Web/Marketplace Features

It appears that sellers can list essentially unlimited numbers of items in a day. Nothing of sufficient value is actually being created at a rate of 100 in a day. With no rate limit (or no evident limit), an unfair runaway cost is looming, and MP search is untenable. We are all paying to contribute to the cost of operating Second Life, and by extension, the cost of hosting the MP and the images on the MP. I suggest a rate limit similar to how we do Public channel messages. Eg: "Post 50 items to MP in a day, get capped at 20 per day until listing rate falls." Goals: Prevent shops from unfairly competing through overwhelming the Marketplace front page and search Prevent individual shops that employ automated content creation and posting from unfairly using up all of the MP's operating costs Cautions: Don't prevent a store from getting a "decent" amount of content up in a day. Not all stores post content as it is finished, and wait to upload a set. Don't create more work for moderators, don't create more processing cost Rate numbers I suggested are made up; LL pick what makes sense. Just...make a rate limit pls

Why can't I buy a universal gift card which can be gifted to buy any item from any vendor up to the value of the card? Just sending someone Lindens for a gift is rather crass, and this seems like a no-brainer, and incredibly simple. Gift cards are so limited in MP and SL stores, and it's crazy that we can't just buy a universal one as a gift valid for x months that can be used anywhere. I deposit x Lindens, and MP issues me a giftable card for that value (minus maybe a fee)... LL could make some commission on it, and everybody wins. I can't think of any reason it's not been done.

I’ve had a lot of success with the Second Life Marketplace as both a shopper and a seller, and I’d love to see some improvements to the search filters. A few features I think would be really useful are: • Owned / Not Owned: An option to hide items we already own so we can spend less time scrolling through things we’ve purchased and find something new. • Contains AI / Does Not Contain AI: Filters that help shoppers identify AI-generated or AI-assisted content and choose what they want to see. • Avatar Compatibility: More detailed filters for bodies, heads, and other compatibility requirements so we can find items that actually work with our avatars. • Exclude Keywords: The ability to filter out certain words or product types that aren't relevant to what we're looking for.

So going into this, I want to disclaim that I myself am not against AI. I personally have used it before, and will do so in the future. A specific chat AI helps me regularly with solving problems. However, I am against people intentionally misleading people about content, and polluting search results with content made in mere seconds, and find it no different than spam. If I made something that randomly generated randomly colored squares on a white canvas, and listed it a dozen or so times, it'd be seen as spam. Additionally, this issue was brought up in the SL Discord marketplace chat. I've moved it here so that it can get more recognition and visibility to LL. Personally, I believe that a policy worded like so would benefit everyone in the long run (canny has messed up some formatting here, so it looks like it has no line breaks, these have been substituted with "---" for readability) Content that is the sole generation of Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, or otherwise Generative Content, except in the cases where the generator was written for the sole purpose of generating a specific element, may not be listed on the Marketplace as-is or as the focal point of the content that is listed. --- AI images must never be used to generate listing images, and must be presented as the content appears in SL. Overlays, such as permission information, price, branding labels, or sales labels, are permitted as much so as they do not mis-represent the content that is being advertised. --- Examples of forbidden listings: * In singular or collection, AI generated content as a texture, image, mesh, sound or other type of asset, as the sole content being listed. * A AI generated image in a picture frame. * A museum prefab filled with AI generated images as a "ready to go" model. * A object that plays randomly generated AI voice clips. * Attempting to pass off or mislead people that AI generated content as original, hand crafted content. * A listing which shows a AI enhanced product preview. --- Examples of allowed listings: * A house that has a AI generated poster in it, where the poster is not the selling point of the house. * A museum model that has some AI generated images, or is focused on the topic of AI generated content. * A NPC, that among other features, plays AI generated voice clips. * A model that has AI generated textures, where the model is not AI generated. --- Listings that make use of 50% or more in it's creation must be clearly labeled as using AI generation or assistance in the listing description. Interpretation of what counts as "50% or more is" left solely to Linden Lab. Listings that use AI but under the 50% threshold are recommended, but not required, to disclose that AI is used in some capacity. In summary, it forbids listing of content on the marketplace, free or for sale, that is entirely AI generated, requires disclosure of AI generated content when AI does a majority of the work, and guards against some loopholes. This probably (as in, very likely. I feel this is implied, but just in case) isn't needed, but: Because this will probably get passed by the lawyers, I hereby grant all permission to Linden Lab to use or transform the above work in any way, without attribution or compensation. Linden Lab has the opportunity to deal with this now before it gets too out of control. Only a handful of residents would be in violation of this policy. This also only applies to marketplace stuff, not in-world content.

Many people want more than one partner, can we have the option please 😊, say, 1, 2, 3? Same system, just... More... 😎

Listings of available Linden Homes could offer the ability to filter for a given parcel size or theme, or both. This would reduce the users' workload to discover if the parcel they want is available, and would reduce load on the web server since users could find the information they want by loading just one web pages instead of paging through three. For instance, if Joe is only interested in a 2048 Copperfield (a popular notion right now), he won't be paging back and forth among a bazillion other listings to find out if one is available.

The current policy is the following - https://community.secondlife.com/news/featured-news/improving-marketplace-search-and-product-discovery-r11329/ Any product that has "Revenue Distributions" applied with the receiver of such revenue still logging in should be a form of condition to keep the product from being unlisted. Any store that has a manager that still logs in should also be a form of condition to keep a product from being unlisted, especially since it would waste the manager time in having to relist it when it shouldn't have been unlisted in the first place since they're helping to manage the store. There are also stores that have an alt account as the store account with their main account as the store manager. While said person might log in often through their store manager account to see how sales are doing and so on while rarely logging into the store owner account unless they need to do fundamental updates to the products or other various critical reasons. Beyond that they might let that store account sit there while maybe the customer questions are being directed to the manager account. Then there is the fact that some store owners might have 2 or 3 stores in total but has one account that is a manager to all of their stores to keep an eye on sales or customer reviews. Since it takes time to log in and out of each account if you have more than 1 store. In fact there were times I didn't log into a particular account for a long swath of time unless I saw a product review or a message from a customer that was sent to my email through the system that SL provides. Point is, a manager or someone who receives Revenue Distributions should have some weight on whether certain conditions are met for the Product Unlisting Policy. Otherwise without the proper counters then the current policy as it stands can cause undo hassle for everyone involved in the scenarios I laid out or various other examples that people might provide. At the same time, I sort of get that this is needed for actual dead stores, but it shouldn't penalize stores with active managers and active Revenue Distribution receivers. Fact of the matter with that said, why is this "Product Unlisting Policy" there in the first place since "Store Disabling Policy" should fully cover a dead store. Especially since some customers might view a product and not buy it but bought something else from the store (like that products other color). Simply because if it wasn't for that first product they might not have bought anything from that specific store in the first place, which does happen often enough. As an example about the color part I mentioned earlier, a lot of people might prefer a certain color of a product but some other colors or fatpacks might not sell as often or as often as the past. I've seen some customers buy one color one year and another color a year or two later. Thing is, either this policy should be changed to reflect current reality or at most just get rid of the "Product Unlisting Policy" since it's more of a major issue for not just the people that handle the store but for customers too.

The current policy is the following - https://community.secondlife.com/news/featured-news/improving-marketplace-search-and-product-discovery-r11329/ Perhaps give store owners the option to allow a manager to have the permission to reactivate the store since there are cases where the manager might also be a co-owner of the store while receiving Revenue Distributions. That or the fact that the manager might also be the store owner, but they just don't log into the store account as much as the manager account. That way they aren't panicking and fumbling about to try to log into the store account to reactivate it when it's less stress if they're already logged into the manager account. Plus there might be cases where the store owner takes a form of hiatus but has left a manager in charge until they get back. With the suggested feature, it at least gives everyone involved better contingencies. As for the reason for the hiatus? Could be anything really... such as I don't know medical reasons. Least it gives people more breathing room to work with. I get that the policy is meant to fade out stores that are truly utterly dead with no leadership around so to speak of but this shouldn't happen to stores that do have active managers that still maintain the store regardless of who the store owner is since as mentioned the manager might be the store owner or co-owner or waiting for the store owner to come back from some sort of medical issue. Point is, the store is still being managed.

When I read the following policy from the URL provided below - https://community.secondlife.com/news/featured-news/improving-marketplace-search-and-product-discovery-r11329/ I noticed that it has no mention of a non-login warning reminder for those who have an alt account as their store owner. I say this because some store owners out there either have one store on an alt for peace of mind purposes or simply have more than one store in which they end up with a few alt accounts as owners / representors of said stores. It would be appropriate to allow store owners the ability to designate 2 accounts if need be to give a warning to and 1 email contact since even the account email might be different than the one they usually use/access. This at least brings SL closer to something similar to the current recovery standards that well known businesses like Google, AT&T, Yahoo, and Microsoft as examples allow you to do. Since as an example Google at least gives you an ample succession of warnings in time starting a few months in advance so that you can login to your alt accounts in time before it's too late. Would also help if the warning went to the store manager(s) as well in case it might be easier for them to contact the store owner too to handle the situation faster. Yet for store managers, allow the store owner to decide if the warning goes to the manager(s) or not.

I came across the following url posted by Linden Lab https://community.secondlife.com/news/featured-news/improving-marketplace-search-and-product-discovery-r11329/ I can understand the need for this specifically for stores that only sell mesh products as an example or ones that have a wide swath of unbought Gacha products that clutter the marketplace. However after reading how the policy works, it probably should have some improvements to it to give certain types of products more breathing room or immunity to this since not all products are equal in how it sells but would still be useful if it stayed around for the community as a whole. For example, scripts. Especially ones that are open source in the marketplace regardless if free or paid for. Though that doesn't mean ones that are non-mod should be tossed so easily either. Since for example the "BoSH" store is currently gone and it's a shame to see it gone but that shouldn't happen as easily with script stores. Though yeah I get that in a fair world each product could be weighed equally but in reality not all products are equal, nor do they have the same type of sales and doing it the way the current policy is setup could do more harm for script products / stores than anything else. Since that's more of a foundation or knowledge base than anything else when it comes to outputting other products that need those scripts. Before it's asked: Do I have a script store? No. Can I script? Yes. Will I make a script store later? Maybe. If LL keeps it as is, would the policy help me against potential competitors? Yes. If LL makes the policy change would it benefit both me and competitors? Yes. With that said, I've weighed what this Feedback Request means and ask. The main thing that I keep circling around on when I read this policy as it currently stands is that LL should try to preserve certain products or product types that are invaluable to the community.