Jump to content

Trimmer Navarita

Resident
  • Posts

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Blog Comments posted by Trimmer Navarita

  1. The point is that they cannot make such a distinction clear in this medium; it is excrutiatingly difficult in cinema only managed by teams of people analysing each and every film to classify it. The only resource SL has capable of simply categorsing between under-18 and adult are the merchants and users; even that will be hugely variable depending on different world views. SL has entered a myre here and should get out as soon as they can by adopting recognised patterns of use in the web - the situation can be managed more subtly in-world.

  2. Having followed this thread since it began and read through the transcripts of the meetings it has become clear that this entire situation is a monumental waste of time; based on spurious notions of care and even more spurious notions of potential litigation. SL like several other organisations fall flat on their face when they divert from understood and accepted patterns of web use. The smart thing to do, that is understood on a global scale where 'adult' content may be found on a site, is to have an age verification page up front. I think it is perhaps SL's misplaced guilt about hosting adult activity that prevents them from using this accepted form at the entrance to Marketplace; which, also reflects in the pointless introduction of Moderate no doubt following the Cinema format and not the www format. It is clear that the keyword filtering of products will not ever work without a massive policing force within SL and ironically SL have abansoned the best policing force they could have, the merchants themselves. This is a trust issue that 'nanny states' fall foul off. By far the best corporate, commercial and social direction to take is a simple age verification for adult and merchant/user policing; then the precious time available within SL could be spent on improving it's disasterous search engine. Fundamentally fear and deceit are driving this current process when it should be driven by confidence and trust.

  3. GOREAN is a dirty word so rings get MODERATEd, but a mostly naked woman fingering herself is GENERAL !?!

    I have a number of rings and a couple of kilts that have been 'allocated' a 'Moderate' label because within their keywords is the word 'Gorean', or 'Gor'. There is nothing in the product or the advertising of it that merits this. I'm sure it's easier for you to blanket cover all Gorean items as non-'General' but it is incorrect, misleadng and does not conform to your published guidelines. Following such a line will you make all bedroom furniture 'Moderate'?

    On a second point, now that you have conquered this monumental task of recategorisation will you turn your attention to your Search engine, which is THE WORST SEARCH ENGINE ON THE WEB. The 'relevance' search is completely dysfunctional offering all sorts of spurious results while pushing highly relevant products to the back of the queue. Try typing in 'Rings', the chioce varies of course with the results being often ludicrous but even on a good day ... I tried it again now and on the top page of the relevance search for rings there were two sets of high heels, a water feature and a valentine's gift; only 50% of the 12 products on page one had 'rings' in their title. Please, please make the Title the primary source for a 'Relevance' search.  If you type in 'Chair' the very first item is a 'Love Hud'. Item number five is a 'Be My Valentine' set of poses with a lingerie clad bimbo spreading her legs and fingering herself - and this is in a GENERAL search .... what a cheek that you let this happen but consign rings and kilts to a non-GENERAL status.

×
×
  • Create New...