Web/Marketplace Features

As the title suggests I'd love an ability to hide/block certain creators and their items from showing in my search/feed. I don't wanna see poopy butts, diapers, pissplay or whatever its called, animal genitalia. Don't wanna see children oriented items and their stores. Sometimes i wish i can filter out a creator that spammed 4-5 pages of the same item just different colors when looking for something new. I wish when searching for "Butt tattoo" i could block an item/store that showed me the entire lowerbody of a human being covered in excrement. Please for the love of God consider that quality of life change.

Please swap the product name and "Second Life Marketplace" in the Title tag of a Marketplace product page. So from this: <title>Second Life Marketplace - Some Product by Person</title> to: <title>Some Product by Person - Second Life Marketplace</title> This makes it much easier to identify individual product pages when your opening multiple pages while searching for an item, since the product name will be immediately visible in the browser tab. I've attached a screenshot of Firefox with vertical tabs and multiple pages opened.

A couple of venues in SL use multiple accounts to post entries in SL Events Calendar for the same shows. Example, a club owner might make a post for a show at 10 AM SLT and then post the same event as an alt, resulting in multiple entries for the single event. This is supposed to be against the rules - only one event listing per event - yet this "loophole" exists and gives venues who do this greater visibility and a higher chance at being a featured event. Plug the hole and even the playing field for those who follow the rules

Please add a required bool while creating a Marketplace listing that asks the creator to disclose if AI generative tools were used in part/all of the products creation. Add this bool to the 'Do Not Show' section of the Marketplace search filter. Allow listings to be reported if they do not honestly disclose this. ---- For the health of the market we need the use of AI tools to be disclosed by creators. I would prefer personally that no AI generation be supported. I understand that tolorance of it is an effort to avoid censorships slippery slope, and is complicated by the sheer variation of AI tools that currently exist. But regardless of opinions or complications, it's existance cannot be ignored. So lets focus on what can be done, by giving some power of choice to the consumer instead. Users should be provided a way to choose products with or without AI generation while shopping, and naturally creators who choose not to disclose or to lie should face the same reportability and moderation as any other creator that would choose to lie while listing. The moderation half of this should not necessarily focus on trying to prove the use of AI gen tools, it doesn't actually need to. Creators who have done the work to provide support and actually prepare the AI generated content for its use in SL are unlikely to warrent being reported, and should not need to lie about the useage anyway. It is products that blatantly lack support, have egregious LOD & LI values that would be inclined to lie, and would want to be reported by users, this is the same for ANY product currently listed. If you buy it, and you don't get what was described, it should be reportable, the same goes for AI generated products, AI generated should not get a pass because you have to 'prove' something first, when the fact remains that you didn't get what thought you bought. So do not focus on "did you use a tool?" focus on "can you fix & support the product?" If it can't be supported, then disclose it was made via AI generation and move on. This is a similar complication to full perm and gacha resales, but also ripped models, copybot etc, in they will all lack support due to not being made directly by the creator of the listing. There is a big difference between fullperm & gacha resale vs ripping & botting, and that difference is honest disclosure.

There is so many stores selling ripped items, AI generated content and blatant false advertising, it has flooded the market. Yet LL relies on people to report individual products. When players see how convoluted it is to report stuff they just close the tab and opt to just not shop. Its a great deterrent to keep people from shopping for digital junk we dont need.... Marketplace was never great but it is now unusable with the amount of garbage clogging it up. Make every ones life easier and allow players to flag entire stores for review in the individual listing reports. Just add a check box so players can indicate that the issue persists across all their products. Put in a mandatory check box for creators to tag their products as AI assisted or photoshopped so we know what we're getting, and are able to filter out AI if we do not want to support that kind of content. Generally if one product is being misrepresented, ripped, or falsely advertised....the majority of their content is. If a creator gets flagged enough times it should trigger a review of all their products on market. If they do not pass review then unlist their listings and auto pop a warning when they log into market to make corrections or provide an explanation of the products they're selling. Then after all that...just give us a block creator option. I dont want to see the 5 pages of AI generated porn textures being sold with word spam, when I am looking for shoes.

Increase the max product image size allowance to at least 1024 x 1024. There are several reasons for this. Such as the current larger monitor screen sizes and the resolution sizes on those monitors that most people at home have these days vs the previous quantity of smaller screened but bulky CRT monitors of the past from 15-20 years ago. Another reason is because it gives store owners more to work with on ratios when designing their product images. Plus since the marketplace is using responsive design, having the increased max image allowance won't negate from smaller screens since the images already currently resize for those resolutions. Then there is the fact that depending upon the product, the current size limitations don't always show the product in it's full scope and clarity.

For Product Searches - Top Selling Products, Top Searched Products, Revenue Distributions, Orders, Audit Logs, Bulk Redelivery History, Listing Enhancement Performance For Buyer/Customer Searches - Orders For Manager Searches - Audit Logs For Collaborator Searches - Revenue Distributions All of the above could use a "Search" option to make things more faster and simpler for the store owner or manager. Simply because sifting through 20 or so products per page within a store that might have a few hundred or a few thousand items is not feasible. There might be other pages that could use the "Search" option but the above are helpful suggestions on where to start. Though "Top Selling Products" and "Top Searched Products" would be subjectively the most important.

In the "Edit Item Listing" form, the "Extended Description" area could use a preview button. If not there, then at the bottom of the form next to the update button. That way the store owner doesn't always have to "Update" to see if it looks correct before having to go back to the Edit Item Listing form to fix any formatting issue. This will ensure the Extended Description looks professional all while still in the Edit Item Listing area before it goes live. While you also don't have to go back and forth from updating several times to make it look right. Oh and as a bonus, a preview button does exist but subjectively its in the wrong place. Said place is in the "Manage Listings" area, but a bit useless there when you need to actively use at it as you're editing. Plus you don't need to preview everything (up to LL on this), just the content that would go into the "Details" tab of the preview since that would be the most feasible use.

When flagging a review, include the option to add an image, in case if it's more simple or easier for the store owner or another buyer to explain why the review was incorrect through an image. As an example, this gives anybody the ability to provide a screenshot of the conversation between them and the reviewer, where the reviewer admits they were wrong but is belligerent and can't be bothered to correct or delete the review. For the example above the person flagging the review in question could be because another buyer ended up asking the reviewer because of the vague review or the store owner trying to address the issue or possibly even the reviewer friend in which the reviewer is found to be in the wrong. Though there are other ways to use the image upload other then just to show a conversation from a hostile buyer. It could be used to show that this person is a fresh account that has caused issues with others or that its a competitors alt account or that the reviewer is now happy but for whatever reason (such as - can't be bothered) is unable to delete / fix said review. I could give several more examples but I'm not going to cycle through all of them. Plus sometimes a picture is more evidence than words and can be more accurate than you're able to describe if you're limited on vocabulary. Oh and if this is implemented, it would be best to allow people to upload more than just one image, while limiting the file type to keep the file size small. Also if possible - allow the user to update their flag if other pertinent information needs to be added.

There are 3 possible ways to do this. - You can keep the current selection lineup while maybe adding a few more along with an "Other" option at the end where people can type in why it was flagged. - Maybe add in more to the selections, but for whichever selection the flagger picks just allow people to write out in detail as to why the review was flagged. - A combo of 1 and 2 to get the best outcome. The reason behind the 1st example is that the current selection lineup is lackluster in options available when trying to give a reason to flag a review. That's simply because what is there isn't always appropriate for the flagged reason. Which means it's better to add a few more options and add "Other" as a sort of catch all to allow store owners or other buyers to give a better reason than what we're currently allowed to pick from. As for the 2nd example, at least that's sort of quicker or easier to add in than the 1st one, but not by much since both are easy to apply. Plus when an admin reads the flagged review, they can get a more detailed reason attached to whatever was selected from the lineup of options. That way they have a better understanding of the issue at hand. For example, for one of my stores, someone (with a fresh account) left a review, said person didn't read and didn't understand what they were buying (said buyer said as much when contacted to resolve the issue). Said person never took the review down either because they couldn't be bothered to. Oddly enough a few months later when checking if LL took down the review (since I flagged it), the account of said person was gone (probably because they caused too many issues with other people or stores). Yet the faulty review stayed. 3rd example - Having a combo of 1 & 2 would be the best bet since it gives people a more versatile selection range of how to respond to any erroneous or incompetent or policy breaking reviews. Either way choosing any of those three gives LL the easy option of not having to write out a lengthy list of categories with options associated with it. Since most of that is already done by the user when they write it out themselves. Plus there is the added bonus that when the LL Marketplace Staff Member reads the detailed reason for it being flagged, they don't have to guess at it, all the proof is given to them right then and there while saving the staff member time on trying to figure out why it was flagged. Also if possible - allow the user to update their flag if other pertinent information needs to be added.