Jump to content

Phil Deakins

Resident
  • Content Count

    11,705
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Phil Deakins

  1. Innula Zenovka wrote: I think the problem is that if the item is rezzed from your vendor when you aren't on the same sim, llKey2Name(llGetOwner()) is going to fall over. This is how I do it: changed (integer change){ if (change & CHANGED_OWNER){ llRemoveInventory(llGetScriptName()); } } Wonderful! I had no idea that llKey2Name() fails in those circumstances. That'll be why I couldn't make them fall over no matter fast I clicked to rez the next item - and I tried a number of times, as fast as I could click the mouse button. I've also never used, or even noticed, the "changed" event. I'll do it your way. Many thanks, Innula! ETA: Of course I've come across the "changed" event before, but not often enough for me to readily bring it to mind, but never the CHANGED_OWNER value.
  2. That's what I'd wondered (in the first post). I'll try the UUID and see if it fixes it. Thank you for the suggestion.
  3. It displays fine for me (IE8) except that the tabs overlay the breadcrumb links and part of the search box, which is very bad. That's the problem with doing way too much of a site in css - there are too many browser implementation variations. To my way of thinking, it's just plain silly. css can be used well and it can be used badly and, imo, this forum design is css used badly.
  4. That's an interesting idea, Darrius, but the kill script doesn't remove itself at all unless there is a new owner. It only llDie()s the obejct. Here it is in full:- integer channel; string CODE = "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"; string original_owner = "Phil Deakins"; default { on_rez(integer param) { channel = param; string name = llKey2Name(llGetOwner()); if(name != original_owner) { // delete this script llRemoveInventory(llGetScriptName()); } llListen(channel,"","",CODE); } listen(integer CHANNEL, string name, key id, string message) { llDie(); } } The actual code is not xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, of course
  5. This probably doesn't belong in this sub-forum but just in case someone has come across it and dealt with it before, I'll post it. I've recently made some rezzers which store customers can click on to rez and view the next item - it's a common type of system. The way it works is that each item in the rezzer contains a script. The script deletes the item when told to do so by the rezzer. That happens when someone has clicked the rezzer to see the next item. Customers can buy a copy of the rezzed item, just as though the items were permanently rezzed - just like most stuff in my store. The "kill" script in the item deletes itself when the item is rezzed IF it has a new owner, so there's no possibility of it being triggered later on after someone has bought an item. It uses a complex code anyway, so the chances of it being triggered are extremely remote, but deleting itself on a change of owner makes it theoretically impossible. The problem is this. Almost every day, one or more of the rezzers rez items *without* the kill script in them so, when the next item is rezzed, the current one doesn't delete itself and it can finish up with a lot of items rezzed in the same spot, which makes buying an item a lottery. At first I thought it happened when the sim was restarted for an update but I've found it happens whether or not there's been an update. All the items in the rezzer's directory do have the kill script in them. I don't think there's anything I can do to fix it but I wondered if anyone has any ideas? While I've been writing this, it occured to me that, if the kill script in a newly rezzed item does not receive the owner - if llGetOwner() fails - then the script would delete itself because of an owner mismatch. Does anyone know if not receiving the owner is a possibility - during times of server lag, for instance? If so, I need to change the system. ETA: I thought I'd add the code in the kill script that I use for this purpose in case it throws any light on the problem. This is in on_rez :- string name = llKey2Name(llGetOwner()); if(name != original_owner) { // delete this script llRemoveInventory(llGetScriptName()); } original_owner is my name and is hard coded.
  6. Darrius Gothly wrote: I also find it ... at least hard to believe, if not most likely incorrect .. that LL would permanently ban an account without at least one prior incident. I agree with that unless the 'crime' is really bad. I also agree that the OP may not have been told the full story. If the person hadn't previously had a warning, then the reason for the ban must be really bad and she would know what it is. If the reason isn't really bad, and it's something she did, then I'm sure she would have previously received a warning or a shortish suspension for it. So, assuming that the person who issued the ban didn't get out of bed on the wrong side that day, either she knows the reason and isn't saying, or it was caused by some vindictive or nasty ARs which descibed a really bad 'crime', imo. It could well be that the use of the word "daddy" was gone to town on by some stupid person who reported it as child sexplay. The fact that LL doesn't provide the reason is a side issue, but is abominable.
  7. How dare you suggest such a thing, Darrius? The person was *not* my friend and I'm offended that you could even suggest it! I think the sim may be haunted.
  8. I've had 2 weird things happening in this mainland sim in the last few days. The first was a small area of my store where my V1 viewer instantly shut down a few seconds after I got to the area - every time. I had two sessions of that happening on consecutive days. The other was yesterday when a chair in the store, and the person who was sitting on the chair, were totally invisible to me. The chair's floating text was all that I could see. When I got next to the chair, I became invisible too. It was a much tinier area than the previous one. I actually thought that the person was wearing an invisiprim but I couldn't cam to see anything inside it - neither me nor her nor the chair. A relog fixed it. Strange doings indeed.
  9. My answer to your question is a resounding "no". LL will not do anything to help inworld shop keepers. In fact, LL will not do anything, as a company, to help paying customers in general. They never have and they never will. The only people who LL will help are themselves. SL is all about profits for LL but the management doesn't have the knowledge to know how to do it effectively, so they alienate their customers in the process of trying to get more profits out of the SL system. Consequently, businesses close and the people leave. It doesn't matter in the slightest to LL though. It's a shame because SL users would like it if we were all pulling together - LL and users pulling together. But the only interest that the LL management has in its customers is how to milk them as much as possible and, if inworld businesses go to wall because of what LL does, as continues to happen, it's no skin off LL's nose because it's in their best interrests; i.e. more marketplace sales for them to get commissions from. So don't hold your breath waiting for LL to do anything for your inworld business - it won't happen.
  10. It's a great idea but a bad implementation of it. I tried to buy the bear when I heard about it but the order didn't go through. According to the email and order page, it didn't even get started. And I'm not the only one it happened to - there are several people in the MP comments saying exactly the same thing. No money was taken which, perhaps, is unfortunate since the bear itself is irrelevant.
  11. Luna Bliss wrote: Phil...yeah it can be a hard decision...when is any thing/person so corrupt or so troubling that you totally write them off. I would just hate to see you not do something you enjoy because of your bad experiences here. I didn't actually have any specific bad experiences with LL as such, althouth I'd consider their unscrupulousness with marketplace a bad experience if I weren't already in the process of closing, and their failure to provide paying customers with reasonable support would be another. I merely watched them do so many things against their own paying customers, many of which didn't affect me at all. Probably the biggest single thing was the homestead fiasco which cost people a lot of real money - entirely through LL's fault. It didn't cost me anything but that, along with many smaller things, turned me totally against LL and caused me not to want anything to do with them or with SL. The only reason I'm still trading is because I'm not stupid enough to turn off a flow of real money while it's still worth having. LL generates that sort of feeling in lots of people much of the time. I'm not an unusual case - many people have shut up shop and gone because of LL's doings. They know they do and they don't care that they do it.. As I've said many times in posts, there are some good Linden employees but the decision makers are incompetent to run Linden Lab and Second Life.
  12. Luna Bliss wrote: So get that stuff packaged up Phil ! Not me, Luna. LL's overall treatment of its paying customers was a big reason why I decided to close the store long before the marketplace arrived, and I've been letting the store run down ever since I made that decision. It's been a year and a half so far and it's still paying enough to make it worthwhile, so it's still open. In the last 6 months or so, I've seen LL's continual unscrupulous treatment of its paying customers concerning the marketplace, and I've posted about it, that's all. If the marketplace had never existed, it wouldn't have made any difference to me. I'm still going to close the store when it's no longer worth keeping open, because of LL's bad treatment of their paying customers over the years, and there's no way in the world that I'd let them have a cent more than is necessary - so they'll get no commissions on sales from me.
  13. In your OP you said that is only lasts a few seconds, which led to part of my post. But, since it lasts about a minute, it's almost certainly a temporary prim. It does sound like an object shooting a prim periodically. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't sound like a real problem - the prim can't be seen and the additional 1 to the prim count is irrelevant. I wonder how far away the white highlight can be seen when clicking the "Show" button after selecting a name in the objects list. If it can be seen from a fair distance, trying to spot it that way isn't totally out of the question even on a whole sim.
  14. It sounds like a non-temporary prim or a temporary prim that took a while to get there. Both can and do move onto neighboring land against the land settings. Until I abandoned 3/4 of the sim I'm in, the sim next to me was for combat (it's now for sale ). Non-temp prims would often come across from the combat stuff, and stay. The way of dealing with them was to set auto-return to 1 minute. Between me abandoning that side of the sim, and the combat sim going up for sale, some fired objects moved onto the abandoned land, and they are still there there (the auto-return was automatically turned off when I abandoned the land). If your prim is temporary, it would stay for around a minute and not just a few seconds, unless it takes most of the minute to move from its source to the parcel. You could try opening the About Land box and clicking on the owner when the prim shows, and quickly clicking the Show button. That will highlight it even if it's tiny and transparent. Of course, if the parcel is large, it could take some time to spot it but, with patience, you should eventually be able to find it. However, it doesn't sound like finding the prim will do any good. It's the source that needs to be found.
  15. Whilst the page we see is not the page/data that the GSA sees, I don't accept that a visible negative boost is not fed to the GSA. The visible boost may be what the GSA is fed, or it may be only a part of the boost that the GSA is fed. Either way, I don't accept that a visible negative boost doesn't have a negative impact on a page's rankings. Also, I don't accept that the skin seller didn't consider search rankings when writing the description, which is full of skin-based words. Yes, s/he is here just to sell skins and not to do seo, but rankings were certainly in mind when writing that description. I agree that it's possible to get a negative boost by accident but the lines have to be drawn somewhere. If the search team didn't draw any lines, then we would all be filling our pages with an enormous amount of keyword repetitions, just like we did until very recently, and the top rankings would be decided according to that. So accidents are bound to happen but it's better to have some accidents than to continue with the keyword repetition contests that we had. I also agree that it's very bad to have a system where pages' rankings can be negatively impacted by things that the parcels owners can't know, and it's particularly bad that parcel size has any impact at all.
  16. On this "starting an SL business for free" sub-topic:- I agree that there need be no, or precious little, cost to starting and succeeding with an SL business. On the whole, SL is a passtime for which time spent cannot be thought of as a cost in the way that real money is a cost. An SL business almost always starts as a hobby and the time spent doing it cannot be thought of as a cost, any more than time spent watching TV, fishing, etc. can be thought of as a cost. If an SL business becomes a serious earner, then perhaps time can be considered as being a cost. So SL is an excellent platform for starting and running a business for free, or for peanuts. However, when LL does things that make the time and effort put into the hobby business turn out to be wasted, then that time and effort is perceived as being a big cost to the business owner, very much like a financial cost. The marketplace is one such thing. It's not that the marketplace exists that's bad - it's a good addition to the overall SL experience. It's because LL try their very best to push all users to buy from the marketplace, at the literal expense of inworld businesses. Inworld business owners have put time and effort into their businesses, even though they are mostly just hobbies - that's one cost. Another cost is the loss of sales because of LL's unscrupulous behaviour towards their customers, by pulling the rug out from under inworld businesses (while still charging tier).
  17. Porky Gorky wrote: I agree Phil, and it makes me wonder exactly what sort of Muppets are running this show? Driving sales to SLM results in less traffic in-world which results in less requirement for commercially used land which results in less tier in LL's pocket. I've read plenty of posts and group comments from people who are closing down and dumping land. I've recently abandnoned 3/4 of the land I had due to deteriorating inworld sales. I abandoned it instead of selling it, specifically to prevent LL from getting any tier on it for quite some time, and I refuse to give LL one cent more than is necessary, so I've never used the marketplace and I never will. Ciaran mentioned earlier that the L$ commissions aren't real money to LL, which is true, but it translates to real money for them because L$ are taken out of circulation in those commissions which means more has to be bought for real money. The loss of tier since the marketplace rose up is great and, although I may be wrong, I can't imagine that the money generated through commissions gets anywhere close to covering the losses. So it seems to me that the people who make those decisions at LL really haven't a clue. But it's only to be expected, I suppose. On the whole, they don't have the competence to run the SL business, imo, so it's only to be expected.
  18. Mickey Vandeverre wrote: Even with some first page search slots, my traffic is as low as it ever has been, and I suspect that the redzone issue has something to do with that, because I'm doing the exact same things that I've always done. It's not the effect of redzone - it's the intentional effect of Linden Lab's unscrupulous practises. As we move through each new year, more and more active avatars were created in the new year and fewer and fewer were created in previous years; i.e. people don't stay in SL very long and the bulk of the active population is always the more recent;ly created accounts. LL has been pushing new people at the marketplace for quite a long time now. They push it in the website, on account dashboard pages, and in frequent emails. They push it everywhere they can (at the literal expense of inworld stores), never even mentioning inworld stores, and newer people are bound to be very influenced by that. As time goes by, the marketplace is becoming the normal place to shop for SL goods and inworld stores are becoming the abnormal way. It's LL's doing, and it's intentional. So I think it's a bit rich, to say the least, that a Linden suggests discussiing "Inworld Marketing and Advertising Best Practises" when they are doing their utmost to undermine all of it.
  19. The Soul Skin page has a negative boost and can't be expected to rank at the top for a search on "soul skin" (without quotes).
  20. Ciaran Laval wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Dartagan. What you wrote is more-or-less correct but don't you find it disheartening or annoying that the "platform" provider works hard at undermining your inworld business because they created a financial interest in people buying elsewhere? If LL have a need for more sinks, then yes the marketplace is the way to go and as Supply Linden sales were well down, it does seem that they need more sinks, but the marketplace is a means to indirect income for Linden Lab, it's not direct income as in land tier, they can't bank those commission fees, so it would seem to be a risky business to try and put too many of their eggs in the marketplace basket. So you don't mind LL selling you a product (land for your store) and then doing its best to undermine the business you set up on the land, while continuing to collect rent on it form you? I certainly mind such bad practises.
  21. You could write one - and publish it for free for the Kindle
  22. There's no reason to get rid of ranks, imo. The difference between New Resident and Resident prevents some bad stuff being posted, so that rank change is beneficial. Imo, the rest of it doesn't matter. If they don't want me to add my knowledge to the KB, it's fine with me - they can do without it
  23. I don't see any reason to get rid of the ranks and their benefits. If all users could do all the same things, then some things would have to be disallowed to prevent some types of badness; i.e. if a first-time user could post porn or stuff like that, then the forums would be worse off, either because that stuff would appear or because the facility to post it would be disabled. The difference between a New Resident and a Resident prevents new people from doing that sort of thing.
  24. I haven't had any problems with the traffic counts and I've cut and joined parcels very recently - a matter of days ago. So it's not an automatic thing as you described, Prokofy.
  25. Dartagan. What you wrote is more-or-less correct but don't you find it disheartening or annoying that the "platform" provider works hard at undermining your inworld business because they created a financial interest in people buying elsewhere? When I started my inworld business on this platform, and probably when you started yours, the platform owner wasn't in competition with me. But, since then, they've come out in direct competition with me and have been using their grossly unfair advantage to direct sales to their own website mall at my expense. Have a look at the website front page - logout first - and watch the movie. You wouldn't think there was anywhere else to shop except in their marketplace mall. I can evaluate the potential of opening a store in a mall (equivalent to this platform) and find no reason not to, so I open up. A little later I find that the mall owner has placed signs everywhere, suggesting that shoppers go to other places instead of mine, and yet the mall owner still collects rent from me. That's what happened here, so it's not exactly as you described.
×
×
  • Create New...