Jump to content

Phil Deakins

Resident
  • Content Count

    11,705
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Phil Deakins

  1. I don't know the answer to your question but I'll ask you one - do you have payment info on file? At first thought, it would make sense to deny any totally anonymous person the ability to cash out.
  2. Darkraven Danick wrote: [...] so I don't know what to do The answer is an easy one ... stop selling stuff in the marketplace. It beats me why anyone wants to persevere with it when it's continually thrown up really bad faults for so very long. The people at LL simply aren't capable of getting it to work reasonably well so why does anyone continue to bother with it.
  3. It is TRANSPARENTLY obvious that they have no intention of being TRANSPARENT, no matter what they say.
  4. I think you were right in one of your ealier posts - that one LL hand doesn't know what another LL hand is doing - and mistaken in your latest post - that it's the same people who write the programming. There is no reason to suppose that the people who wrote the programming to automatically set abandoned land for sale are the same people who are in charge of the programming that lists land for sale in search. There is every reason to suppose that they are not the same people, and that they have different priorities. Although the abandoned land is listed in search (42 parcels right now), and the wiki gives no indication that its absense from search is only for a limited period, I'd guess that the people who are responsible for the search programming will catch up when they are ready. If that's the case, then perhaps it would have been better not to launch the new system until everything is in place. Even so, so some land-bots get some land to flip in the meantime - it doesn't really matter, does it? I approve of this new system provided that bordering land-owners get the first opportunity to buy. Without that first opportunity, I disapprove of the new system. Giving other land-owners in the same sim an equal first opportunity with bordering land-owners would be wrong, imo.
  5. A few points... Land-bots: Chaos has been seeing these newly abandoned parcels in search but have you been following what's been happening to them, Chaos? Are land-bots actually buying them at 1L/m? I's be very surprised if they are because they haven't been buying at prices as high as that for quite some time. I don't see why anyone should have anything against land-bots and land-flippers, except for those occasions when someone makes a mistake and a land-bot instantly takes advantage. Auctions: LL offers land at 0.5L/m in the auction so why 1L/m for these parcels? Neighbours: I completely agree that neighbours, and/or land owners in the sim, should be offered the abandoned parcel first - there should be at least a few days (a week, perhaps) for them to buy. It wouldn't make any difference to LL and it would avoid some gnashing of teeth. I can envisage situations like I've been in for a long time (small parcels within my much larger land) where such a parcel gets abandoned and the surrounding land owner fails to get it because s/he doesn't notice it quickly enough. Imo, that would be a travesty and LL really should incorporate something to deal with it, such as the suggested messages to bordering land owners. Overall: I can understand LL doing this because the amount of abandoned land is a huge joke and, while it's abandoned, it's earning nothing for the company. Much of the land that's sold in this new way won't earn anything for LL either, because many of the buyers will have unused tier, but some will - and the joke will become smaller. On the whole, I approve of this new measure, but I don't approve of not including something that benefits at least bordering land-owners.
  6. We don't have any means of seeing whether or not an avatar is registered as a scripted agent. What we do have is common sense so, if a pacel's traffic is unrealistically high, and the parcel has bots on it, then it's reasonable to assume that at least some of the bots are not registered as scripted agents. @Marigold. A bot should be registered as a "scripted agent", not a "non-scripted agent". Real people avatars are non-scripted agents even though they are never refered to as such
  7. Scott Maroon wrote: Live chat will generally tell you that its' not their job to handle abuse reports, its' the job of the Abuse Team, which is true. However, there is no way to contact the abuse team when they ignore your AR. It has been my experience that if get on live chat several times and tell them the situation, and complain enough, eventually one of them will help. Someone in live chat once told me that, if my AR about overhanging prims hasn't been dealt with by the next day, let him know and he will deal with it, and that's exactly what he did. A few months later, I ARed another overhanging prim and, although I had dealings with live chat in the meantime, I decided not to ask anyone there to deal with it. I adopted the attitude that I pay plenty of money to LL every month for my land and I'm not getting full use of what I pay for, so I insist that the AR people, who are paid to deal with those things, actually deal with it - and I got it to happen. I waited a reasonable time after the first and second ARs, and then I started to AR daily, telling them I would increase the AR freqency until it was dealt with. A couple of days into that, I decided to send a notecard to Harry Linden, the AR team manager. Within minutes of sending it (literally), the prim was gone, and I received an apology from Harry. That was the second time that Harry had done things right concerning ARs and me when the team members did things wrong. I don't know if he's still around but he is or was one of the many good Lindens. Although live chat people can deal with some AR stuff, I prefer to insist that the people who are paid to provide me with the customer service I pay for actually provide it. A year or more later, a Linden said to me that it's a pity that those who shout the loudest get their issues dealt with the quickest. So, my answer to the question in the title of this thread is, when the AR is about issues concerning your land, shout loud and often at the people who are paid to to provide you with the customer service that you pay for and have a right to. If you are not getting full use of what you pay LL for, shout loud and often.
  8. You can disagree on the "right to use bots" as much as you like but everyone has a right to use them. LL make the rules and they say that bots are allowed. There's never been a time when we didn't have the "right to use bots". I can understand you being annoyed when logins were disabled due to high demand, knowing that many bots were already logged in. That would annoy most people - me included if i were unable to log in when I wanted to. That "unusually high demand" message was rare and I've no idea what caused it. I don't recall ever seeing it. I posted about certain false rumours that some people liked to believe, merely because they disliked bots, but the inability to log in due to unusually high demand isn't one of them.
  9. The idea of LL not allowing basic accounts to log in when SL is very busy rings a very faint bell, but that was before bots started to be used in quantity.
  10. Marigold Devin wrote: In truth, the only thing that bothers me about the number of bots inworld is if they prevent logins for non-bot residents. I know it's been a long time since we got that message up "Due to an unexpectedly high demand for this service, logins have been temporarily disabled" (might not be a word-perfect quote) That was only a rumour, and an incorrect one at that. One or two people imagined that there was a fixed number of logins possible and, if bots were using some, then some real people couldn't log in at all. That was totally wrong, but the erroneous idea took hold in some people's minds because they wanted such things to be true to strengthen their attitude and arguments against bots. One time when bots logging in might have caused delays for real people logging in was when the grid came back up after going down, and stacks of accounts, including bots, were trying to log in at the same time. But even then, bots weren't really holding things up in the way that a few people liked to think they were; i.e. thousand of bots automatically trying to log in simultaneously is what a few people imagined and posted. But, in general, bots didn't and don't do that. Many don't auto-log in at all after being logged out by the system. Many of those that do don't do it simultaneously. Mine, for instance, log in at approximately 1 minute intervals, and they only start doing that after 10 minutes has passed, allowing time for the sim to be updated and come back online, and if the sim isn't online, they wait another 10 minutes, and so on. So the login "problem" was an imaginary one that some poeple liked to think was true.
  11. Ty, Darrius. I've learned that the mods (whoever they are) only deal with stuff that gets reported, which is a very odd way of moderating a forum though. In other words, they aren't moderators at all - they are just decision makers - that's if they actually look at what gets reported. If they don't, they are merely box tickers. I suppose it's what can be expected from Linden Lab, who are well-known for not doing things well.
  12. What does "RIC rolled" mean? Whatever the reason, some non-SL threads are left alone while others are removed. This gives completely mixed signals which shouldn't happen. Apparently, the word "guidelines" is intended to mean "rules" so, since they are rules, they should be applied consistently, and that's what doesn't happen here.
  13. You have to remember that an engine's view (and measure) of results relevancy is different to a page owner's view of it.
  14. At first glance, the results don't look like they will be when this shake-up is completed. When Mickey has several results on the first page, then we are usually in an interim period
  15. My thread on this subject was removed but, imo, it's an interesting enough topic to continue with, so... This "Off Topic" sub-forum was purported, by Lexie Linden, to be what people were asking for when they asked for a general discussion forum, but it's decsription only suggests SL topics, so it isn't what was asked for. And yet, some threads that have nothing whatsoever to do with SL manage to remain intact while others, that also have nothing to do with SL are removed. It's not very consistent, is it? Such decisions are made my the moderators, of course, and the guidelines say that they can't be questioned in the forum. Many forums have a rule stating that moderator decsisions are final but LL has a guideline (not a rule) stating that their decisions can't be questioned here. How stupid is that. Anyway, if anyone wants to continue the discussion, here's a thread to do it in. My guess is that anyone who wanted to offer their 2c has already done it, but the thread is her (for now) if it's wanted. Moderators please note: Only LL has been criticised in this post and there are no "guidelines" or rules against that. Lexie has been sort of criticised for claiming that this sub-forum is what was asked for when it wasn't, and there are no rules or guidelines against that either. In fact, she opened this whole discussion in her sticky thread about this sub-forum.
  16. I agree that most, probably almost all, SL searches for objects/items are done by people looking to buy but it can't be assumed that everyone wants to buy and so the engine must return the results as it does now. Your ideas are good but there's another one - simply accept that the results will sometimes contain.listings where the items are not for sale. Results that are not what the searcher was looking for happen all the time with web engines and we don't have any problem accepting those results, so I don't see any need to find that kind of fault with the SL results. The difficulty with what you suggest is that doing it would need more external programming, etc., and the whole search system woul;d get even more removed from the simple search system that is the GSA. The sooner LL starts with an open source engine, sp that they can control the engine itself, the better, but they are taking a very long time over it.
  17. Darrius Gothly wrote: That would be true if "Show In Search" was meant to mark items as "Informational" .. meaning stuff folks might want to read. But in SL that option means "this item is meant to be purchased." If people want to see Teleporters in action, most every Teleporter store also has demos set out for demonstration and display. That's the wrong way round. Parcel owners, who set items to show in search, may well want to sell those items, but people searching are not necessarily wanting to buy anything and it's the searcher's point of view that's being discussed. A search on "teleporters" could be because the person wants to buy one, see one, find out how to make one, etc. With that searchterm, there is no way for a search engine to know what the searcher wants, other than they want something concerning teleporters - which they got. Although there are Sims and Parcels that have non-commercial attractions, those are provided for by Events as those provide much more textually rich descriptions than can be had on a single object. "Events" covers events. They don't cover not-for-sale items that are set to show in search. For instance, I could make a maze that I'd like people to use at any time of the day or night. It's not an event but I do want it in search. A search on "mazes" could be because the searcher wants to 'play' in mazes, or to buy one, etc. It should go without saying that items that are intentionally set to show in search are set for both 'sale' reasons and 'not-for-sale' reasons. In your teleoprters example, the items aren't intended to be in the results but that doesn't mean that all intentional "show in search" items are for sale - they are not, and the engine has no way of knowing what the searcher wants other than pages that have some content about teleporters. Your example isn't an example of search being borker because they were good results for that simple searchterm.
  18. Darrius Gothly wrote: [...] There are exceptions of course, and there are 100's of examples in Search where a parcel gets near top rank for an absolutely unrelated keyword. (As an example, search in the All tab for "teleporter". The 2nd and 3rd results are not places you can buy teleporters, they just happen to have their personal teleporters listed to show in search.) Those 2nd and 3rd results are good results. With a searchterm as vague as "teleporter", a search engine has no way of knowing what the searcher is looking for and the engine would be at fault if it left various kinds of results out. It may be that the person is looking for places to buy teleporters, or places to see teleporters in action, etc., so it's the search term that's wrong if a person is looking to buy, and not the results. Having said that, the results for a searchterm like "places to buy teleporters" is unlikely to be much different because we cannot write our own pages. We can arrange content in the form of objects but we cannot write our own copy, and that's a BIG failing of using a web-type engine in SL. @Wilma. Yes, the rules still exist and still apply but, unlike, some SL rules, such as traffic bots, these rules are generally applied programmatically and not by hand. So when the search team spots ways of beating the rules (spamming), they will deal with them by improving their programming rather than by hands-on methods. That is likely to be the reason why your ARs don't appear to have been dealt with. Programming around 'exploits' leaves the exploits in place but the fruit of them is diminished; i.e. larger negative boosts which means lower rankings. Incidentally, ARs are not really the best way of informing LL about such things. It's the search team that needs to know, so it's best to inform them directly - an IM to the search team leader (Sea Linden), for instance.
  19. I'm glad that they sorted it out for you, Steph.
  20. Holocluck Henly wrote: You invest HOW much per month to show on top of search?! Well, it looks like there's a cap on it now. Unless you have a contract with Linden Labs over an agreed monthly infusion, I don't see where you have any leg to stand on, virtually or otherwise. You choose to use a social site for business. It isn't a business site people are using for social gatherings. Even a slight understanding of the facts before you write would help you not to make such nonsense posts.
  21. @leliel. I did see that you agreed with the complaint and that it was only the idea of it being a rip-off that you disagreed with. I said words to the effect of, if LL refuses to give Steph satisfaction in the matter, then it most definitely will be a rip-off. It isn't one at the moment, but it would become one if LL doesn't either refund the full amount or change her ad to the correct amount.
  22. @ Steph. I hope that Torley will pass it to the right person but he's not in a position to do anything himself. If it were me, and if I didn't know the name of the person in charge of classifieds, I'd certainly send the full story in a notecard to the CEO. Bagman Linden, isn't it? Apart from the full story, and the reason why a 99,999L classified is definitely not what you want or ordered, I'd ask him for the name of the person in charge. I'd move in every direction to get it sorted out.
×
×
  • Create New...