Hide Certain stores/items.
tracked
Diana Blakewell
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.
Log In
qt3141592653 Resident
Exhibit A of why I want to be able to block stores. This what comes up when you search "Legacy", one of the most popular SL bodies. These slop stores run rampant and moderation doesn't stop them, because they pop up again in another week.
Photo Viewer
View photos in a modal
J
Juniper Linden
Merged in a post:
Marketplace Store Blacklist
qt3141592653 Resident
Please add the ability for Marketplace users to blacklist or hide specific stores/sellers from search results.
The Marketplace currently contains a large amount of repetitive or low-quality spam listings, making it difficult to find relevant products. A store blacklist would let users hide unwanted sellers so their listings no longer appear in Marketplace searches or browsing results.
Ideally, the feature would include:
A “Block/Blacklist Store” option on a store’s Marketplace page.
The ability to manage the list of blocked stores from account settings.
Blocked stores and their listings would be excluded from search and category results.
The blacklist would apply across the Marketplace, rather than requiring users to hide individual listings.
This would significantly reduce search clutter and make the Marketplace much more useful without requiring stricter content moderation of every individual listing.
Winter Loxely
Yes, please add the blacklist option! I don't use Marketplace nearly as much anymore, it's just too time consuming to sift through all the low quality items that have been uploaded from the internet.
Bambi Bubbles
Which has since been merged with https://feedback.secondlife.com/web-features/p/flag-creator-and-block-store-option
Photo Viewer
View photos in a modal
Caren Jewell
I agree! In the "Full Perm Part" are tons of new AI gen. Photos full with Scripts they got as freebies and sell this for 3000 5000 or over 8000 Linden (thats ca. prices from me, they can be higher!) and to flag those Stores help nothing. Why Linden delete them not over IP is for me not possible. A Blacklist would help then to clean the search for us.
Cinnamon Mistwood
There is not a single valid argument against having the ability to block a store or creator a resident doesn’t want to see. LL has always been in the side of residents to have control of what the see. I am not sure how sellers demanding I see 6 pages of the same shirt in 180 different colors and patterns when I wanted to see house plants helps sales.
If stores dont want to be blocked, they can go in and fix their key word spam or be honest about what they are selling or poll people on why they are getting blocked. Giving consumers choice is a win for residents AND LL. I dont feel badly for sellers with dishonest sales tactics, pages of spam, or who are gaming the system.
x
xDancingStarx Resident
In general (beyond this single request) it seems there are mostly given 4 reasons to block:
1) The creator lists different colors
2) The creator seems to game search and bring inferior products to the top
3) The creator can block me so I should be able to block them
4) The product is perceived as offending content
In my opinion most of the items should be addressed by better marketplace algorithms. Things like "animal genitalia" shouldn't be accidentally popping up if that is the case. It shouldn't be possible to game search to bring unwanted items to the top if that is the case. There should be a functionality to combine same-color items into one search result.
A functionality to block would be a bad workaround instead of a clean fix. A workaround where you keep blocking and blocking. That's not a great user experience in its own. It would also lead to people blocking creators too early too long. "You're listing multiple colors? I take this personally and I'm not in a good mood today anyway and I'm blocking you FOREVER!" That would benefit the user short term psychologically, but it may long term have a negative effect on both sides. Also we may fix multiple color listings in the future, and all the other stuff, and those creators would still be blocked. The "They can block me so I should be able to block them" is the same register. I don't know what it must take to get intentionally blocked by a creator, but I haven't found out in many years yet. "They can block me so I should be able to block them" is part of the "we against them" mentality that drives a few users behind this request (maybe because of a bad experience), while many creators, also who may list animal genitalia, will have no idea that their products could end up offending in a different search context.
I included some of the forums discussion arguments in this comment. I'm also a consumer and have no stake in this apart from being interested in a better search algorithm that benefits SL as a whole.
Midnoot Resident
It's time the marketplace becomes a less miserable experience. This would be the single biggest step in alleviating the pain of having to browse through hours and pages of stuff completely unrelated to, or simply not our preference.
Allowing us to curate our search results one creator at a time, by removing those who spam the marketplace with insane amounts of bad quality items and or 35 pages of the same product in different colors, , etc, would improve the marketplace dramatically.
Prokofy Neva
No, the Lindens should not enable the blocking of stores from highly personal preferences and even hate campaigns and flash mobs and sentiment like "no AI slop" which can only be in the eye of the beholder. That will affect the search results of all those people blocked and never coming into the view, and could drive them off the Marketplace unfairly. The idea that this is a personal preference only that has no impact on Search algorithms and weights is simply disproved by the obvious fact that Google, Bing, and other search systems on the wider Internet have no such function for the mass of users. You need to refine search terms as you go, and type "clean butt tattoo" and maybe -- hey, here's an idea -- take off "Adult" and put only "Mature" and "General" to see the content you want to see minus all the poop.
The problem of shirts put out in 50 colours of one style is misuse of the system wchih Ll should solve without enabling personal blocks of stores. They can make it a policy to remove such pages; they can encourage ARing of such pages; they can also make some effective affordance where a person can have a fan of pages that only become available on a click of that particular page and do NOT show up individually in search which drives people mad. They have not done that for years, however, and their new performative draconian ban on stores that have no sale within a year, or whose owners don't log in, is supposed to be a substitute.
The Lindens should not have "tracked" this proposal and thereby acknowledged its theoretical validity. They have not thought through the affect on their entire Search proposition and functioning nor have they considered industry standards like Google which they purport to emulate. Making it possible to move from the view of some -- and therefore the ranking of search results -- means they become far less visible or even invisible to the many, even whose who wish to see some content such as the very AI 3D mesh models bothering some people so much. This would essentially be a stealth creation of only a licensed class of creators which LL to its credit avoided all these years.
Vote NO here at Uncanny Valley:
Alwin Alcott
Prokofy Nevathey should limit posts to 50 words ....
Linn Darkwatch
Prokofy Neva , you say " The idea that this is a personal preference only that has no impact on Search algorithms and weights is simply disproved by the obvious fact that Google, Bing, and other search systems on the wider Internet have no such function for the mass of users"... Yes, they do, it's the NOT function, which has been a basic boolean option for search engines for years. For an easy way to access it, look at https://www.google.com/advanced_search
Prokofy Neva
Linn DarkwatchNo. You're confusing two different functions. Using a Boolean "NOT" for one search is not the same thing as actually permanently blocking a site and affecting its overall search ranking.
I don't need lessons on Google which I have likely used before you were born. The Lindens imitate Google and at one point even used their API apparently, although later they adapted it or used some other solution -- and they aren't talking. Many people complain how the Boolean option does not work for the SL Marketplace. In any event that would be each individual search which would not affect that item place after "NOT" , but not a permanent block on all searches that would.
This is all self-evident, and the energy with which seemingly educated tehnical people on this canny and on the forums dispute this is all out of proportion to the likely results. PS, the Lindens have ignored it for some two years.
When they focus on this, they may or may not work on "Boolean" first but maybe its "broken" quality is by design.
Cackle Amore
Would be nice if there was some update on this since it's one of the highest voted suggestions on the SL canny for marketplace.
Load More
→