Jump to content

Tari Landar

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tari Landar

  1. I may be wrong (and I probably am), but if I remember correctly, the vast majority of photos LL uses for promotional material (website banners, mostly) are those submitted by residents through the "official second life photos" group on flickr. There is always a name on the photo stating who made/submitted it (like in that pic, it's by Scar Requiem). I think the photos used on the MP main banner (in this case men's winter fashion) merely sport some resemblance/relation to the topic at hand. I happen to like that particular banner on the MP, because of the frequency at which it is changed (relevance being what it is), and the diversity of "chosen ones"(so to speak) that are displayed, versus the main SL website which tends to show pics taken by a very small handful of the same people that have had their pics displayed ad nauseum on the website for the last decade or so, lol. (that's just me being catty though, I'm certain they are all fantastic people and their pics can be pretty nice too...I'm just a huge fan of diversity and spreading the love, not same old same old from the same folks all the time)
  2. I don't (didn't?) intend to post to the forums too much on any topic other than MP anymore, but.....this is a very good subject. IT"s also one in which I, a person who met their rl love "on the intrnet", so, it appeals to me from that point as well. Though, truth be told, it's always been an intriguing topic for me That's my medium winded way of saying "good topic, thanks" I think that, like some of the other questions, this is 100% an individual decision, though it is one that some make a valiant effort at forcing opinions on (Towards?) others. BY that I merely mean that some people seem to believe their opinion is universal, and it's very difficult for them not to do so. Me, I don't think that way. While i do greatly appreciate honesty, I don't necessarily believe that not telling people this information is dishonest, at least, not always. I am of the camp that believes most people are as honest as they feel necessary, as honest as they are comfortable with, and try to respect that others are doing the same. What can muddy up those waters are these infuriating things we call emotions. Emotions can throw a wrench into the best laid plans, and has a tendency to do so with a seemingly endless supply of fury, at times. That's where, I think, a meeting of the minds can be difficult. I personally expect that people will give me whatever information they want me to have, when they want me to have it....and I am 100% okay with that. By the same token though, I can understand how a person's emotions, feelings, beliefs, may supersede the desires of another. That's my long winded way f saying i know that some people can easily seem, feel, or even be hurt by another not sharing enough information...but I don't necessarily think that they are always in the right on that matter. I don't personally take the stance of "people who omit certain information are doing so to be malicious". It is perfectly acceptable to both omit, and to share......it just might be difficult for some to find another who is on the same wavelength. It's doable, just difficult, for some. I think everything needs to be conveyed, discussed, expressed, in due time. Potential partners is not the same thing as actual partners, and therefore during the potential phase, it very well may no be "due time". I do think that couples, or groups in the case of poly relationships, should discuss things with one another when, and where, most comfortable (or, in some cases...just take the leap, comfort be damned). For casual relationships with people, it might be more than adequate, while for more intimate (which, of course, does not always mean a sexual relationship) it might not be adequate enough. Making connections with people can be hard, especially so for some people, which can offer further proof that a more guarded nature is necessary for those people. Walls often get put up both to hold things in, and keep things out, and I respect both of those things. Also, humans are subject to change their minds at the drop of a hat, in the blink of an eye, whenever it suits their fancy. So, those things being in a profile may not mean the same as they did the day they were typed. That depends on what you want out of the relationship with someone. If their rl details matter a lot to you, but they have no desire to share them....how far forward are you going to move? I have some friends in sl that I know barely anything in rl about, and I"m perfectly okay with that. Some of them know far more about my rl, and they're okay with that. In some cases we know equal amounts, in some we know varying amounts....as long as we're comfy, it's all good. To be honest, I don't think this has changed, except to say that maybe there are more people in sl today. I can't say that the percentage of people more interested in interpersonal or intimate relationships has necessarily gone up. I think the human desire to connect with people will exist regardless of where those people are...at least for many people. For others that desire doesn't exist at all, anywhere they go, and that probably hasn't changed over the years either. Humans are humans, after all, and we're a pretty fickle and vastly varied species. For me personally, no, it's not, it's a virtual platform, a universe in which I Am left to my own devices.....some I've made good use of, and some I've not. For others, it very much is a game, and I don't judge anyone, harshly or otherwise, based on their opinion of "what sl is". Everyone makes it for themselves, there is no debate to be had on that matter, imo. I know it's often debated anyway, but i find it a ridiculous reason to debate and a waste of grey matter functions too. I think sl doesn't get nearly enough promotion, anywhere, and the residents tend to do the bulk of promoting. I see no real reason NOT to promote sl as a dating site, because it very much can be. It can also be a a myriad of other things too. LL should grab hold of that myriad and make betterse of promotion in general...the residents already have a good handle on how to promote it, based on what it is to them. It's LL that doesn't seem to understand what sl is to residents here, or even their own company. The only rule that I think applies, or should, both spoken and unspoken, is that behind every avatar is a human being. That is both the beginning and end of that, because the very basics of how we should treat other human beings, how we should be treated, applies. Everything else that might be mentioned, is up to those in relationships, or wanting to be (regardless of the kind of relationship). The TOS has always been and will always be, to cover LL's ass. It's actually kind of the point of all TOS (and their various variants). While many may say "but it's also to cover your's too", that's a falsehood, those things, like rules. are never really for protection, they aren't proactive, they are reactive, similar to laws....they merely dictate how things are handled when "X" is accomplished, done, said, whatever.....I don't believe they inherently promote lying, necessarily, but do they allow for it? Of course they do, all laws, rules, regulations, whatever have you, allow room for such. It's why they can't really be seen as proactive or preventative, and are merely reactive in nature. For this one i refer back to my spoken and unspoken rule...about us all being human beings. Now whether or not everyone wants to apply that, and thereby apply social norms, conventions and customs, is an individual choice....there is no universal answer. For me, those things come into play all the time, not just in sl, but life in general. I do my best to treat human beings like human beings, and try to treat them like i want to be treated. I may not always succeed (from others' point of view or even my own), but I make a valiant effort, as I believe most people probably do. The same way we do life in general. Some days we're probably more successful than others, but, like myself, I think most make a valiant effort, no matter how often, or how terribly, we may stumble now and then. There are always going to be differing views on everything, and what sl is to people is absolutely no exception to that rule. A meeting of the minds doesn't have to mean 100% agreement on all facets, it merely means we do our best to come together somewhere in the middle of it all.
  3. I bolded the part in my actual answer, which answers that question quite nicely. The word specifically qualifies it, because when you buy ad services from other vendors, you ARE specifically paying for that, it is part of the package, it is discussed/mentioned/whatever, sometimes ad nauseum, in the agreement and/or fine print of that service offering. The enhanced listing offerings from LL don't get that specific, and that is how I know you aren't specifically paying for that experience. I never said it's not the experience people get, (end users) or buy (merchants), I used the word specifically for a reason, because it tied into the other questions and answers about just wat kind of service LL offers in enheanced listings. AND yes, you could've fooled me that we were on the same page, since you argued against most of what I said, that's not the same page, at all, lol.
  4. You seem to be mixing both the end user (the viewer of the ads) and the merchant (the person paying for the ads) experiences together in your replies and expecting a universal answer to your questions. I'll try to address them each. But first...the end user experience with ads is that they see them. That is both the beginning and the end of the user/viewer's experience, like I already stated. There is nothing TO their experience beyond that, there is no expectations f understanding the mechanics, or even understanding the experience of the merchant paying for the ad (which is NOT the same as the end user/viewer...they truly are separate). End users see ads, the end users aren't paying for ANY ad experience, they simply receive one (a very limited one). When I said that people are specifically paying for that experience, I am discussing the MERCHANT experience. When you purchase advertising methods from a vendor, in MOST cases, you are paying for a specific experience that includes a certain number of impressions and nearly always includes specifics (though it's often times in the fine print no one ever wants to read, lol) about repeated ads over the course of X amount of time or uses some other mode of measure (some even include things like per user, etc..). Where I get the idea that you aren't paying for "that ad experience on MP", is that...you're not. The ad experience (for merchants) doesn't get that specific. Of course you won't see anything from LL indicating that. Why on earth would they say "yes, we don't use the same methods other advertising vendors use", that wild be stupid of them. No advertising vendor would ever do that, it would be stupid of them to do it too, lol. No, it wasn't, but that was your interpretation of what I said....it just doesn't match up with what I was trying to convey. I know how the algorithm DOESN'T work, which is what my entire reply, well, nearly all of them really, is about. You don't need to know the exact things involved to know that some things aren't. It's not a vague way of explaining anything. LL doesn't include unique impressions, end of. Other advertising vendors do, because they realize this should play a much bigger role in advertising methods than it has in the past. There's nothing complicated about that part, lol. See the above. Yes, it is VERY much an antiquated method to not include anything that is commonplace in advertising methods today. And, like I said, other websites that may also use outdated methods (and yes, some of them ARE outdated), doesn't make it a good idea. My point on that stands regardless of the topic, lol. Monkey see monkey do isn't always the best option. The fact that LL doesn't utilize them in the algorithm at all and doesn't report them at all (and they don't, because if they did, they'd have to state it, even if it's in the fine print, so to speak, and...it would be on the report, lol) doesn't follow current advertising methods offered by MOST advertising vendors. That's also kind of obvious. This is where you're totally mixing up the merchant and end user experiences, and they can't be mixed like that. No, you cannot track the search and spending habits of individuals, or base your advertisement off that. That is NOT how enhanced listings on the MP work, at all. I don't know if you are, but you might be thinking of the advertising off on the sides of the page (which isn't actually SL related at all, or controlled by LL at all, they is advertising THEY pay for, from another vendor, lol). The enhanced listings are just that, enhanced listings, they are NOT specific to the end user, or that person's experience (including spending and search habits). Enhanced listings, regardless of where the merchant chooses to put it (main page of the MP, top page of a category) is NOT targeted marketing, they do not work that way, at all. Enhanced listings are based entirely on the category the merchant puts it in, there is nothing more specific to it than that. When you buy enhanced listings you are paying for impressions only, and that your chosen item is seen at the top of (insert whatever category you choose). You're not buying targeted marketing, it doesn't play a role in enhanced listings. It's not part of the algorithm, because it's not that KIND of advertising. The fact that you see things in enhanced listings similar to things you've bought is more coincidence than it is intentional, unless of course you're seeing those enhanced listings on a page other than the home page. If you're seeing them in, for example, women's dresses...and you've bought women's dresses before, you're not seeing the enhanced listing because you've purchased women's dresses before. You're seeing the enhanced listing there because that is where those merchants placed their enhanced listing...because it's a woman's dress, lol. It has nothing to do with your personal experience as an end user, except that you happened to go to the category where such an enhancement has been purchased. Targeted marketing is a commonplace thing that merchants pay for when buying advertising methods today. Take ad sense, for example, that uses targeted marketing algorithms to follow your search, spending and web viewing habits to cater the ads you see on websites that have ad sense advertising (most of the time, not always, you'll still see unrelated ads, lol) to those categories of things. So, for example, let's say I do a lot of reading, or searching about gardening....When I go to websites that have advertising (assuming I don't use ad blockers), the ads I will see on the page (in the margins typically, but not always) may very well be garden related. Why? Because that's how targeted marketing works, and it uses various different algorithms to determine the best places, times and to which users, to advertise a merchant's purchased ad. The MP doesn't use that kind of advertising, because listing enhancements don't work that way, they aren't targeted. The lack of targeted marketing methods is one, pretty specific and pretty big, way that the MP method for offering listing enhancements (ie advertising) is an outdated method. Before targeted marketing was perfected (to where we are today with it), all advertising methods functioned without it.
  5. I never said they aren't category specific, lmao. The enhanced listings are precisely where the merchant chooses for them to be by selecting the category. I have no idea where you got that idea in anything I posted, because I didn't say anything of the sort, lol. Enhancements aren't just arbitrarily tossed on top of a category at a whim, the merchant has to pick where it goes. You have homepage listings, which will show up on the main page of the MP. Then we have top category enhancements, which show up on the "home" or "top" page of a category. (I honestly have no idea what you're on about that part at all, it makes no sense to me, whatsoever, because I didn't even mention that, anywhere as being a problem). The ads you see on many websites, when you see the same ad repeatedly...is by design (and also often includes multiple impressions of the same, or very similar ad...people are specifically paying for THAT ad experience (the people paying for the ad. You, the viewer, get no say...unless you block ads, lol). I never said showing it only once to a person is effective-unique impressions are important though, they SHOULD play a very big role in things and SHOULD exist in the algorithm, but often don't...and yes THAT is an outdated methodology. Just because other companies, websites, programming...use that method too, doesn't make it a good idea. However, using tech that shows the ad to the person PAYING for it, is ineffective, ridiculous, a waste of money, and, well, friggen stupid (and by today's standards, not a current method, most algorithms account for that). People shouldn't be seeing their own ads on the MP. I answered Prok when it was said that my experience of seeing the same ad multiple times per session was not universal. It very much IS universal and not just my experience, it's by design, it's how the bit of code works. The main problem with it is that unique impressions play almost no role whatsoever, which, again, is not a current standard. Also, I never stated that seeing the same ad multiple times is necessarily a problem in and of itself. For the MP and how very small it actually is (compared to the vast majority of other websites that tend to all utilize a similar if not the same ad services, and I'm speaking both of "size" and also target audience/user base), this CAN prove to be problematic for some merchants who may take ages to get their enhanced listings seen by anyone at all, much less their target audience. The MP isn't the same as many other websites, in that it needs some unique things, code, programming, methods, whatever have you that is specifically geared towards sl residents (merchants and consumers alike) and the sl experiences that go along with that. Using off the shelf, or out of the box solutions for something like the MP, is a bad road to go down...but it's one LL is holding firm to....for reasons I will never understand, and they will never share.
  6. From a viewer/end user point of view, it works precisely as you'd expect...you get to view ads. That's the end of the viewer involvement until that viewer of the ad then takes their own personal involvement with the ad further (ie. viewing the end product and/or purchasing, etc..) From a merchant point of view, the one paying for the ad...the methodology LL uses, or rather, methodologies, is as outdated as most other things they do with the MP, and ineffective. It's mechanically dysfunctional as all get out. This can happen when you use outdated methods and code written by someone else you're trying to adapt for your use, but it really isn't well suited. Then again, I don't think anyone wants me re-hashing that old chestnut, rofl.
  7. Prison break, at the moment, for about the 8th time, but nearly done Last week I finished Criminal MInds (the original and suspect behavior) for the...umm, I don't know how many'th time. Here let me look at my list of shows I've being watched over the last year (yes, I keep a list, lmao): Gold Rush, Law and Order SVU (to the current, also one I've watched tons), 911, Grey's Anatomy, Eureka, ER, Naked and Afraid (original and XL), The Great Food Truck Race, How to get Away with Murder, Last Man on Earth, Superstore, Born Behind Bars, Survivor, Amazing Race, The Last Ship, Lost, The Expanse Warehouse 13, The Sanctuary, Timeless, CSI (all versions), The I-land, Blacklist, the 4400, Colony, Jeremiah, iZombie, Jericho, Secret City, Designated Survivor, the 100, Between, I'm sorry, Working Moms, Northern Rescue, the Dark, the Rain, Dark Matter....and I think I'll stop there...I have a very large list, you don't want them all lmao. Have I mentioned I have way too much time on my hands sometimes? I also sometimes put things on as background noise while working, or doing other things (if I don't have music on). Insomnia is a fickle female dog though, she can just go kick rocks.
  8. Well you totally ran with that in a direction....I can't even describe, lol. I sensed absolutely no evil and ill will in your post, whatsoever. I actually answered your questions. Yes, I do know what you're talking about. The simple answer is.....listing enhancements do not work as we(you, I, everyone) suspects they SHOULD, they only work the way they're coded to work...which is wrong by today's standards. That's not me knocking YOU or your experience...but rather LL and their...eh hem, attempt at creating an advertising method they thought would work. Re-read what I said and don't start taking offense from the first letter, or assume there's some ill will towards you in any of that, there's really not, lol. I actually support your belief (because it's an actual fact, not just your belief, or mine, but reality) that enhancements are basically a crock of useless poop. If that's not what you were trying to convey, then disregard everything I said. But if your point was "enhancements aren't working like I think they should"..you're right, and you can read the explanation as to why in my posts, or in the plethora of other enhanced listing threads on this forum. Stop being offended all the time just because you're expecting poor treatment. I promise if I intend ill will, it's always VERY obvious, I don't hide it, lol. My ill will on this subject is 100% geared at LL (this should come as no surprise to anyone).
  9. You asked why you don't see your own ad, not whether or not impressions actually work. But I did answer that question as well. No, it does not work, not as it should work, not as current standards dictate it should work, not in the way such activities work on ANY other website out there that was made after 2000. But yes it does work by MP standards, which, are very odd indeed If by "how do I know it works" you mean "how do I know if anyone is seeing my ad at all?"( your question isn't really clear yet at this point). You'll know by whether or not your stats page for that ad shows impressions. If it shows that you have indeed gotten impressions, then yes, by that token it "functions". Again, not as it SHOULD., but as it is expected by MP standards...which, again, are not normal standards anywhere in the world..so, take that as you will. I'm not overthnking anything, lmao, I simply know how such things work (regardless of cost, they should only function one way, follow one set of current standards, and not use outdated methodologies, also, this is an oooooooold topic, we've discussed it a lot on this forum over the years). My experience is very much universal if you do as I actually said and scroll through the ads, not merely stay on one page and not allow all the ads to load. Go ahead and try it, go tot he home page, or even the top page of any category that has enhanced listings. Now scroll through them, all of them, now refresh and do it again. Bam, you'll see at the very least some of the very same ads all over again. You might have some new ones, in categories where a LOT Of people buy ad space, but you won't find an entirely new set, at least some will always be repeats. That is how it has functioned since day one, and hasn't changed an iota. Not that it really matters, as I said at the end...it's a worthless endeavor for nearly anyone (and on a personal note, it actually surprises me that anyone even uses enhanced listings at all anymore, but I do suspect some bought it once, or twice and then just have it on repeat, because they've got the funding to do so and never stopped. But your own experience with never viewing those ads actually answers your own question too, that it does not function as it should (if it did, more of us would look at those ads, lol). That's part of why it costs what it does, because it's so ineffective an advertising method. You're right that such features usually cost a great deal. This one is actually way over cost, imo, given how it works (or does not, as the case may be). Advertising in a virtual space isn't quite as expensive as it is in other places, for other things, but if this were up to current standards, it would definitely cost more (don't give LL any ideas...though truth be told, they'd be complete fools to ever increase this cost, it would be a guaranteed loss of most buyers,) Through sales...at least, that is how the MP functions regarding that matter. The more sales you get for a listing, the higher up on the page it goes (this has nothing to do with enhanced listings). Views are of course included in that, because people can't buy if they don't open your listing page, lol. But buys are the important factor and enhanced listings rarely, if ever actually lead to many of those sales. Odds are better that the person will see your listing NOT in the enhanced listing spot, but rather on the page when searching or merely browsing, and click through form there. Like I said...enhanced listings, those advertisements at the top of the home page and on the top pages of categories.....they're all stupid, and a waste of money. They've been that way for ages (look through the threads about them here on this forum if you want more info, but they're pretty boring and say everything I've already said here).
  10. It's actually a bit of (very unbalanced, inefficient, and not up to current standards) randomized code that selects which ads to show and when. The code ensures you get the NUMBER of impressions (showings) of your ad, but that's about it. There is no real guarantee of how many impressions per (insert whatever measure of time, other than the full length of your enhancement-which is the only guarantee) or even who will actually get those impressions. Odds are quite good you will never see your own ad, and frankly you shouldn't want to. If you DO see your ad, it's just another indicator of precisely how outdated that method actually is. As Alyona pointed out, that would be a giant fail on their part if you, the person paying for the impressions, saw them-that's one less person to see them. However, the fact that you don't see your own ad, still doesn't mean it's working right, because the coding used for such is not up to date with current standards....you just happen to luck out when you don't see your ad, there's no real rhyme or reason to why you don't. One problem with the way enhancements work is that there are many, many people who can easily spend hours looking at the MP (for various different reasons), not necessarily in one sitting but even over a period of a day or two. Those people may very well be seeing your ad multiple times in one session. They are each counted as one impression. If I go to the MP right now and scroll through those enhancements, get to the end, refresh my page (or return to the beginning), or even go to another MP page and then return to the home page (or top of a category where there are also enhancements, whichever), I can EASILY see the same ad multiple times. That means I just ate up someone's impressions (unintentionally on my part, of course), so that person isn't even remotely benefiting from those impressions. Odds are damn good I'm not buying from those enhancements, because when I do shop on MP, it's likely for something specific, or at least category specific. I still SEE the ad though, and that's all the algorithm ensures. It's why I don't scroll through enhancements, ever, and try to stay off top pages, because that's just wasted money for that merchant, and I'm not fond of wasting others' money like that (pennies or not). To make this shorter...enhancements are a waste of money, are not effective, and don't work like most people think they do (even if you get click-throughs), and don't use current standards for such activities in the algorithms and coding. Never be surprised when they don't act the way you think they should....they don't act the way current standards suggest they should, either, lol.
  11. There s no solution (that LL is capable of, or willing to pursue at this time -I'd be willing to take that back if the evidence ever suggests/ed otherwise) that is retroactively effective, except placing 100% of the work on merchants-which is most definitely not fair. But, sadly, it really is the only viable solution at the current time. LL is certainly not going to go one by one and check all listings and make that adjustment where necessary. They could code in a method for merchants to do so in bulk-which will lighten the load somewhat, but..eh..I"m not on the side of the fence that believes they're capable of coding that in (or, rather, have the desire to, because that actually would require new code work, and definitely take more time, money, man power, etc) and again,not a perfect solution either. A perfect solution can't exist in this case, the ball's been rolling down the hill for years already. My solution isn't a retroactive one, and definitely not perfect either (but does solve more problems than it causes) -or expected to work retroactively, it's a progressive one, one that should've been implemented day one of MP. I don't know of a single e-commerce website (which MP is) that existed when MP was implemented that didn't already use such methods -a means to better categorize/list, and simplify the experience for merchants and shoppers alike. Even half.com used it in 1999, long before sl and mp existed (I accept no excuses on this, in case that wasn't obvious, lol). I'm a bit ***** retentive on this one because LL Isn't really doing anything to fix problems, they're, like you said, putting bandaids on things in the hopes that it'll please people, and I find that to be a very, very weird practice. It does slightly irritate me that we're expected to jump and shout, praise them and "Ooh new shiny", for a functionality that has literally NO reason to not have already been in place (a functionality that already existed, this wasn't a project that needed all new code, we already use various checkboxes for searching and listing). MP is probably the one mountain I will probably live and die on in sl, and rarely concede on because it has the potential to be amazing...and it irks me when potential like that isn't met, lol. (Maybe it irks me more than it should, but it does) This is like cheering on a child who got tired of being told to clean his room, so he just shoved it all under his bed. Sure, most of the visible floor might be clean..but the room sure as hell isn't. It might be funny when they're toddlers, it stops being so (And harder to break them of bad habits) when they're teenagers and still being that damn lazy. Even my remedial students understand basic programming tenets, efficiency, streamlining, etc.. and most of them are between 8 and 16, lmao. As someone that has used sl both in the past and still currently uses it to some extent for lessons...the MP is part of our "how not to program an e-commerce website" and "how not to deal with customer complaints and requests for your e-commerce website" lessons . IT's actually been used in some of my IT courses while pursuing my degrees as well. KISS- I should make this more obvious, my apologies to anyone that doesn't understand me when I keep saying it...it stands for Keep It Simple Silly (usually Stupid, but we use the nice connotation instead, lol) is something we live and die by, you don't complicate things if you don't have to.
  12. Nothing is 100% enforceable, but it's a bit *more enforceable by making the checkbox a requirement for merchants when creating a listing (as in, you cannot list without checking one of the two boxes, gacha or no gacha). Gachas are no more mis-categorized already than any other thing on the mp, so they already expend the same amount of time as anything else that gets reported (And one can presume that most things, likely never get reported, so, that's kind of a wash, imo) If LL followed the very basic tenets of programming, including the KISS methods, we wouldn't be where we are with MP right now. Unfortunately., they choose not to, and they don't choose to reuse coding the way they should. Some (maybe most? I don't know) people wouldn't balk at LL if they said "making these changes to existing coding is going to be hard", because programming is and can be, very hard. Those who understand coding will wonder why the hell code reuse isn't already taking place, when it damn well should, and why these VERY simple changes weren't implemented before. Like I said, nothing can ever appease everyone, but there's no damn sense in making more problems when you can solve a lot of them with work that already has been done (was done years ago), already works, already is in use, and already serves multiple purposes. As an aside...touting this as a "hot new feature" is weird (to me, I respect it's not to some) when this change was proposed years ago, and literally would have only required the reuse of existing code with slight verbiage changes...not functionalities-which are often the most problematic. It is a nice feature, I'm not knocking it, it's just not nearly as effective as it could be, or could have been, plus they could have moved on to other mp projects like working on how to streamline the mp (variations, etc..) into a more pleasant experience for shoppers and merchants alike. LL gets my kudos on a lot of things, a LOT of things..but the mp...nope, it's a failure on their part and has been for a long time, it makes me sad...I think so much more of LL than they apparently think of themselves in this arena. Maybe that's my problem..I see MP"s and LL"s potential with the MP..and they simply don't want to achieve that...dunno..I"m a grump today.
  13. I've said it before, I will say it again...there is an easy 2 part method to appease both gacha sellers and gacha shoppers, along with those who wish to exclude such from their searches. LL doesn't listen, some commenters probably won't either, but this is literally how every marketplace style website functions-they implement easy fixes whenever and wherever possible, they don't hem and haw over it for almost a decade first and then choose the least appealing, or least purposefully-functional method possible, lol. TLDR; bolded section.. IF.... LL made a checkbox, radio button, whatthehellever for merchants selling to tick if the item is a gacha-and make it a requirement (super easy to code, in fact, it's already in use for other options merchants can select currently when listing, it's merely a word or two that needs changing to adapt it, few minutes of coding tops...and again..ALREADY IN USE, so we know it works, testing would be even simpler, and it can also then be adapted for future use..variations, etc.) and ALSO IF (this is now a when) LL made a tick box for searchers to select that they do not want to see gachas in their searches Bam... most gacha problems solved LL has it halfway right, they finally added the tick box for searching. They attempted to appease people by adding a gacha category (which even in theory doesn't work, I have no idea how it made it off the idea table, lol). Unfortunately the mere fact that they said "It's not mandatory and we will never make it mandatory", pretty much sank that ship before it even sailed. Some say "BUT lots of things are in the gacha category"..and they're right (lots might be a subjective term, but they're right, kinda), however the vast majority of them are NOT in that category-because as LL has said, they can be under any number of categories, and they could, reasonably, fit under other categories, so it is so. The above solution proposed , first proposed years ago, I might add, not a new concept, would: allow people to continue to put their gacha wares in whatever category is best suited, still allow people to ignore gachas during searches, give merchants one more way to reach their target audience with proper listing practices (radio buttons and checkboxes fall under that category), eliminate most of the groaning that revolves around the sheer number of gachas flooding the mp in pretty much every category (they dominate if you list "newest first", and many shop that way), while still allowing people to shop for limited quantity items that are NOT gachas (breedables are pretty common, but also exclusives, etc..) Will it please everyone? Nope, nothing ever can. But It will sure as hell solve a lot of, although relatively minor, groaning and issues people have. The more important questions are..why won't ll implement it, and why did it take them years just to implement two minor things, the checkbox and category, (for which the coding already existed, was already in use, and merely needed slight tweaking to verbiage to add in)? I don't presume to know the actual answers, but I can make some pretty good educated guesses and neither speaks highly of...so I shan't answer them at all Easy fixes are not LL's forte, they never have been, they may never be. I don't presume to understand why, either, it's very counterproductive and definitely not intuitive.
  14. I didn't want to say happy pre-Thanksgiving, because sl is a global network of people, and there are many the world over that do not celebrate this holiday...no reason or judgement necessary So...instead..good mornfterning to all (I'm covering all my bases) And a message...wouldn't be me without it... Be good to yourselves, and be good to others. When you can't be good to yourself, please let others be good both to and for you. When you can't be good to others, be good enough to yourself to make a concerted effort to be good enough to others. If you're struggling with the season, for any reason, please reach out to someone, anyone, even if it's a perfect stranger, there is strength in numbers, that's not just a cliche' saying. Sometimes, this isn't an easy time of year, it's ok to have struggles, it's ok not to have struggles, and it's also okay not to know what to do about or with those struggles. Just do your best and know that no matter what, you're good enough, you're wanted, you're liked, you're loved...and most importantly.....you're necessary. All of you, without exception.
  15. I'm sorry you found it patronizing or rude, that lmao was more so because the changes to gachas are an odd addition, given the current(ongoing) issues with the MP . The ability to filter them doesn't address the one problem a lot of people had/have with gachas in many of the discussions merchants have had, and the way LL has recently handled that entire topic (they added a gacha category but did not make it mandatory to be used, and don't require anyone to use it, and they thought that would make people happy...but it didn't). Gachas are an issue on MP, no doubt, and the filter is a nice addition, it just doesn't address another concern people have with gachas that is also important (an issue they have assured us they don't intend to fix, they said it's working as intended..hence why it peeves people off) As for the topics, I'm just going to link some of them here...that way people won't have to read more of my rant, but maybe can understand why I'm utterly peeved (and not alone in that) with LL and..well, most things they do related to the MP, especially right now. Merchants don't need new filters right now when LL is delisting things at an alarming rate..but I digress..please...read the threads, please. Ask other merchants if you feel I'm being overly ridiculous about something. I may seem so..but I'm really not The first thread is probably the most helpful when trying to understand this problem, as it discusses the most recent bout. It's costing merchants quite a lot, causing entire stores and sections of stores to be removed, and LL's response is "Ooops. Find the problem, send us a ticket for each item we removed, and we'll get back to you", when we get a response at all (yes, I'm serious). There really have been a lot of threads over the years discussing the flags and unlisting of items for no real reason. I'm not just ranting about that for no reason, I have cause to..it's a HUGE problem, and it is 100% something that LL did, and not something merchants can fix or even prevent. https://community.secondlife.com/forums/topic/443536-automatically-unlisted-items-whats-going-on/ https://community.secondlife.com/forums/topic/443723-automatic-unlist-offending-words/ https://community.secondlife.com/forums/topic/444296-forbidden-words/ https://community.secondlife.com/forums/topic/433079-help-whats-offensive/
  16. I'm going to echo Marut here a little bit..and, since you're new, fair warning, I type lots of words, lots, and lots and lots of words, TLDR; at the end Making genuine friendships, and I can presume you mean deeper than casual friendships (not necessarily sexually related, or involved, at all) is a very difficult thing in all facets of life. Even people who seem to have no difficulties at all, it might not actually be what it seems on the surface. Maybe for those people, the relationships aren't as deep as you might think. I think that's something people who have difficulties making friendships (even not deep ones) have to take into consideration, but rarely do...because we get stuck in that "why can't I?" mode. We get stuck in our own frames of mind, the largest component of which is "what am I doing wrong". Until we can eliminate that component and the whole getting stuck in our own heads, we'll continue to struggle. I use the word we, because I am most definitely included in that. I can, very easily, make casual friendships, but deeper ones...oh, they're so very hard, for all kinds of reasons and most no one wants to read about...but they all really boil back down to the fact that I can't eliminate those components and get the hell out of my own head, so..eh, it is what it is. I do my best to make casual friendships and hold out the hope that they develop further. There has not been a sexual component to my interactions with people (since hubby, obviously), sl, rl, anywhere online...not even a hint of it, which does lend a little less tension to my interactions (and desire for them to go further) than it does for others with whom that is a component. I can honestly say that even before hubby, that element was as limited as possible, because I often find it compounds the problem, and disallowing it for a while can make things easier. Now, please don't take my saying that as suggesting you are some kind of hussy always looking to add that component, because it's most definitely not. I just happen to believe that, unless the casual sex thing is EXACTLY what you're looking for...it's going to muddy the waters and make things more difficult if you're struggling to find some level of genuineness in your relations with others. I mean, you can always incorporate that down the road if you wish (that's what hubby and I did, desire may have been there from day one, but we tamed those demons, and I'm very glad we did), in fact, I highly recommend it. You are in full control over that aspect, desire be damned, and it's one of the only components you're actually fully in control of, really. Others' mileage may vary, and they very well may have developed deeper relationships through that component too..I'm not knocking it, but for you, as you said..it's not working. I'm not going to do the whole "go meet people" thing, because, like you said..you've tried. What I can say is that you need to think about the kinds of things you'd like in friends, the experiences you'd like to have, the connections, the traits in them you'd like to see, the traits in yourself you'd like to show...and exploit the hell out of that. It's super hard for a lot of us, especially people like me without a lick of confidence 99.9999999999999999999999% of the time. I can be friendly with almost anyone. I can be friends with a lot of them. I can't be best friends with most, though, because I have a hard time getting to that point, and an even harder time when things don't go as planned and I somehow lose them (yeah yeah people part ways..yadda yadda..still hurts sometimes, no matter how long the relationship was, and it causes that "what did I do wrong" demon to break free). Seek out the things that interest you the most first, hopefully there will be people around that share in that interest, and casual conversations about that shared interest, the one thing you know you have in common, can start. Don't force the intellectual, don't force the humor, don't force anything and keep your expectations reasonable. It doesn't have to be a specific sim, even group chats can help with this part. The more you participate in things, with no real expectations, the easier it gets (or so people tell me...I fail at this part all the time, literally all the time, especially on the forums, it's why I spend the bulk of my time in sl by myself, and being chastised for talking too much here...and then I disappear for months...vicious cycle, of my own making). I have a tendency to talk with people that need help with something, more often than not, because for me, even if they never like me, never want to be friends with me..it helps feed the need for something more than what I have. Admittedly, I have a wonderful life, plenty of friends, and loads of people to talk to...but online...eh, I'm about as misfit as it gets, and I struggle with it constantly, often blame a lot of it on the fact that I think way too often about losing what very little online presence I have today when I can no longer involve textual conversations in that presence-which has taken up the bulk of my presence for more than two decades. (that's not a self pity party, it's just a, my, reality, and I own it). TLDR; (admittedly still not concise) That;s my long winded way of saying....you might need to change the direction in which you're pointing your sail. Don't rely on a navigation system made by someone else..let the winds take you where they want first. If it's not where you want to be, flip it again and go somewhere else (I don't mean leave sl, lol). Changing directions is hard for people that find difficulty in making true, genuine, deep friendships, but once we get ourselves there..we do pretty good. We fall a lot, we bump into things, we might even capsize a time or two, but eventually, we get where we're going. You gotta have faith in yourself and your ability to get yourself there first though-I struggle with that too. It's also my long winded way of saying, you might not be giving these casual friendships enough credit. They are the building blocks on which you'll create your future and it's worth noting that even the ones that end in ways you don't like hep create that foundation. Learn from what went wrong, not what YOU did wrong, but overall what went wrong, or not like you'd hope, and make slight changes. Slight changes are easier than big changes, and you may not have to plan for them, either. You may find that through losing those casual encounters and relationships, you figure out exactly what you want, because you didn't know before, just didn't know you didn't know. DOn't give up on you, and the idea, just keep swimming....you really will get there, promise
  17. My best and worst gifts were both intangible, and I received them both within a very short time span of December 24 to December 25 One of my children spent most of her first five years of life living in and out of a children's hospital. She had an NG (feeding tube through her nose) as an infant/toddler for a while and then they decided to give her a mic-key g button (feeding tube through her tummy, it looks like the thing you use to blow up inflatables, a lil plug) when she was 20 months old. She had the surgery, but didn't do very well. She got very sick right after, and eight hours later I had to sign the first DNR (do not resuscitate order) I've ever signed for her, because she wasn't expected to make it, and prolonging her life should she go backwards again would be very cruel (it would have, please don't judge). About two hours after I signed the order, she plummeted, and my worst fears were realized, that if she stopped breathing during this episode, she would be gone. An hour later, she gasped very loudly, stopped breathing for about twenty seconds, gasped loudly again, and sat up......literally....sat right the hell up. She scared the crap out of everyone in the room and within two hours of that, she was up and walking, mostly fine(sore) and by the next day able to get full feeds. She was home the day before New Years Eve. I am happy to report that, despite many setbacks a year or so later, she had her mic-key removed a month before she started first grade and is now a very happy, healthy, amazing, not-a-little. If you wanted something a bit more tangible.... My favorite gift ever is something hubby bought me a few years ago to replace my most favorite toy growing up, which I held on to until well into my adulthood, that someone else destroyed out of pure malice. It's as close to impossible to find today as it can get, since they stopped making them decades ago, but he found one. It is as loved today as mine was my entire life, and I will treasure it always. I've never received a bad gift, or anything I have perceived as bad anyway. For me, a gift is a gift for a reason, and I place a lot of value in that. I've gotten things people THOUGHT or said were bad gifts..but they've never been such to me
  18. He wins manliest man, and personiest person, and frackeliest frackel 'twas the year of our greatest pasketti lord two thousand and five plus three (and yes, the gnome is holding my boobs up, don't judge me)
  19. I double that nomination Though I prefer my beef not moo at me...I don't judge, you do you
  20. Ooo, good point also doggiest dog, monkiest monkey, wolfiest wolf, foxiest fox, lammaiest llama, hamsteriest hamster, owliest owl, hippoiest hippo, slothiest sloth, mousiest mouse, tigeriest tiger, lioniest lion, elephantiest elephant, lemuriest lemur, platypusiest platypus (filters don't fail me now), ferretiest ferret, turkiest turkey (there's a bunch of turkeys on my patio, lol), deeriest deer.... oh I could keep this going forever and never run out of "iests"
  21. Ftr., my requirements also apply for "most womanly woman" and most "persony person" but I forgot some things You must love gnomes, and you must gift me gnomes, because I love gnomes And you can't judge me when I name my gnomes, because I really love gnomes
  22. From a personal standpoint (in case you wanted an actual answer, lol), no, it would not work or be a good idea. I don't like popularity contests even though life often is...or seems...like one giant popularity contest. On a "if it did happen, what should be the criteria" note....these are my criteria Be able to watch chick flicks, and not think they're chick flicks Know how to change a tire, oil, baby diaper, and various home improvement items (all at the same time equals bonus round...TBD) Be eclectic...in all things Wear whatever you want, when you want Look however you want, when you want Not give a carp if others agree with the prior choices (only salmon) Know how to do your own laundry, cook, clean, take care of the yard, butcher a chicken, start a fire 6 different ways, build a rocket, and prepare for disasters of epic proportions (bug out bag , epidemic, natural disaster and zombie protection included) Not be afraid to cuddle Know how to row a boat Play with legos, trains, rc vehicles and bubbles on a regular basis Color, a lot, especially outside the lines Have a great sense of humor, have a dirty sense of humor, have a colorful sense of humor Love animals, all animals, all creatures, without question (exceptions: terrible human beings, and those that make me cry...you can stomp them for me, they deserve it, I'll even let you use my boots, they're way cool and comfy) Play monopoly with me, even though you know I've never lost a game i my life I also demand operation, mouse trap, candyland, connect four, backgammon, uno, hungry hungry hippos, dominoes, ants in the pants, kerplunk, bounce off, cornhole, badmitton, hopscotch, hide and go seek, tag, pac-man, mario kart, marble madness...and any other game I reserve the right to demand later lost my train of thought, I'll have to catch the next one
  23. As much as I would love to say that LL is indeed breaking laws, in some fashion, with regards to not allowing third party "sales"..platforms and methodologies...I can't. They may just barely teeter on the edge of legalities, but I have serious doubts that they actually overstep the line. This might get really confusing...and it's long, and complicated, I may not explain it the best (perhaps someone can clean it up for me and explain it better..I'm having a not fun day)..fair warning. The main reason that I say this, is because SL is wholely owned by Linden Lab(no s), and under no legal obligation to even allow third party anything (viewers, financial capabilities, marketplaces, etc.). Of course sl is a monopoly, right now, all of sl is a monopoly, as there is nothing just like it anywhere in the world, but monopolies aren't illegal in and of themselves, in fact, most aren't. Antitrust laws aren't designed to punish successful companies who happen to corner a market, especially one that literally has no competition. In order to be illegal the company MUST be run on predatory and exclusionary acts that harm companies with similar interests (which doesn't include marketplace alone..it would have to include the whole of sl as a product..so, like opensim for example, and not a marketplace designed for use in opensim..the WHOLE entity matters, not a singular component). Any company could come along and make something just like SL and LL would have no recourse should the other product/company end up dominating over SL (it hasn't happened yet..I won't say it won't happen, but...eh..lots have tried, so..) LL doesn't limit the creation of other products similar to SL. What they limit and disallow is third party creations like the MP-which require explicit use of SL property, and that isn't illegal (anywhere in the world). For it to be illegal, there has to be a legal law in place that disallows it, and there is not. There is no law that says "you have to let people outside of your company provide a product that works within your platform to allow users more choices", because there is no law that says "you have to allow users choices". Unfortunately, antitrust is not what this is. In order to allow the creation, implementation and use of a third party marketplace type solution, LL has to allow a certain amount of access to company (LL's) assets, and that would actually null the legal complaint of monopoly because then that third party solution becomes a partner and/or subsidiary of LL itself..you can't monopolize your own company. If they were under legal obligation to allow third party anything, LL would not have been able to stop people from being able to purchase lindens (money) from third party sellers. It is because disallowing third party sellers/offerings of...(insert whatever, marketplace, money purchasing, etc.) is not a legal requirement of LL, that this was possible. It was fought, and it was fought hard when it first started happening (for many years you could purchase lindens in numerous different places-helpful for people that couldn't use the then existing but somewhat limiting methods). There are also US laws-the very specifics of which I do not remember in their entirety, but it amounts to "fraud prevention" and applies to FAR more than just LL and SL...plus, that's even more complicated) . LL was not found to be breaking antitrust laws then...it most definitely won't fly here (I wish it did). I am not saying I like it any better than anyone else, or that I think LL should keep teetering just on the edge of things. Nor do I think LL makes the wisest decisions (I think all of their decisions surrounding MP are bad, actually, and getting worse and I WISH they'd relinquish control of it to someone that's more prepared..but I digress..). I am simply saying...this is what we have, this is what we have had for years, and there is nothing that is going to change that, or make it illegal, as it stands now.
  24. It's a straight up misunderstanding of how to use filters and an overactive ego of whoever is randomly adding crap to the filter just because. A properly created and implemented filter wouldn't catch words that aren't trademarked or copyrighted at all. Converse is not now, nor has it ever been trademarked or copyrighted, not even when associated with footwear (some consider the latter a grey area, but from a legal standpoint...it's actually not). You can't arbitrarily add words to filters and claim i's for legal purposes...that in and of itself violates copyright and trademark laws
  • Create New...