|
|
|
1) someone posted the URL for the alpha search on the forums (http://secondlife.com/app/search/search?q=your%20search%20here
 ). I tried a three or four random searches, and looked at about 4 different locations. All had listed items for sale which on investigation in world turned out to be no-transfer - was that just luck? Problems with newly purchased no-transfer items retaining their for sale settings, have been noticed as recently as earlier this year, so I'm afraid that these are far more common than you might think.
2) Somone with a no-copy item unintentially set for sale will be unlikely to be aware of it, and hence unware that they need to be concerned or taking action. Someone with a no-copy item intentionally set for sale, however, will be aware that they need to ensure it is listed in search i.e. that they need to take action. Someone selling no-copy items will presumedly know which items need to be checked to ensure that they show in search. Someone concern that they may have items unintentionally set for sale and hence potentially showing in search will have to check every no-copy item (and probably every item unless they happen to know precisely what items on their land are no-copy) just in case. Hence the current LL plans place a much larger burden on land owners. Steve, please explain to me why Linden Lab does not understand that the solution to many of the problems we have with this aspect of the new search is to make all searchable items opt-in by default? I'm not trying to be disrespectful to anyone in particular, here, but whoever figured that all items that are for sale should be searchable by default doesn't have both of his oars in the water. Giving us four weeks to search all our properties is not a valid response to this issue. It places the burden of correcting a poorly thought-out decision by Linden Lab on the users. Most of us aren't going to do this. I certainly know I won't. It's not up to me, or any other user, to shoulder the responsibility for making good on Linden Lab's mistakes, and mistake this is.
Nothing ... absolutely nothing ... should be searchable under the new system unless it's been specifically released for search. The problem, of course, is that the damage has already been done and there no turning back from that. Guys, can you point me to some specific locations in world that have items that are:
I'm looking at slamming the for-sale flag to off when the owner can't actually sell the item. Screen shots of the items with location in the title bar would be super helpful. Thanks. Try http://world.secondlife.com/place/1efddd28-fe06-41dc-a06a-b8bf9d97739c
The comment boxes listed as for sale for L$ are owner no transfer. I believe I have this fixed internally. Tomorrow morning I will test your objects, Matthew.
Fixed internally. This won't make the 1.18.5 RC 1 release candidate, but should make the version after that.
I have fixed two things: When the next client ships, you will be able to turn off the "for sale" checkbox for objects you own, are set for sale, but cannot be transfered. (Also for objects set for sale copy, with no copy permissions) When the next server ships (in a couple weeks), all the remaining for-sale-no-transfer objects will be automatically set to not for sale. They will be automatically delisted from search at that point as well. (Also for objects set for sale copy, with no copy permissions.) Thank you again for the link to the page with the objects listed and their locations. James et al,
I was glad we could reduce this into some actionable items and that LL was able to fix them. Thanks Matthew and James. I'm very, very concerned about the fate of this issue when I see two Lindens arguing, and seeing that it is only "fixed internally," which means that precisely due to that argument, it may never, ever ship, despite James prognosis.
I want to urgently address Steve's claims, as he is simply out of touch. >1. There shouldn't be any no-transfer items marked "for sale". If there are they are (hopefully) very old and rare. Checking for this case would be very expensive (we have millions of objects in the world) and the objects can't actually be sold anyway, so I am unconvinced it is worth the delay. Steven, there are not "old and rare" – but thousands and thousands – likely MILLIONS – of objects with these status. Do I have to have you come on a tour of my thousands of rental plots where my tenants' private items that are not transferrable are all showing up in SEARCH against their will? Please. This is a very real lissue affecting an entire class of object: any object that was once set for sale and purchased, but is non-transferrable by the buyer. End of story. That's a huge category. It's a flag that is persisting past the purchase point. Saying that it "can't be sold anyway" is to completely miss the point about this: PRIVACY. It means that scads of day-trippers can teleport to parcels and bother people, thinking something is for sale. It means that people become angry and accuse some merchants of misleading them when something they think is purchasable isn't. Residents constantly make payments and never realize they've bounced and never realize there is an "accounts" page where proof of this bounce can be made. The user education curve on this is huge, and it becomes substantially worsened by letting this bug go. >2. I am unconvinced that there are more unintentional no-copy for sale objects than intentional ones on public parcels, and there is no way to know one way or the other. Parcel owners will have four weeks to exclude individual items or their entire parcel from being listed if they are concerned about this. Absolutely unacceptable. Four weeks is not enough time. Most people haven't downloaded this viewer. To see what is showing up for sale, some rentals agents and other large property owners will have to literally cull through thousands and thousands of separate parcels, many of them with the capacity to be put in search or not by their tenant, not them, so the set dynamically changes. Currently there is no physical way to exclude these items because you can't physically reach into a non-modifiable object to edit off its "for sale" status which is a bug, anyway. >3. If a parcel is not included in search, none of the items in that parcel will be visible. That's not true. These parcels aren't included in search. The objects checked off "show in search" are showing up anyway in search. Once again, I'd like confirmation from James that he has overridden the internal resistance clearly present, that resonates with the tiny set of coders on this JIRA opposing action on this item, and is in fact going to be fixing it. Above: "When the next client ships, you will be able to turn off the "for sale" checkbox for objects you own, are set for sale, but cannot be transfered. (Also for objects set for sale copy, with no copy permissions) "
This made it into 1.18.5 RC 1, which shipped today. I do not have a date yet for the server fix. Ok to the Lindens looking into this, you want to see an example go to secondlife://Forum/59/20/27/
You will land right in front of a large dragon. In the object search he shows up as listed for sale, yet if you scan your mouse over him you will see he clearly is not for sale. Somehow when you open the edit window it appears as if the owner has set him for sale for 3000L and the show in search button is checked. Yet the owner clearly did not check those boxes herself or he would be purchasable. The dragon is not for sale, it can't be bought. Yet it is showing up in search as if it were for sale. James:
1) why isn't the description of this problem and its fix in the liner notes for 1.8.5 (1)? 2) why isn't there a blog post warning people to get busy undoing these items? 3) why are they still showing up even in parcels not checked off search? (this could be dbase lag) 4) For-Sale items should not list PERIOD and you should undo this forceable, non-opt-in and forceable opt-out solution to search. Why the rush in population the search? It's not as if search is lacking for things to populate it. From above:
When the next server ships (in a couple weeks), all the remaining for-sale-no-transfer objects will be automatically set to not for sale. They will be automatically delisted from search at that point as well. (Also for objects set for sale copy, with no copy permissions.) This code rolled out yesterday (Thursday). All for-sale-no-transfer objects should be marked not-for-sale and not-show-in-search. If you have a specific object that is still in the for-sale-no-transfer state, please post a screenshot and location here. Thanks. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
Bug
Closed
Normal
Sale Item Search should not list certain kinds of items.
2. I am unconvinced that there are more unintentional no-copy for sale objects than intentional ones on public parcels, and there is no way to know one way or the other. Parcel owners will have four weeks to exclude individual items or their entire parcel from being listed if they are concerned about this.
3. If a parcel is not included in search, none of the items in that parcel will be visible.