresponds to "an actual avatar inworld". An avatar doesn't need to be logged in, or to ever log in, for that to be true.

I won't bother wearing one then

Did you try farting in the dresses? Maybe that's what they meant by "wind movement", and the dress would billow out at the back. Try it. I may be right

Do you mean nicknames or alt names? They are completely different things. I was going to write that I didn't know you could use a nickname for the forum, but a couple of posts seemed to indicate that you mean alts, and yet what I quoted clearly indicates nicknames, because alts do correspond to actual avatars inworld. Is that the actual reason why Desmond Shang no longer posts in the forum? It's been many years since he posted - I think long before this forum software, and I don't think that all the forum programmes we've had allowed nicknames.

"Those magnificent men in their flying machines" is the first line of an old, and well-known song, so I wrote it down for you, thinking that you couldn't remember it exactly. It's the title song for an old film called, 'Those magnificent men in their flying machines'