Suella Ember

Not sure why you are experiencing that, but as an alternative, try copying and pasting those SLURLs into in-world chat, then clicking on them from chat. Both those examples you pasted work for me.

Pickle Soup wrote: Was just browsing the new Marketplace and i saw some half stars! Yay. Thanks Torley. =^.^= Oh cool! Well spotted I'm sure kudos are you to the Commerce Team too for addressing this quickly. I'm not sure how long this has been there, but I also noticed that, if you go to the reviews tab on an actual listing, there is a distribution display for how the ratings have been assigned. You have to click the little down arrow next to 'Distribution' though. Would be great if this was immediately on display without the need to expand it.

Hey George! Unfortunately no, there is no option to just rate an item. You have to leave a review (at least i'm pretty certain that is the case anyway). It's a tricky one and I see where you are coming from but, overall, I'm happier that people are forced to write a review. It means there is some accountability and goes some way to stopping competitors / griefers from just leaving a bad rating with no comment as to why they gave a bad rating. Ok sure, it doesn't completely solve that problem, but its a step in the right direction. If somone leaves a bad rating at least they now have to back it up with words. Of course, someone could still just put "trash" as a title and "i hate this item" as a review, but shoppers are savvy enough to see past such things and will take heed of constructive reviews. The other thing i like is that merchants can comment on all reviews. So if someone does leave a bad review a merchant has a chance to address that bad review. The problem, as I see it, is that there is no easy way to quickly see all un-rated \ un-reviewed items like there was on Xstreet. If we could easily see all un-reviewed items in a quick list / thumbnail view it would be easier to write a quick review (and ideally be returned to that list when submitting the review). The other major problem is that, as the easiest way to currently access un-reviewed items is from our order history, once we do review an item it still remains in our order history with a 'review this item' link (you cant actually review it again though). This makes it very unclear as to what you have and haven't reviewed though and I can see people not bothering to review more for this reason. Having to leave a review i'm happy with, but there needs to be a way to see just un-reviewed items more quickly.

I guess some people here have missed the highlighted parts then? In order to focus our resources on integrating that technology to Second Life, and to minimize the confusion between the Second Life and Avatars United brands, we will be taking down Avatars United, on September 29th, 2010. We will roll out new Resident Profiles in the coming months -- including the option to share more about your inworld identity and infused with social networking functionality -- all under the Second Life banner. The most “back to basics” building blocks of Second Life -- the heart of what makes Second Life so special -- is you, and we’re committed to using the Avatars United technology to help you build richer communities and create stronger, more dynamic relationships with each other Seems to make perfect sense to me if done right. Having AU completely separate from SL was pointless. Taking the best of it to improve and expand the social aspects of SL makes perfect sense.

Pickle Soup wrote: Laroelle MacMoragh wrote: So one person with a hard on for trashing what a majority of other users rate as a five could effectively bring down a nice item to a one star rating. I don't think it's as bad as that. If a rating has a ton of 5 stars, and one person rates it a 1 star, i think it would still read as 4 stars - because the way it is now it rounds down... even if it's 4.9999999999999999, it will still round down to an even 4 stars. Yep, Pickle is correct. Effectively someone could, at present, drag a genuine 5 star review down to a 4 star with one 'griefer' vote. They couldn't drag it down to a 1 star overall though (not without a huge army of alts and a lot of money spent, and they'd almost certainly get caught doing that!) Anyway - the good news is that LL have it on their radar and when we get half stars and (hopefully) some nice distribution information too, it will be easy to see what people genuinely think of a product. If we can easily see the distribution and see, for example, that an item with 4.5 stars overall has fifty 5 star reviews, ten 4 star reviews and one 1 star review, it's pretty easy to deduce that the 1 star review was probably just to grief and can be ignored. Oh and Torley - if you happen to still be reading this, I noticed another typo on the Marketplace/Sellers FAQ: One of the first questions is 'How do i add a new item to the Marketplace' and the link underneath says 'Quick the question to learn how' rather than 'click the question to learn how'

It's on the viewer directory so yes (even though it's not strictly a viewer!) http://viewerdirectory.secondlife.com/listing/show/listing_id/171 However, I believe the link you have is an old link as they had to change the name to Stored Inventory due to SL copyright issues, so use the link from the viewer directory to the 'stored inventory' website. For the record (before anyone asks!) this system is not a cobybot tool and restricts the exporting of content to content CREATED by the user only (as per the TPV policy requirements and as noted on the stored inventory website).

For info. Torley has added this comment to the marketplace wiki: Why don't ratings show partial stars like the old Xstreet? Showing partial stars is on our to-do list (as of 2010-10-20), and showing the actual, raw, numerical rating value. We've extensively studied other ecommerce sites to understand best practices for stars and ratings.

Blondie Armendariz wrote: Are those who sell the Nike getting permission to do so, or just hoping they don't get caught? Possibly the former, most likely the latter. If they don't have permission and Nike decide to shout, they will likely find themselves in trouble! Blondie Armendariz wrote: What is the official rule? The rule is in line with DMCA. Steal copyrighted content and suffer the consequences (which could be a ban from SL and even, in extreme cases, RL legal action). Blondie Armendariz wrote: I figured out how to make paintings for the walls in my house. Can I put anything I want up, or does it have to be an original work? Technically speaking, you can put whatever you like up, but if you are knowingly using copyrighted content, you may want to consider the potential implications of doing so.

Ok, so I just managed to ask brodesky Linden about this and he kindly replied (yeah, yeah "FIC!" etc - just be grateful I got a decent answer to give here! ) Apparently it is on their list to show partial stars and actual ratings. They have done an analysis of lots of other sites to try to come up with the best way of doing things. I get the impression they are considering something along the lines of what Amazon does: I'm not saying this is definitely what we will get so please don't take it as gospel, but that seems to be where brodesky was leaning. It's also on their backlog of things to do so I guess we can safely assume it won't be tomorrow we have this. It's good to hear that they are thinking along these lines though. Looks like, for now, we have to put up with what we have, but that we should get a much better solution at some point in the future.

Yoki Enoch wrote: Hi Suella: There is no need to take exception to my observation. That is just what it was: an observation. Your math is perfect in your analysis. It all depends on whether LL staff can understand that rounding down is not of benefit to SL merchants. I meant I'd take exception to LL's method of calculating an 'average' if they were rounding it incorrectly Judging by the evidence so far I'd say that what would happen in the example you gave (a gazillion 5 stars and one 1 star) it would get an overall rating of 4 stars, because it seems to be rounding down to the nearest whole number. (I'm not gonna attempt the maths, but a gazillion 5 stars and one 1 star would probably have a mean value of something like 4.9999999999999999999 ). If that's what it is doing, then I think they need to fix it to round exactly to the nearest whole number. If the mean is 4.51 or higher then it should get 5 stars. If the mean is 4.49 or lower then it should get 4 stars (don't ask me what it does for a 4.5 exact - I guess they can just make a judgement on whether it rounds up or down!) I may be missing something though. Hopefully there is an official answer on this somewhere. /me goes off to try and search the JIRA!

Pickle Soup wrote: I'll give you another example. One of my my items has 6 ratings; 4 - 5 star ratings, and 2 - 4 star ratings... yet it's final rating is 4 stars. So it would seem that Athena may be correct. So it seems to be that you could have 5000 - 5 star ratings, but because no half stars exist, if 1 person gives it a 4 star rating, the final rating will, in fact, say 4 stars. Interesting! Maybe it is rounding down to the nearest whole number. That should be a 5 star rating if they are using the mean. 5+5+5+5+4+4=28 28 / 6 = 4.66 (recurring) - so that should round to the nearest whole number, which is 5. Gonna see if I can find an official answer to this somewhere!

Yoki Enoch wrote: Athena Mornington wrote: There are no more half stars or partially filled stars showing a true average of ratings in the SL Marketplace. Even if a seller has an item with a zillion 5's and just one 4, the rating shows up as a 4. It was reported by the sellers but it doesn't seem to be something that will be changing. So, by that logic, if one had a gazillion 5 star ratings, and just one, 1 star rating, the overall rating would be 3 ? Let us hope not for the sake of the merchants. Indeed. I'd certainly take exception to that, despite being a 'cheerleader' (which I'm not, I'm just constructive, but you've called me a cheerleader before ) Although even if this is the case I'll still try to discuss it constructively and get some logical answer from LL rather than having a pointless rant about it! I'll have to do a bit of digging round in the commerce forums and stuff I guess to see if there is a definite answer to this. I don't particularly have a problem with it rounding to the nearest whole number, but it needs to be rounding correctly based on the mean. In other words, if an item has ten ratings, nine of them 5 stars and one of then 1 star as follows, then the mean would be 4.6 which should give it an overall rating rounded up to 5 stars: 5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+1 = 46 46 / 10 = 4.6 (rounded up to the nearest whole number = 5 stars)

Athena Mornington wrote: There are no more half stars or partially filled stars showing a true average of ratings in the SL Marketplace. Even if a seller has an item with a zillion 5's and just one 4, the rating shows up as a 4. It was reported by the sellers but it doesn't seem to be something that will be changing. Are you sure that is correct? I haven't looked into it deeply myself, but my understanding is that, in your example, the item would have 5 stars. I think it still takes an average, but rounds that average to the closest number of full stars which, in this case, would be 5 stars. It would only have a rating of 4 stars if more people giave it 4 than 5. I stand to be corrected though if someone can show me this is not the case?

All I have to say is - Sextan ... you rock and are a real credit to SL! The work you do on creating attractions like Nemo is amazing. No drama ... no fuss ... just great building!

Of course you all posted the economy is stable..what else would we expect you to post? Nice how you all are going to leave out the user to user transactions...because that would REALLY show how unstable the business world is in SL. Actually, all user-to-user transactions really shows is money going round and round in circles in the economy. It tells us little to nothing about the state of LL as a company. The important thing is how much money people are putting into SL versus how much they are taking out and, while we don't have exact figures on that, from the stats above it actually looks a lot better than I thought it might. Still - as Raul alluded to earlier, I'm sure all the doom mongers will find a way to pick the figures apart to make it fit their belief that the sky is falling! If the sky really were falling, there would be no way to hide it in the figures. It would be obvious. The sky isn't falling though and, as I have always suspected, SL and LL are doing well despite some bumps in the road!

Excellently put Jini and wise words for Kim to consider. I would just add thought that I think it's folly to completely ignore the forums. You are right to say it can be a bit like 'lobbyists' with personal agendas out in the forums sometimes, but there is also a lot of well though-out, constructive debate to be found too (just takes a bit of filtering!) However, I think it is also very fair to say that the people who post here on the forums are but a small fraction of the overall community and, to get truly representative opinions, fact gathering and talking to a wide variety of residents in-world is required. This is a bit of a tangent, but relevant ... one thing I would love to see is some way for LL to deliver polls, surveys, questions etc directly to people in-world. A means for some sort of pop-up to be sent to people in their viewer asking them to complete some sort of poll or survey. And before people complain about spam - it could be opt in through preferences! I think it would be a great way to get a more representative view of people in-world.

Welcome to the mad house Kim :-) It's generally a good mad house though - you know ... like the funny, cool mad people as opposed to the scary, dangerous mad people (although there are probably one or two of those too!)

wiked Anton wrote: hehehe...nice save on the name thing .BTw, but doesnt ETA mean estimated time of arrival? ETA = Edited To Add :-) But it highlights very nicely the problem of cultural differences in the use of language and words when it comes to something global like SL, which is why I fell into the trap of making a rash assumption about Jackie's name! Anyway - glad you can now save transparencies as .png and have fun creating! :-)

Yep, as Jackie says, I would recommend you save as .png. Simply save the file as a .png and upload it to SL and the background should be transparent. It's a lot easier to work with .png than playing around with alpha channels. ETA: You know what. I should probably just ignore this but having just payed proper attention to Jackie's name I'm a little gobsmacked! I think you need to consider whether that is a suitable name Jackie before you get AR'd for it! 2nd ETA: And apolgies for further derailment but I felt I ought to add this having just checked something. It appears that Jackie may be Dutch and that 'depakie' may be a legitimate Dutch name, so I apologise for making assumptions. It really doesn't translate too well though!

You should be able to copy the Windlight folder form the Emerald installation to the LL one. I only have windows and for that you would go to c:\program files\emerald viewer\app_settings and then copy the whole of the 'windlight' folder to c:\program files\second life\app_settings and replace the existing windlight folder. Not quite sure how those folder paths translate to Mac though. Incidentally, I assume you are aware of the 'Emeraldgate' drama? If not you might want to read this: http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2010/08/emerald-third-party-viewer-removed.html and listen to the audio linked here: http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2010/08/emerald-on-treet-tv.html I'm not saying you should not use Emerald, but you might want to consider the evidence and make a choice about whether you want to continue using Emerald at present. I'd avoid the forum drama over it and come to your own conclusions based on the facts :-)

Ctrl+Shift+G does indeed open up the 'My Groups' in the sidebar on my Windows PC. However, I am using the latest Kirsten's viewer. That is based on the 2.1 code though so i'm assuming its the same for the official 2.1. Hopefully someone using the official 2.1 will be along shortly to confirm!

I think all those other groups are still in violation, it's just that for whatever reason LL haven't got around to addressing them yet. There's lots of info. here about what you can and can't do with SL trademarks: http://secondlife.com/corporate/brand/trademark/

2.1.1 released and apparently fixes the problem with crashing at login (the NetBios issue of JIRA VWR-20074) amongst a number of other things. Details and download here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Release_Notes/Second_Life_Beta_Viewer/2.1.1

Wallace Wirefly wrote: Hello J.J. Found this nice article about what you are asking. Give it a try and see if it answers your question. http://analutetia.com/2009/06/22/anatomy-of-lag/ I was gonna post this link but I see you beat me to it Wallace :-) It's a great article and I really would urge anyone concerned about lag to read it - it does a great job of dispelling some of the myths that get propogated about lag

For info regarding the NetBIOS issue causing crashes at logon. Yoz Linden has updated the JIRA with this comment: Yoz Linden added a comment - 05/Aug/10 12:11 AM Fixed in 2.1.1, which will be available Real Soon Now. Many thanks to everyone who contributed information on this one!