With this said, it would be a wonderful feature to be able to mark an object for sale only to a specific resident. You could then leave objects on friends parcels as a gift if you so desired.

1. I'm pretty sure, from what Jeska said, that for sale objects on plots that are NOT listed in search will NOT themselves default to listed.

2. For-sale items are currently ALREADY being indexed for inclusion in search databases run by people other than LL. Here's an example: http://onrez.com/about_bots/

3. I'm certain that just because your object is listed in search, it won't mean that people can teleport directly on top of it. Landing point settings will be obeyed just like they currently are for classified ads.

As to Dirk's argument... I think this is a great argument for NOT transfering builds by setting them for sale for 0L. There're much better, more secure ways of transfering ownership of a build. I also think that's a great argument for the ability to set an object for sale to a specific person... but it's not an argument for nerfing search functionality.

As to your refutation to my #3: what I'm saying is that I don't think the new search system will treat teleports in any special way. They'll obey the settings you have on the parcel, so if you set "Allow direct teleporting", then people will be able to teleport into your sex room. You're arguing that you may want to allow people the ability to teleport to any point on your plot, but you don't want to, essentially, give them a landmark to your sex room. That makes some sense, but if you allow direct teleporting, you have to realize that it's ALWAYS possible that someone will teleport into your room and barge into your bedroom. As I see it, the argument is this:

We shouldn't have objects for sale automatically listed in search because:

• I might want to list my plot in search, and
• I might want to leave direct teleporting on rather than setting a landing point, but
• I might have specific places that I really don't want people to teleport directly to, and
• I don't want to have to set up a special parcel just to deny direct teleporting to those specific places, and
• I might happen to have for-sale objects in those special places that would act as an invitation to teleport into them, and finally
• I might not remember to set that for-sale object not to show in search.

That seems like a rather long chain of "might" statements which, all gathered together, don't really sway me that we shouldn't default these items to searchable. I think this rather unlikely negative situation is far outweighed by the benefit we'll get from seeing all currently for-sale objects in search, especially since you can avoid this situation by taking any one of several actions.

For example, I live on a 32K sq.m. parcel that has a store and a public beach. We want visitors to find and enjoy the store and beach, so we want to list the parcel and allow any-point teleporting. However, we also have private rooms and workshops scattered around the same parcel at various altitudes. While an occasional accidental teleportation into those areas isn't a concern, we don't want to advertise or encourage public teleporting directly into those areas. Because those private rooms and workshops are occupied by prolific builders and scripters, they may often have objects marked for sale for various reasons during product development.

Lex is correct that we can take "one of several actions" to avoid direct teleporting to for-sale objects, but those actions have undesirable consequences. If we don't list the parcel at all, we could lose visitors and literally lose the store. If we prohibit any-point teleporting, then our classified ads, our store departments, and beach visitors will be seriously inconvenienced, and we could literally lose the store. If we divide up the parcel into a dozen smaller ones, we'll have an administrative headache with classified ads, store traffic, media settings, prim count bonuses, and other general land administration issues. By comparison, it's easy to check a checkbox on those objects that we do want the public to know about.

Lex suggests that if we default for-sale objects to non-searchable, we lose "the benefit we'll get from seeing all currently for-sale objects in search." Store owners will likely list their for-sale objects that they do want you to know about, and more complete listings will be available through third-party searchers, as he points out, so there will be no great loss of benefit.

My personal situation is just the opposite from Lex's – it would be more convenient to make for-sale objects default to non-searchable than to deal with the consequences of having to take action to avoid direct teleportation to objects that we don't want to publish.

There is no way to make everybody happy initially - we have two routes: start with no objects listed at all, or start with some objects listed based on "typical" expectations.

The feeling is that the case of a mixed use parcel (i.e. one with both public and semi-public areas like a skybox) without a landing point is less typical. Setting the "show in search" value for all of these objects to false once should be significantly less effort than requiring every vendor to set the "show in search" flag on every one of their for sale objects.

It is impossible for us to please everyone on this one, we have tried to make the decision that negatively impacts the fewest residents.

However, I've created a forum poll here: http://forums.secondlife.com/showthread.php?t=218823 in an attempt to get some general view of what the opinion is on this. The poll is set to run for 2 days - if the poll turns out to be clearly in favour of the proposed defaults then it supports LL's view. If it is strongly against the proposed defaults I suggest we re-open this issue for reconsideration.

Non-transferrable items, you mentioned they were showing up too, there's no reason for them to be able to be set for sale, the DB should probably be audited for those too, and they should be have their for-sale flag removed.

I am going to re-open this, as i think Gigs has a very valid solution.

The URL of the alpha web search was posted on the forums, and I did some checking of non-shop locations. Most of them had items listed on the plot showing up in search which claimed to be on sale. However on inspection they turned out to be unbuyable (either because they owner did not have transfer permission, or because the object was set to sell as copy, but the owner did not have copy permissions).

So I would suggest that we go with Gigs's suggestion - namely that the default is Show in Search for objects only if

a) they are on a parcel set to show in search
b) they are set for sale
c) they are owner copiable and transferable

If an object is not owner transferable then it will not be buyable if set for sale. Any such objects are clearly set for sale by mistake or due to older bugs so shouldn't list in search. Listing them as for sale when not buyable just clutters up the search.
If an object is not owner copiable then it will not be buyable if set for sale as copy. It will be buyable if set for sale as original, however whilst this may be intentional, the risk of irretrievable loss if this was unintentional would outweight the additional work of anyone selling a no-copy item having to explicitly set it as showing in search.

Any object set for sale which has owner copy and transfer permissions on searchable land is likely to be intentional. Where it is not intentional there might be some very slim risk to privacy, and it might show up cases where a builder has left an item for sale in order to transfer ownership to a particular avatar; however where it is unintentional there is unlikely to be any permanent loss (as an owner of a copiable object is likely to have another copy in their inventory).

My God, I wish I'd seen this before! Shows you how bad the search is here. I looked for along time for something approximate to VWR 3072 which I filed and couldn't find it.

Note here how Lex Neva, who lectures others like Dzonatas on their syntax and misleading summaries, says, "1. I'm pretty sure, from what Jeska said, that for sale objects on plots that are NOT listed in search will NOT themselves default to listed."

But...they do. I've checked this over and over and over again. I don't know if this is a function of a dbase lag, i.e. parcels unchecked from search just aren't "taking," or a function of a bug. Needs more scrutiny, and it won't get it with this dismissive attitude.