Web/Marketplace Features

Just as we have a list of favorite stores, I would like to have a blacklist I can add a shop to, and never see any stores on my blacklist appear in search results. For example: I have found out the owner left SL years ago and there is no support for their products anylonger. I have had a bad shopping experience that was not resolved. The owner was banned from my land. The shop was reported for copybotting several times by original creators.

I see a lot of people selling DAE files on the marketplace, and I'd love to see a system built that would allow this file to be sold on the marketplace.

The #showoff forum is getting a lot commercial spam aimed at a general resident audience even though this channel is only accessible for those who opted into the content creator role and within the creators section is surely meant for creators to show off to other creators and talk about their creations/projects and work in progress -- not as a commercial advertising outlet to spam their marketplace links. Discord forums support setting up posting guidelines. Please empty it out and rename/recreate the channel to something else that would be more content creation focused sounding. (#projects, #work-in-progress, ...?) Of course add posting guidelines that prohibit commercial spam and ban any marketplace links in the forums. At least banning marketplace links, as well as any attempts at circumventing the ban (such as instructions or guidance towards product on marketplace or embedding the link in a product photo), and moderation reinforcement of that would at least quickly filter out most of the spam.

Description: Currently, when searching for products on the Second Life Marketplace, results often include numerous gacha items. While gachas were once popular, many users now prefer to purchase items directly without the randomness or resale nature associated with gachas. This can make finding non-gacha products time-consuming and frustrating. Proposed Feature: Introduce a simple filter or checkbox in the Marketplace search interface labeled “Exclude Gacha Items”. When enabled, this filter would remove all listings tagged as gacha from the search results. Benefits: Improved User Experience: Users can quickly find items they want without sifting through unwanted gacha listings. Efficiency: Reduces search clutter and saves time for shoppers. Marketplace Transparency: Helps buyers make informed choices by distinguishing between standard items and gacha resales. Community Alignment: Reflects the evolving preferences of Second Life residents who increasingly favor direct purchases over chance-based systems. Why It Matters: The Marketplace is a critical hub for Second Life commerce. Enhancing its usability with targeted filters ensures a better shopping experience, supports creators who sell non-gacha items, and aligns with Linden Lab’s efforts to maintain a fair and accessible economy. Would you like me to make this more formal and structured for submission to Linden Lab’s Jira system, or turn it into a persuasive email you can send to their support or product team? Or both? Provide your feedback on BizChatYou said: Make it suitable for Jira submissionCopilot said: CopilotHere’s a Jira-ready version of your feature request: Summary: Add an option to exclude gacha items from Marketplace search results. Description: When searching for products on the Second Life Marketplace, results often include numerous gacha items. Many users prefer to purchase items directly without the randomness or resale nature associated with gachas, making it difficult to find non-gacha products efficiently. Proposed Solution: Add a filter or checkbox in the Marketplace search interface labeled “Exclude Gacha Items”. When selected, this filter would remove all listings tagged as gacha from search results. Benefits: Improved User Experience: Easier and faster to find desired items without unwanted gacha clutter. Efficiency: Reduces time spent scrolling through irrelevant listings. Marketplace Transparency: Helps buyers distinguish between standard items and gacha resales. Community Alignment: Reflects current user preferences for direct purchases over chance-based systems. Impact: This feature would enhance usability, support creators selling non-gacha items, and align with Linden Lab’s commitment to a fair and accessible economy. Would you like me to also include acceptance criteria and example UI mockup descriptions to make it even stronger for Jira? Or keep it as a concise feature request? Provide your feedback on BizChatYou said: Include UI mockup descriptionCopilot said: CopilotHere’s the Jira-ready version with a UI mockup description included: Summary: Add an option to exclude gacha items from Marketplace search results. Description: When searching for products on the Second Life Marketplace, results often include numerous gacha items. Many users prefer to purchase items directly without the randomness or resale nature associated with gachas, making it difficult to find non-gacha products efficiently. Proposed Solution: Add a filter or checkbox in the Marketplace search interface labeled “Exclude Gacha Items”. When selected, this filter would remove all listings tagged as gacha from search results. UI Mockup Description: Location: Place the new filter in the left sidebar under “Search Filters”, alongside existing options like “Price Range” and “Permissions.” Element Type: A checkbox labeled: Exclude Gacha Items Behavior: When checked, the search query dynamically updates to exclude all listings tagged as gacha. When unchecked, search results remain unchanged. Visual Example: [ ] Exclude Gacha Items Positioned under other filters for easy access. Benefits: Improved User Experience: Easier and faster to find desired items without unwanted gacha clutter. Efficiency: Reduces time spent scrolling through irrelevant listings. Marketplace Transparency: Helps buyers distinguish between standard items and gacha resales. Community Alignment: Reflects current user preferences for direct purchases over chance-based systems. Impact: This feature would enhance usability, support creators selling non-gacha items, and align with Linden Lab’s commitment to a fair and accessible economy.

Recent changes were made to benefit those using SL Marketplace with mobile phones in portrait mode. But Second Life is still largely used by a majority of desktop computer users and the SL Marketplace should mirror that too. The recent changes have negatively affected the way SL Marketplace now appears on desktop computer screens, with two-thirds of a desktop screen now having wide empty side borders which are left unused and wasted. Please introduce a Desktop Screen Mode option to SL Marketplace, allowing the entire width of a desktop monitor screen to be utilised, with a wide variety of screen size options too, just as the SL Viewer already has. Attached are images of how SL Marketplace currently appears on a Desktop PC Windows 11 (16:9 screen, 1920x1080) and how I would improve SL Marketplace's UI to allow the full width of a screen to be utilised, with a "Screen Size" option button added.

I'm getting an error on Marketplace that says I have a limit of 20,000 items I can upload. I need to know if it's possible to remove this limit.

For Members who are Premium Plus, offer the ability for them to change to a previously used/owned/purchased last name for free. If you buy a last name, as you own it forever, you should be able to switch into one of your already purchased last names whenever you'd like to (perhaps cap it at a 48 hours cool down period per switch). Just a thought!

I hardly need to mention that there's a lot of feelings about ai-generated content, and LL has already heard quite a lot of feedback about it from residents. I'd like to suggest a thing we can do about it! Let me first admit that no solution is perfect and that an AI-using-creator could compile, train, and operate AI indpendently without the tech I mention below. But, the 99% use-case is that people generate content using ready-made solutions, and an enormous number of these ai-generating business have committed to a measure of transparency and accountability that I want to mention. If a person generates AI content--marketplace images, for example--using Midjourney, OpenAI (chatGPT), NanoBanana (Google Gemini), Firefly (Adobe), Runaway AI... or any of the myriad next-tier platforms implementing stable diffusion 3, then ALL of these tools automatically embed a content credential into the work. Cropping, resizing, or trivial modifications to the work do not alter the credential. Only significant human-made alterations to the content of the image result in the credential being changed. The presense of a content credential does not, I should note, mean "made with AI". It means "there's a content credential here." It's important because all major genAI tools do generate a credential that describes the origin of the work as a GenAI tool. The content credential carries a modification history with it. This means that even the creator of an original, handmade work could embed a Credential, and if their work was taken and modified by AI, then the credential would list out both versions. Again, all major genAI tools use this. The credentials are already there today. The credentials are not a value judgement, and they are not an ethical judgement. They are already within the ai-generated content, and they help us see what was done with a piece of content. The customer/end user makes the value judgement for themselves. LL has seen that customers want to know. The information is already within the file. The platform just needs to expose that information. A simple "CR" tag (using the established logo made with the c2pa standard) on the corner of any image on the marketplace, with a hover-tip to explain the content credential would go a long way. Further, adding a property for texture assets generated for use within SL itself would be a nice next-step (but less trivial to implement). For more info about the industry-wide standard C2PA (Coalition for Content Protection and Authenticity): https://c2pa.org/ The specification is avaialble here: https://spec.c2pa.org/specifications/specifications/2.1/specs/C2PA_Specification.html This isn't a fun, easy feature but it feels like an important feature.

Many creators rely on a completely separate listing for a different color, pack (fatpack, browns, blacks, etc.). This makes searching for clothes, hairs, etc. much more difficult as many of the search results are a variation of the same item. I’d also like to see existing color and variation listings automatically merged into a single listing. This would help reduce clutter in search results and make it easier to find the right product. These could be underneath the product pictures in a horizontal list of thumbnails that includes the color/variation name, and that variants price.

When a seller believes that a review violates the guidelines, they can flag it for moderation. Linden Lab then checks the review and removes it if the violation is confirmed. Until last year, this process worked reliably and within reasonable delays. However, over the past few months, customer support response times have grown dramatically. This slowdown directly affects Marketplace review moderation, leading to delays that no longer make sense. Based on my experience, the average wait time is now around three months. As a result, insulting, defamatory, misleading, or completely off-topic reviews — often a combination of all three — can remain publicly visible on a product for months before any action is taken. For many merchants, Marketplace reviews are already a significant source of stress. But with the current moderation delays, the system has become deeply unbalanced: sellers are exposed for months to harmful comments that should normally be removed quickly, while having no actionable way to protect their brand or business during that time. The review system is essential, but only when it is supported by timely and effective moderation. In its current state, it no longer fulfills its purpose and creates unnecessary harm for merchants who rely on the Marketplace for their income. Given the current situation, the most reasonable solution is straightforward: until moderation can operate again within acceptable timeframes, the review system should be temporarily disabled entirely. This is the only way to prevent lasting, unjustified damage to merchants while ensuring the integrity of the Marketplace.