Phil Deakins

Ai Velde wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Ai Velde wrote: I'd understand if V2 holds a knife to your throat and threatens to decapitate your mother, but why can't you test it out? I know some of you are very hard to please but it wouldn't hurt you to at least give it a shot I have tried it out (V2) - more than once - and, by comparison to the V1, it's crap. Have they fixed the camera controls display yet? The last I heard, they hadn't done it, and I don't think they ever will - because they don't give a damn about users. Um...? Okay? But I wasn't starting a discussion anywhere relating to the userfriendly or unuserfriendly interface of V2? I was saying how it won't slit your mothers' throat and threaten to eat your dog if you use it for 5 minutes to try the new search. lol. wth In the part of your post that I quoted, you will see that you twice suggested trying it out. That's why I quoted that part of your post. If you re-read my response in light of that, you'll understand that what I wrote was nothing to do with your mothers and dogs comment.. The very first line of my response was, "I have tried it out (V2) - more than once - and, by comparison to the V1, it's crap." I would have thought it was clear enough.

The V2 has a couple of excellent features but there are so many things wrong with it that make so very bad. The cam controls display was the biggest single fault with it for me too and, until they sort it out, I won't use it. The trouble is they won't sort it out regardless of what users say, because they are not interested in actual users - except their money. The people who designed the V1 knew what they were doing (they had it up top, as we say) and they designed it to actually be used by people. But those who designed, and continue to design, the V2 didn't design it for users at all. Instead they designed it for looks, pure and simple. They have no concept of useability. In other words, they don't know what they're doing. They certainly don't have the wherewithal for good design. At least the decision makers don't. So I have no interest whatsoever in whatever they bring out for the V2 - not until they at least fix the camera controls, so that the viewer has at least some semblance of useability. It's odd that wotsisname blogged about useability today (or yesterday). I wonder where he gets his definition of it from

Ciaran Laval wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: I have tried it out (V2) - more than once - and, by comparison to the V1, it's crap. Have they fixed the camera controls display yet? The last I heard, they hadn't done it, and I don't think they ever will - because they don't give a damn about users. Pan and orbit are on different tabs and the controls are much better than when it was first released. It's the large size of the cam control's display that was always too big, PLUS, and this is very important, it's the lack of semi-transparency when not in focus too. Many people, including me, use the cam controls extensively, and we have them permanently on display. The V1 controls never got in the way because they were designed with users in mind - small and unobtrusive - but the V2 controls were designed for their looks and not for users. Has there been any progress along those lines? From what you said, it sounds like it's got worse instead of better.

LL are not trying to turn SL into a game-like environment. What they've been doing is trying to make it appeal to people who like the messaging environments, such as MySpace and Facebook, and games. They are younger people's environments although some older people also partake in them, and LL has tried to make SL *look" appealing to the younger people. Specifically, the V2 viewer and not in SL itself. The idea of being game-like isn't, and never was, seen as the future of SL. LL's hoped-for future has changed over time (along wiith all the people at LL) but in a different way. Initially, the SL-like enviroment was seen by LL as a serious internet future but, over time, it has changed to leaving SL more-or-less as it is and trying to get as much money as possible out of it while they can. The SL environment hasn't shown any signs of growing as a serious use of the internet - like websites did - so LL abandoned the work that they were doing in that direction. Now, all they are interested in is getting as much money as they can out of it, while they still can. That's not a criticism, btw. Any business should be doing that. I vehemently criticise some of the ways they go about it though.

Ai Velde wrote: I'd understand if V2 holds a knife to your throat and threatens to decapitate your mother, but why can't you test it out? I know some of you are very hard to please but it wouldn't hurt you to at least give it a shot I have tried it out (V2) - more than once - and, by comparison to the V1, it's crap. Have they fixed the camera controls display yet? The last I heard, they hadn't done it, and I don't think they ever will - because they don't give a damn about users.

Toysoldier Thor wrote: LOL.... and wont work effectively with LL SL Viewer 1.x nor all the other 3PV's until they decide to incorporate it. So a tool best used only with SL V2. Call me when 3PV vendors support it. Ditto (almost). Call me when 1.xx supports it.

Deltango Vale wrote: I'm curious (serious question)... What can Facebook do that SL can't? ETA: In other words, why not continue the migration from Yahoo Groups -> Myspace -> Facebook -> SL? Facebook, and its predecessors, fill(ed) an area of appeal that SL doesn't do. They are different kinds of "animals", and the quick messaging animal is what's popular. Young people thrive on what the mobile (cell) phone brought - messaging - and FB is in that area. Also, FB isn't continually trying to claw every penny it can out of its users, whereas that's exactly what LL does to its users. LL's "display names" was their attempt to attract FB type people, and it worked. Sign-ups were up a lot because of it. But then it failed, because concurrency didn't go up, so SL didn't appeal to many or most of those sign-ups - the people who find the messaging (FB) systems so good. With SL as it is, it's appeal is limited, and it doesn't include the minds that are attracted by the quick messaging systems like FB and Twitter.

Maybe they were waiting for rich-looking males to pass by so they could proposition them - and you don't look like a rich male

As above, and be prepared for LL to deny access to the account until they sort out who it belongs to. They can't allow access to the account by anyone until that's done, because the person who claims the account was stolen may actually be trying to steal it.

How did you see the listings if they were delisted?

Ominora Squeegee wrote: Some of my stuff got removed for not "being in the right catagory" well then all the other stuff that was simular to my stuff should be removed to. Flag them then. LL staff don't check. They rely on users to use the flag system. I looked up stuff like mine to make sure i had it in the right catagory. That's not a good way of deciding on the category because it relies on other people putting things in the right categories, and LL doesn't check them. i put it in pet supplies, caz thats what it is. it dont have a special cata for cat beds or such..so why'd my stuff get booted? It sounds like a bed for cats belongs in the pet supplies category, unless there's a more precise category that suits it. Have you queried the delisting. If not, you should.

What on earth is an amaretto eye sign?

Luna Bliss wrote: I just want you to concede that things cannot be so neatly categorized as you want them to be. lol. I'll certainly concede that, if only because LL are highly unlikely to have considered everything and created suitable categories for everything. I never implied that there aren't any grey areas. I just wanted to see one (or two) so that I can be content that they exist. Before you posted an example in this thread, one person said there are grey areas but, when I asked for an example, none were forthcoming. The only other person was Mickey, who prefers to be secretive for whatever reason. I imagined the rock to be primarily just a rock with the facility of rezzing things and animating as and when needed, but most of the time just a rock - like a bed is a primarily a bed, although they can often do other things than being just a bed. If the rock's primary function is to rez things, then alright, perhaps it belongs elsewhere, but, if it's primary function is to be a rock in the ground, then, imo, it would belong in the category I mentioned.

I can't imagine why a flower would rez a skybox but, if the flower isn't designed just to be a decorative flower (like the rock is designed just to be a rock, albeit with extras, like beds), but is designed *for* its skybox function, then I'd say it belongs in the skybox category. If the flower rezzes a garden, and that's its function, then it would belong in a garden category, imo.

Hi Luna. From your description, the category that looks perfect for the rock is "Home and Garden > Landscaping". If it gets flagged, then either the flagger got it wrong and it won't (shouldn't) be delisted, or the flagger got it right and it will be delisted, in which case, the system includes the facility to query the delisting. It doesn't look like a grey area to me, and I'd be amazed if got delisted from that category IF the Linden does what we are told they do, and look at the flagged item individually. It's a rock for the land/garden - a very versatile rock but a rock just the same. The fact that it can rez things and contains animations is irrelevant to my way of thinking. It's a rock I did consider the "Home and Garden > Other home and garden" category but it's a rock for the ground so I decided against it.

Polenth Yue wrote: My issue with no-build zones is there's no discretion. In my area, the Chilbo tree reaches up to 300m, so would be banned. There's a solar system floating in the cloud layer on the next sim. That would be banned. The two really ugly builds next to me that reach 250-270m might also be banned, but I'll put up with those in order to keep the tree and the solar system. It's fair to say that a good neighbour should try to make their lower builds look as good as they can. The mid-ranges are best for junky builds like building platforms (I say mid-ranges, because max build height is also often used for pretty public builds). But setting a fixed no-build zone will kill a lot of good stuff along with the bad. It also wouldn't help the original poster... her ugly skybox neighbours are indeed ugly, but they're not in the 300-400m range. The ones I landed on were: 135, 193 and 200. Setting a no-build zone that low would kill many multi-story buildings and anyone putting in a weather system. The real issue isn't height, but that her neighbours haven't considered how ugly the builds look from the outside. Alright, so how about a no-build zone unless the builds are grounded? Such a zone/band would only need to be below the clouds. Space above the clouds would be normal.

Dagmar Heideman wrote: There was nothing ever particularly helpful about camping. Getting the equivalent of a RL penny for sitting around for an hour is and as a waste of time, and depending on where you live, what kind of computer you use, and how you normally would otherwise utilize your computer, it can actually be a net loss in income. Many if not most campers were oblivious to this fact back when camping without restriction was allowed. I disagree. Camping was very useful for many people. If the computer was going to be on anyway, for whatever reason, camping allowed the earning of small amounts of money in the background. Also, camping allowed people to do other SL things, as Qie mentioned. And if a person was logged in and doing something that didn't require moving around, camping allowed the person to earn a bit of money while they did it; e.g. if I'm going to spend time sorting my inventory, I might as well get some camping money while I'm doing it. Or, if we are going to just stand here chatting for ages, let's camp together and earn a bit at the same time. It may well be that leaving a computer on solely for the av to camp (e.g. overnight) was a financial loss for some people, but I don't think that most camping was done like that.

I've seen that system before. I camped in it once but the boundaries weren't clear and I didn't feel safe moving around very much Another place I camped operated a system where you had to stay in the sim - an island - so, unless you TPed out, your presence counted. It was a good payer too - 3L/10 mins - so there were always people waiting for campers' times to be up (limited session length).

Mickey Vandeverre wrote: Troll. I haven't written anything remotely trollish, Mickey. I'm genuinely interested to see an item that doesn't properly fit into an existing catagory - a grey area. You claim to have one or more such items and, since they are public (for sale) you ought to be able to show them. It's all very well criticising the system as strongly as you do but, to be taken seriously, you need to show evidence and you are continually reluctant to do that. The way it appears is that you get annoyed when one of your items is delisted because you were personally affected, but you won't say what the item was and where where it was delisted from. There isn't much point in complaining if you won't show what you're complaining about - except when it's just LL bashing for the sake of it, of course.

Avs drop out of the All search after a surprisingly short length of time without logging in - very few weeks. I had a similar situation not too long ago. A 512 just sat there doing nothing. I IMed and NCed the owner a couple of times, asking if he wanted to sell it, with a few month between each time. I received no reply at all and I thought he may have gone from SL. My land completetly surrounded the 512, so I submitted a ticket to ask if I can buy it IF the owner is gone from SL. It turned out that the owner's account was still active so I couldn't get it, of course.

You are right that campers may see the owners as breaking LL's rules so campers may break the owners' rules without giving it a second thought, but I'm inclined to disagree. From my limited experience of camping (in my store) most campers don't know LL's rules concerning it. Maybe only the odd few know the rules. So, imo, perhaps the odd few do think the way you suggested, Qie, but that's all.

My system also has a question/anti-bot system but bots weren't the problem for me.

Marcus Hancroft wrote: I never understood camping. A linden or two for just sitting there? NOT for me. I just buy the lindens as I need them. I have much better things to do than sit around in someone else's store for hours on end trying to earn a few little lindens. It seems ridiculous to ME. Some people made long-lasting friends through chatting while camping. Some people used to leave their avs camping while they did RL stuff. Some people used the time to sort their inventories. All of them got a bit of money for nothing and, from that side of things, it was good for SL in general. I always had a business so I never needed camping money but there were times when I camped - when I went out to lunch sometimes. After all, never look a gift $L in the mouth The best camping I ever came across was one that paid 1L/5 minutes. It was a dance pad in a club where a friend of mine worked. If I was going to be there, I might as well get the free money. The sim crashed while I was camping there, and it crashed in such a way that the camping system kept on paying me every 5 minutes. I did everything i could to stop it but I couldn't. Logging out didn't stop it. I even went to bed for the night with the computer turned off and when I logged in the next day, I found that it had been paying all night and it was still paying me. The owner had tried everything he could to stop it but he couldn't. I think the solution was a sim restart.

lol Tiffy. I used to stand in the store a lot in case anyone needed any help. I'd stopped doing that but setting up camping gave me a reason to do it again. I wasn't there all the time, of course, but I was there quite a bit. I made a few friends while there and had some pleasant chats.

Marcus Hancroft wrote: Howdy, Phil. I'm curious how on earth you found out that it was the same person sitting in 5 of your chairs at the same time? Was it different account names? Did he just up and tell you he had 5 alts inworld at the same time sitting on your camp chairs? How do you know it was the same person leaving and coming directly back with a different avatar to continue using your camp chairs? It almost sounds like RedZone. /me shudders I knew he was using 5 chairs because he admitted it. The way I'd check for multi-avs is to look at profiles. When I saw a fair degree of similarity, I thought there was a good chance of them being the same person. After unsuccessfully trying to get a verbal response from the first one, I started to unseat those 5 with maybe a minute between each one. They didn't resit - they just stood there for a while and then poofed. The 5th one talked and admitted they were all his avs. I used the same unreliable method to spot avs returning immediately after the previous av had used a full session - one out, one in can be coincidence, of course, but the timing made me curious. In those cases I talked to the 2nd av and ascertained that they were one person. There were only a few, but the fact that people did it , and some people occupied more than one chair simultaneously, meant that I grew to distrust people on the chairs - so much that I eventually turned them off.