Prokofy Neva How about we put a top category in search for Ravenglass Rentals?

AlettaMondragon ResidentI hardly need such a thing and in fact it would be an ordeal, not the "benefit" you imagine. In fact I am currently trying to get attention to reforms of Search of a different kind: they are currently displaying "1,000 for rent" parcels if you search for "Ravenglass Rentals" when only 40 were deliberately put as AVAILABLE in search/places for 30L -- the route we think is more successful than others like fake events and expensive classifieds. The search now shows people even in RESIDENTIAL just because the word "rentals" appeared somewhere on the parcel. It's a very blunt axe, and it is swinging and delivering if anything TOO MANY looky-loos landing in people's skyboxes. But you wouldn't understand that as you are not trying to manage land and you are not in the service industry. It's just that simple. These barbed comments and lobbed missiles feigning that I am pushing a "special interest" here MISS THEIR MARK.

I'm actually talking about a refining an existing structure that I can see generrally serves the public interest NOW although it is in need of serious improvement, marking, clearing of cache, etc. Different. I'm complaining actually -- hilariously in terms of your intervention here -- that NEW SHINY Search has clumsily worked TOO WELL and put clueless people on land abandoned in 2025 asking why am I deceiving the public and why aren't I renting said abandoned land of nearly a year ago FOUND IN SEARCH under my brand name. Hello. Big difference from Roxkie's crusade here as the non-engagé will concede.

What Roxksie and you are doing is something else -- pumping for special favours from Linden Lab -- that has dispensed zillions of favours over the years to nonprofits. You cannot or will not explain what the actual properties/venues/organizations ARE that you think are not showing up. You seem to imply RFL itself is part of that big "commercial suppression" but you don't expect the charity you think needs to be discovered.

This is not a good faith proposal. It is a disgused special interest and special pleading and will continue to be called out as such. Snipers like yourself claiming my critique is some special pleading for my own business can see explicitly that this isn't the case by using Search itself in both Legacy, Firestorm, and Web versions.

I'm not the one who needs to be at the top and in the view. You all are.

Prokofy Neva Alright, alright... maybe one for Private Homes, then? Just to make them more visible?

AlettaMondragon ResidentAn insincere post like this hardly deserves an answer, but "residential" -- which "private home* is ALREADY on the "About Land" menu inworld on the parcel and feeds into Search on the Web. As you know well. The point isn't to have that category or that toggle; the point is to have the system cued up so that it doesn't put something called "residential" into the view when someone searches LAND with RENT on the Web Search and inworld Search Browser. Hello. They don't need to be more visible, that's the point. But I sense yo're not in good faith here.

Prokofy Neva I'm not? Interesting, I thought it was me, as well as several others, who said Search would have to be rebuilt completely, rationalized and fixed.

AlettaMondragon ResidentDemanding that Search be completely rebuilt and fixed is so very 2010, Alett. I used to run an active "Fix Search" group. I led the charge to complain about the 2.0 Search destruction which first, they would reverse when especially merchants and rental agents complained (because we paid for search/places ads); then they stopped caring, and PS thanks to Cinders, the "Legacy Search" as it came to be called (and which, oddly enough, is back) which is no doubt your favoured Viewer like many other people's, or maybe you use some other more exotic third-party viewer, but they obviously saved a normal search with at least an interface returning more than 3-5 items.

Of the may things that need fixing in SL that are very urgent -- the dysfunctional onboarding, the dysfunctional Bellisseria Commercial, PBR water, even Zebra Water, a new thing -- there are dozens of more important things -- Search is "nice to have" but people have been getting by just fine. They even go to educational parcels just fine -- it's just that this current population and demographic is not interested in these offerings -- you can lead a horse to water, etc.

I feel the Lindens who have been overhauling Search in various non-intuitive and obsessively nerdy ways for years now -- 10? or more? -- in fact at the behest of many literalists and string-searchers in their Office Hours -- can't be tasked to do this AGAIN but need to just be made aware of some of the more glaring and fixable issues. Like having put "residential" into any kind of search connection that would emerge out of LAND RENTALS when...it says "residential" for a reason, and is not for rent. If somebody did want to sublet their little house, let's say, not as a rentals company, why, they would put it in search/places for 30L by everyone else. Again, any doordashing Lindens would instantly discover this. Overhauling some feature of SL is often the excuse to destroy it completely. No thank you.

Prokofy Neva "so very 2010", well yes, if they had been able to fix things properly in 2010, we wouldn't have so many problems today. The thing is that they are working on "PBR water", they are basically rebuilding the PBR rendering pipeline completely in their "graphics care" project, and that is a different team's work so it doesn't take resources from fixing or overhauling Search. Just like promotion and onboarding are tasks for other parts of the Lab, so one doesn't take the focus from another.

The "zebra water" glitch is not new, ever since they implemented screen space reflections it is like that. If you have it enabled, you see rippling stripes glitching through the water surface which makes sailing and flying nearly impossible, so we just keep SSR off until, hopefully, they fix that too in the graphics care project. In who knows how many years...

Saying "overhauling some feature of SL is often the excuse to destroy it completely" is also an excuse to halt progress and improvement, and keep SL in a condition that makes it undesirable, not only for new users but for long-time users as well.

Prokofy Neva, this keeps being reframed as if I am asking for special ranking, forced traffic, or moral superiority over commercial regions. I am not.

The proposal is for a Public Interest discovery route in Search.

Not a boost.

Not a prize.

Not anti-commercial.

Not forced education.

Just a clear way for residents to find public-benefit regions without relying on guesswork, buried keywords, or the Destination Guide.

The Education checkbox in About Land is not the same thing. Metadata is not discoverability.

If Music, Art, or Culture also need better routes, fine. That is an argument for better Search structure, not against this one.

This is about making public-interest regions findable. That is all.

Roxksie LoganLook at your own mockup. You are asking for a special bar on the interface of the Search inworld. You are asking for a lift up above all other categories to get on to the Search. Look at what you in fact proposed. You can go on about how it "isn't anti-commercial" but you just said in your very first post with your actual proposal that you feel your category needs special help to "compete" with "commercial and events" as if they somehow deliberately "drown you out."

Public interest sims are findable. Type "cancer" into Search/Places or even general search. There they are.

Why would Nonprofit ALONE AMONG ALL THEMES like Art & Culture, Business, etc. get a place along FUNCTIONS like People, Groups? There is no logic here. It's special pleading, under the guise of saying these offerings aren't "findable".

What's most appalling here is that you elbow NONPROFIT up on the top of the search FUNCTIONAL categories, then airily suggest that Music, Art, Business, etc. should just fight their way to the top on their own. Or that "all of search should be restructured" -- but meanwhile you get a special button.

What on earth is "buried" about a keyword like "cancer" or "mental health" or "disability" or "environmental" or any one of a host of key words as easily found in Search as the words like "LaraX" or "mesh body" or "club"?

Once again, look at the image you attached to your proposal -- I've marked up the problematic areas on a copy attached -- and cease to obfuscate here what is going on that we can plainly see: special pleading for one type of content alone among all the types of content in SL, with special pride of place, with the claim that this content is superior, special, needed, advantageous, etc. and yet "can't be found" -- despite the fact that anyone can type key words from this field as they can any other type of content in SL.

Prokofy Neva, A top-level Public Interest tab is intentional.

It is not a boost.

It is not a prize.

It is not anti-commercial.

It is not forced education.

It is a discovery route for a distinct resident intent: finding public-benefit spaces.

Search already makes room for commercial intent through Land Sales and Classifieds. It makes room for activity intent through Events. It makes room for social intent through People and Groups. A Public Interest route would make room for civic and community-benefit intent.

Keyword search is not enough. “Type cancer” is not discovery. It only works for people who already know what they are looking for.

Public-interest spaces should not have to survive purely by lucky keywords, Destination Guide selection, or forum memory. They should be visibly findable in Search.

Prokofy Neva, This argument only works by you adding claims to the proposal that are not there. Please address the proposal as written: a top-level Search tab for public-interest regions, not a ranking boost, not a moral hierarchy, and not an attack on commercial Second Life.

Roxksie LoganOnce again, Land Sales are frames for content, which can be big or small, commercial or noncommercial, and are a means not a theme or a category. And if you need to "discover" nonprofits, having names of people or key words for groups like "accessibility" or "LGBT" or "polio in Tajikistan" will find or not find what there is on offer. If someone suffers from cancer and wants to find mutual support or factual information in SL, indeed they do type "cancer" in Search. They need no prompting.

The idea that "public interest" has "no route" while others have "routes" is a chimera as the routes of People, Places, Groups, Events are agnostic to the of content and anyone can use those filters to find the content they need -- and they do. The generic categories of People, Places etc. ARE the routes. Some other highway need not be built. That's how these groups and events have in fact PROLIFERATED over the last 23 years and are heavily represented already on the Events page and even Linden-led events.

Why is it that "shopping" or "art" survive fine with the key words of "little black dress" or "installation" yet "public interest" is so crippled that it can't even generate a key word through the strength of a newbie or a returnee interest? That's simply not the case.

Music, Business, Art etc would also like to get their own personal button on the viewer -- there's lots of "real estate" on the current interface. But this could not be justified. Because people are not helpless and ignorant and come to SL having had a lifetime of Google and social media and already are highly adept at finding what they need using key words and filters. Destination Guide dropdown overrepresents nonprofits and art and the Destionations Home Page is chock full of such venues spanning every conceivable cause and topic. Go look. What has "forum memory" got to do with Search? Lots of people would like things to be poking up and pricking everyone in search and riveting them to their venue. But they make do with the same tools all of us have been given, without special pleading.

Prokofy Neva, this is still the same argument I have already answered. Keyword search is retrieval, not discovery. Metadata is not a visible Search route. Curation is not Search. The proposal remains a top-level Non-Profit / Education / Charity tab, not a boost, not forced traffic, and not commercial demotion. Same argument. Already answered.

Roxksie LoganNo, you cannot claim that your proposal "does not contain" special pleading or that it is "written only as a top-level Search tab" when in fact your mockup of this viewer shows a large box called NONPROFIT alone among themes -- a special, engineered means to traverse all the other competing content and rocket right into particular types of venues.

If any resident group did this with Business or Rentals you would see instantly that this was special pleading. So do try to get the critical distance to see that you are doing this with Nonproft by invading the space on the viewer with a special box.

Look at your mockup. I've marked it up for visibility of where the special pelading is. "Ranking boost" is something Linden Lab controls in secret and they would not divulge this; "moral hierarchy" is what is guiding your campaign here

You can't claim you are not engaged in an artificial boost based on a belief in moral superiority when in fact you've asked for your sector's own special button on the viewer no other interest or activity group has. And all along the way, in every single post here, you've implied its superior to every other activity. It doesn't matter if nonprofit activity, to which I've personally in RL dedicated my entire life, feels "better" or "superior" or "beneficial" to me or you or this or that person. You have to conceive of a system here -- an engineered world -- that is fair and just (to the extent that is possible under an authoritarian code-as-law regime) to all interests and pursuits. Google doesn't put a NONPROFIT box at the top of its spacious page that you click to jet to all the sites doing good like World Chef Kitchen or Coalition for the Homeless. If anything, this would lead to a puzzled and resentful attitude to the masses of Google users who in fact can type in "Gaza" or "encampment" perfectly fine without extra prompts or "taxis" to destinations.

Too bad the masses of SL are not interested despite what is already shoved in their faces on the Viewer and Linden blogs and Destinations daily.

Prokofy Neva, This is still the same objection I have already answered. Calling a top-level discovery route “special pleading” does not make it a boost, a ranking advantage, or moral superiority. You are still arguing against motives and claims I have not made.

Roxksie LoganSuddenly, "nonprofit" is stripped of every thing every other category has -- metadata, curation, keyword retrieval and is rendered supine and helpless on the Linden's Search interface and has nothing to face the cruel world of clubbing and ad-farming except...a taxi stand engineered on the viewer alone among categories to whisk them to offerings with low traffic. That IS indeed an incredibly aggressive and forcefully engineered traffic enhancer. I marvel that the Lindens can ever mark "tracked" let along "implement" such a traffic enhancer and booster into the view, as if 40 bots stood on the lot and also spammed notecards. The Edu/Charity tab IS the boost. It the forced traffic. It the favour. It a bald-faced bid to undermine commercial and music and art, too. It's also a confusing cross-category stealth booster, hoping to pick up charities as well as nonprofit art and become the One Ring that Rules them All.

You should explain to the public what conversations you may have had with Linden officials before this proposal; what your knowledge was of the tinkerings with Search which are now visible at search.secondlife.com And see that a special box or ban does not belong on the interface as it has been created already, and your argumentation for why YOUR interest sector needs to invade this space has not been made, as there is no evidence whatsoever that "nonprofit" is hidden, buried, undiscovered, et. and that people needing this area are so helpleess they can't type a keyword. Nonprofits should never infantalize their clients but should acknowledge their agency.

Roxksie LoganA large, drawn box with extra terms even inside it, and the numerous SLURLS or "taxis" that are generated on it ARE INDEED the special pleading, boost, etc. that emerged from the motives.

Your big nonprofit box is like the Lindens' land sale campaign called SKIP THE AUCTION QUEUE.

You are SKIPPING THE QUEUE.

Prokofy Neva, this is still the same objection, now with invented motives added. I have not asked for ranking priority, forced traffic, Linden favouritism, or commercial demotion. Unless there is a new point about the actual proposal, I have already answered this. I have had no private arrangement or special access behind this proposal.

Roxksie LoganYou continue to keep dodging the actual mockup you've made, and the actual forceful re-engineering demand you've made for thi viewer: your own individual, large, purple box with additional terms and explanation even inside it which, when clicked, provides instant Hyperloops to the venues of your interest groups. If you do not have, and do not seek, Linden favouritism, why are you demanding a special box on the viewer no other of content has? As repeatedly explained, the other categories on the splash page of the viewer are generic, content-free functionals like People, Groups. You are taking a content- BOX and inserting it into this agnostic field and skewing the entire Viewer.

If you are repeatedly called on this -- you have a BOX here that requires ENGINEERING not weights or balances or curation but physical coding and rearranging of the actual physical page -- then you keep insisting you are not making a specical request, "it's just us chickens here."

You have NOT answered a single valid objection with any evidence that nonprofits are languishing under the stampede of cluttery, low-rent content like "clubs" and "weekend sales," as you imply.

What I personally need to hear from now is a who is actually entertaining this seriously and actually grasps what is being asked of them -- and the consequences. Lindens often put "tracked" or tell people in "Office Hours" that they are "looking into" a proposal and then answer it years later. Therefore I will look to Linden managers/engineers to actually comment what this involves

What we have now is the preposterous situation where LL has "tracked" a proposal to invade the viewer as it now stands (after much tinkering, I might add -- and the latest iteration was just launched yesterday, July 26, 2026) -- and while never commiting themselves to "implementation" ever on the Canny are now somewhere in theory going to a special box that indeed brings with it everything denied of ranking, boost, direct routes, forced discoverability and on and on. So at this point I will need to hear authentic feedback from LL to see if this is really being contemplated in any serious way. I hope not! Because it is a NORMATIVE caper laden with .

Why should one type of content and activity get its own special box claiming to be superior and to determine what Second Life means?

Prokofy Neva, I have already answered this. If Linden Lab wants to comment on feasibility, that is their role.

Persephone PhoenixHow is that actually working out, Persephone? Events is all but unusable. The Lindens have tried leaving it alone and not bothering with it; then making draconian rules and punishing people for putting commercial sales booths into an "event," then accommodate this nonsense by allowing for events that provide "demonstrations" in person of products -- as if we are in a department store in 1920 or the Fuller Brush salesman is at the door of our home. People who try to list events risk reprimand and even blockage for common mistakes and if they do secure a spot for their event it's a miracle if it ever gets noticed amidst the spam. Events as a Category on the viewer interface is still essentially content-free. It could be any event about anything, music or a lecture about Byzantine Civilization, therefore it is a FUNCTIONAL category.

The OP wants to put THEMATIC topics like "Nonprofit" (already "Education" or "Art & Culture" on the "About Land" menu) into everyone's face on search to get a leg up over every other topic. Then one simply has to point out, but what about Music, buried in Events? IT doesn't get an about land category.

People with discussion groups and panel discussions can put "Arts & Culture" and "Education" on their "About Land" list like everyone else has to do with "Hang-out" or "Rentals", and they can take their chances with everyone eles in Events in Search The idea that this diverse and complex virtual world has to boost and put in the view "do-gooder" content merely because it purports to do good is an unfounded concept. No type of content should be elevated among others, especially in a world where the Lindens ALREADY curate and ALREADY pick their favourites for Destionations. People can find their way to the good -- which may be defined differently, to be sure -- by using Search even as flawed as it is.

Prokofy Neva, You keep adding claims I have not made, then arguing against those claims as if they are mine.

I have not said public-interest regions are superior.

I have not said commercial regions should be pushed down.

I have not said other categories should be denied better discovery.

I have not said a Search tab should guarantee traffic, ranking, or Linden endorsement.

The proposal is for a top-level Non-Profit / Education / Charity discovery tab. That is the actual request.

Repeating that this is “special pleading,” “do-gooder content,” or an attempt to get “a leg up” does not make it true. Those are interpretations you are adding to the proposal, not things I have argued.

A visible Search route is not a boost. It is not a prize. It is not moral elevation. It is a way for residents to intentionally find public-interest regions without needing to guess the right keyword first.

Please respond to the proposal as written, not to an invented version of it.

Roxksie LoganNo, I keep pointing out the obvious which you strangely deny, perhaps in the hopes that you can get it in under the wire. Surely the Search engineer Lindens will grasp it, if some higher manager or VP will get it when they see the net effect here.

I have to keep point out that you have DEMANDED A SPECIAL BOX ON THE VIEWER. You have proposed this but you keep feigning this is not the case when we can all see your drawing. Strange.

You've said in a number of your comments that "Commercial" essentially "gets theirs," but the underserved poor of the nonprofits need a boost. Having a special box on the otherwise generic interface that contains only categories -- a category box that you have let us know repeatedly throughout this discussion (and have drawn comments claiming this a well!) in fact ACHIEVES EVERY CHARGE I HAVE MADE.

Elevating ONE category above all others as a content-rich category into the neutral functional categories or People, Groups is indeed pleading a special case. And you have shown your hand again and again here claiming that "Commercial" is somehow "not neutral" and "gets a lot of traffic" merely by commercial and involving sales.

IN the same way you imply again and again the NONPROFIT DESERVES A BOOST. And you've collected votes on that emotional appeal that resonated with people merely wishing to appaud the good, and haven't really you are saying "I am looking for a special boost for a do-gooder category by asking for our very own content box on the Viewer, join me" and creating a stampede of votes. Most of the people here have likely not contemplated the consequences. INDEED, I FIRST VOTED MYSELF FOR THE PROPOSAL (!) BEFORE i REALIZED THE CONSEQUENCES and what was "up" here and then saw it had to be strenuously opposed as a bid for a special dispensation by one content category no other category is getting, whatsoever.

I've responded as the proposal as written -- I've looked at the words, I've seen the mockup and I see an engineering of the viewer that involves a new box. I've done exactly that, in a world where you were apparently counting on no one doing that.

Roxksie LoganA top level Non-Profit Search Tab is a special request because no onther category -- Art, Music, Business, etc. -- gets to be on there. Nonprofit alone is lifted into the space to garner eyeballs, and no other category. That is a that this system cannot serve fairly nor can justify elevating above others.

When you UNFAIRLY and UNJUSTLY put a VALUE JUDGEMENT of "the good" into a special box no other content category has -- the opening page has only functional netural categories like People or Groups -- inded you ARE guaranteeing more traffic; you indeed ARE guaranteeing before a search term has even been plugged in, that there will be a faster route to discovery and presence. (You also leave out that this Lost Newb who is the purported client here may have your special box, but he still has to think of his own search term to plug in.)

Repeating that your special box now visible in the mock-up alone among content categories "isn't" special pleading and "isn't" a fast-track to higher traffic is to either be heedless of the consequences of your actions entirely OR to deliberately obfuscate in order to ram a proposal through. Neither of them enhances your proposal. Stampeding in 250 people in whatever manner you achieved this -- a forums post, a social media post -- merely stampedes in people who think "Oh, nonprofit is good, I want to show I support the good."

All anyone would have to do to show the structural deformity of your means and manner here is to plug ANOTHER content word here. How about "Business"? You should wouldn't like that now would you. Why, in your conception, "Commercial" has already "gotten theirs" and need not inflict special pleading. Let's put "Art & Culture" which is your actual self-maintained venue in fact. If you put THAT in, people would really raise an eyebrow. You wouldn't elevate HANGOUTS which you might morally approve of more than "Clubs" (for example) because it's still too vague. What KIND of "Hangout"? For vampires? Or just random shinto shrine admirers? The hand you played is visible. Denying it only defeats it even if you succeed as so many often do in "putting one over" on the Lindens who may be predispossessed to grab at anything that looks "nice" and makes them "look good" in commercial endeavour. What business does not wish to look good making donations to charity?!

I'm not inventing. I'm looking at the mockup.

Roxksie LoganAll you have to do to grasp that "a visible Search route is not a boost" is to imagine the consequences if "Business" was made a special box -- perhaps one that people paid for, like a Google ad in Google's search results -- to grasp the mechanics here. You would hardly wish of your solution to be used . All you have to do is to imagine the STRUCTURE you have proposaed which you claim is merely "intentional finding" to have SHOPPING in it -- so it becomes a kind of mini-Seraphim -- to grasp that the STRUCTURE of the forced engineering of a box in fact is. There is no way to see all the major shopping events with the major traffic unless you go to an outside site like Seraphim. Why not boost it in the Viewer?!

The way you can grasp that your architectural solution is achieving unfair ends is that you plug another THEMATIC category in. Try "MUSIC" which is hard to find in the clutter of Events filled with category-killers and outright spam and illegal postings. Walk that through and realize you have made a value judgement about the value of "MUSIC" and elevated it with an Express Train to Glory -- which indeed gives it presence, trafficking, discoverability.

You're counting on beating the bushes of the scattered Attention Economy and invoking what we all know to be a moral judgement, then gaining votes from people who either want to be seen making popular moral judgements (popular at least in some circles) OR who have some private belief -- unexamined and untested and unproven -- that something they want is diminished.

I curate language/culture sites/sims and I can see the dramatic departure of educational institutions from RL and the deline of resident-driven educational efforts. Why do you think those people leave? Their grant ran out? The media stopped covering it? Maybe for some. But most people in the nonprofit sector toil in it because of their ideals.

I'm not for taking even my own ideals and boosting/overriding/highlighting them to force them on others using the Search for all kinds of other motivations. It will become the box that people ignore; it will become the box that people resent and even express hostility about. Why do that to the nonprofit sector?! Merely to vainly attempt to prove that these value-judged milkshares are better in this vallue-judged yard?

Prokofy Neva The Destination Guide is curated editorial placement. This proposal is about searchable discovery. They are not the same system and they do not solve the same problem.

A small number of long-standing non-profit, educational or arts destinations receiving prominent placement does not mean the wider category is “overrepresented.” It means those particular destinations were selected. Many active charities, support groups, educational regions, museums, discussion groups and public-interest projects remain difficult to find unless someone already knows their name.

You also acknowledge that Destination Guide curation can be stale. That is precisely why discovery should not depend entirely on editorial selection.

Live music may also deserve better categorisation. That is an argument for improving discovery elsewhere, not for rejecting this proposal.

Most importantly, you say that adding greater granularity to the About Land categories, including a non-profit category, would be welcome. That is already within the scope of what I have proposed. I am asking for a clearer discovery route, not insisting that Linden Lab use one particular technical implementation.

Roxksie LoganOnce again, your Feaure Request is the text in your first post, which has not been redacted. It is not some rider you tack on later in the discussion, which you clearly had no intention of incorporating or it would be in your original post. Your post does not contain any proposal to add to the diversity of the "About Land" menu inworld. When you make proposals, even if you are not a coder, you have to think through how they will be implemented, and where. Your original proposal does not merely in a general way as for "a clearer discovery route"; it asks for "Nonprofit" as a thematic category to be incorporated into what is a list of *functionality" such as People, Groups, etc. Go back and read what you have actually written, and not redacted throughout this debate.

Once again, the Destinations Guide is not mere narrowly "curated editorial placement" -- THAT INDEED is visible in the drop down on the top of the page but it is a click away from the HOME PAGE which, while curated -- as one could say about just about everything in SL -- is a far, far, broader diversity and typology than in the dropdown. Anyone can apply to be included. Many in fact are. Even I am included in this directory of thousands of venues. That's how you know it's broad. It is not just the top brands; it is not the Lindens' favourites. It's far broader and indeed Nonprofit is represented very well there, as is Arts.

Indeed, the Lindens' favouring of this category of art/nonprofit/education -- which in their judgement is "good for business" and which they are entitled to do as a private corporation -- indeed means it is overrepresented: in the Linden's blog; in the Destinations' drop down; in Linden presence at events inworld; in the very matching $1 Million Lindens that the Linden CEO announced this past week during the "Golden Ticket Awards Ceremony": $250,000 each to Relay for Life, Virtual Ability, Spoonful of Sugar, and the Michael J. Fox Foundation. The Lindens, in their wisdom, did not give cash to, say, groups providing onboarding of newbies like Oxford Caledon. They did not give to groups providing "things to do" like SL Drivers. In this climate -- and every viewer takes place in a climate and a context -- it is unfair and unnecessary to add more buttons or pathways to discoverability.

It is no good saying magnanimously "Oh, sure, music can come too on the About Land" when you have not anything about whether proposals are to afffect "About Land" or "Destinations" or "Search interface". What your goal clearly is -- as you have in fact drafted your proposal -- is to have a specific category for nonprofits that no other thematic category gets in the as distinct from categories in Search or on the About Land menu. You know full well that the "About Land" categories are unimportant to you because you don't imagine they affect search very much -- the Lindens don't have "Music" on "About Land" because they think this largely "belongs" in "Events" (which actually dooms it to obscurity much of the time). Your proposal in fact does not say it is "across frontiers" on a variety of parts of the viewer and external website. Your proposal is about the interface of SEARCH in the browser on the opening page.

Nonprofits do not need more boosting in SL. I speak as someone who has spent the last 50 years of my adult life in the nonprofit sector in RL, and who in the 22 years of my SL have engaged in a variety of nonprofit projects or causes. What is needed is a better search for all aspects of SL, which means performing really basic tasks like clearing the cache of SEARCJ in the browser more frequently; enforcing existing rules about mislabelling of categories (i.e. "adult furniture" forcing itself into the view on searches of "rentals"), and enforcing rules about "traffic enhancement" or bots. The mechanics or machinery of SEARCH itself -- especially with Legacy Search now in the SL Viewer -- and "Legacy Search" having ALWAYS remained in the most popular third-party viewer, Firestorm -- do not need changing or refining via the top terms apparing on the opening page of SEARCH. Adding to the "About Land" categories is "nice to have" but there is physically not enough room unless the whole design is changed AND the categories on the "about land" do not appear to have a major weight in SEARCH in general.

Prokofy Neva, the proposal has always been about improving discoverability for public-interest spaces. My original post suggested one possible implementation because that was the obvious place to describe the problem. As I've already clarified several times, I'm not attached to one specific technical implementation. If Linden Lab achieves the same outcome by expanding the About Land thematic categories or another part of the discovery system, I would support that. The goal is improved discoverability, not prescribing the engineering.

The Destination Guide and Search are different systems serving different purposes. Editorial curation, however broad, is not the same as searchable discovery. A resident should not have to depend on being selected for a curated directory to become discoverable. Finally, pointing to a handful of successful charities or educational organisations does not demonstrate that discoverability is working well for the thousands of other public-interest projects across Second Life. That is the problem this proposal is trying to address.

Roxksie LoganOnce again, it is no good promising inclusiveness of other aspects of the features in your comments, but then leaving your proposal unredacted. You've failed to acknowledge that your "one possible implementation" which you feel is the "obvious place" is...the interface of Search's landing page where you would intrude among a group of functions like "People, Groups, Events" with favourite category called "Nonprofit" instead of staying with the other themes, some of which don't even have their own "About Land" category like "Music."

Again, Destinations is not mere editorial curation because it is far more inclusive than you admit. Furthermore, the very elements one finds in SEARCH are in fact CURATIONS. They are individuals and groups curating themselves and putting themselves in Search/Places. They are people selecting a theme on the "About Land" menu which influences SEARCH -- we don't know with what weight. The SEARCH systems scans as well as . It is not the principles of Google. It is largely writ, a Folksonomy.

A resident doesn't have to wait for Linden curation on the Dropdown Destinations; he can apply for inclusion on the far larger Destionations on the Home Page. More to the point, he can ensure inclusion in search by the self-curation of a) choseing a label for his "About Land" and b) taking out a search/places or Classifieds ad. Very little that is not self-curated in this fashion ends up in SEARCH.

A proposal awarding a special button that special interests get to front their groups is unwarranted because it only fuels the demand for other pleadings. It's also unnecessary. If the other groups who did not land in Linden curation on the opening page of the browser want to get seen, they have to self-curate with the tools of selecting their "About Land" category (many don't even bother with this) and paying the 30L for search/places per week, and also buying Classifieds if they wish.

To achieve your goal of getting more visibility for your own arts installation group, and your own category of "nonprofit" which contains other similar projects, you should not and need not overthrow the viewer and the Search opening page with a special-pleading button. Instead you can a) self-curate as indicated to mechanically be entered into search b) engage in the usual channels of communication to convince the Lindens that they need to switch out their Destination "editors' choices" way more than they do, and also constantly work your groups and your advertising and events.

Just because some category is perceived as "beneficial" for society or for newbies in particular; just because some category is believed by those in it to be underserved, doesn't mean that the viewer should be overthrown by one interest group. The Lindens, in marking this proposal as "tracked" should be wary of allowing this coup d'etat, and realize that the mechanical path to this greater glory is contained not in new buttons or words, but in making the overall system better. If they must monkey with the actual viewer "real state" itself, then at most they should add a category for the "About Land" menu (and add "Music" as well) and not invade the Search interface directly.

Prokofy Neva, I think we've reached the point where we're repeating ourselves. My proposal is about improving discoverability for public-interest spaces, not prescribing one engineering implementation. I've already clarified that I would support Linden Lab implementing that through Search, About Land, or another discoverability mechanism if they consider that the better design. The existing options you describe, such as paid Search listings, Classifieds, About Land categories and Destination Guide applications, are tools for venue owners. They do not change the user problem this proposal addresses: making public-interest spaces easier for residents to discover.

I'll leave the implementation decisions to Linden Lab.

Roxksie LoganNo one would have to repeat themselves if you would acknowledge what you have done here: claimed to be merely interested in a general kind of way in promoting the visibility of nonprofit groups in SL, and then asking the Lindens to figure out "the back end" -- but then in fact proposing a very intrusive and coercive engineering decision namely, a demand to put NONPROFIT on the same level as PEOPLE GROUPS EVENTS LAND, thus intruding into the categories of FUNCTION with a category of THEME that more properly belongs elsewhere, on About Land. By continuing to insist that you merely want "more visibility" for groups that do good in society, you are avoiding looking at the harm that would occur by overthrowing the viewer and installing a special interest group alone among all categories.

You can't claim you are "leaving the implementation to the Lindens" when your specific, detailed proposal includes within it which is invasion of the SEARCH interface.

You are saying "Nonprofit" is SOOOO important alone above all categories that it need not be satisfied with the "tools" of application to Destinations, use of search/places ads for 30L, Classifieds ec. and that "Nonprofit" -- alone of all themes -- is to get a stand-out button to itself among to "help it become more visible". Why, then, couldn't "Music" have a special button? It is languishing in "Events" and doesn't have an "About Land" slot. Why not separate "Arts & Culture" -- they need not be lumped together. Why not have "Science Fiction" because the Lindens founded SL on the concepts of "Snowcrash". And so on.

The tools ARE the curation. The self-curation is all that is required. To become visible, one must use the tools better and ask that they be reformed to work better e.g. clearing cache in the LAND SEARCH. You can't claim you deserve more visibility than everyone else using the same set of tools to work towards their own visibility, in whatever category.

To conclude:

Prokofy Neva, You make several factual claims here, such as nonprofits being "over-represented" and already having "plenty of visibility." Could you share the evidence those conclusions are based on? For example, do you have data on the proportion of public-interest regions relative to their visibility in Search or evidence that new residents can already discover them easily?

Roxksie Loganyes The question is really this: do YOU have data proving that public-interest regions -- unlike any other region in any other category from a club to a casino to a rentals sim to a merchant event -- have somehow become underserved and undiscovered *because of how existing SEARCH is engineered? I think you will hardly be able to prove any such thing. In fact, the proliferation of RFL events of all kinds of groups means that their sims will show a goodly share of the over all concurrency's foot traffic and engagement.

If you mean by "nonprofit" not "charity" but "art groups," I think you will find that the top galleries especially those with constant events of every kind will show a good chunk of traffic and engagement in the Lindens' systems.

Further, why is the status of some perceived or actual neglect mean you must seek to re-engineer the viewer? I've cited my proof repeatedly throughout this and forums threads for this category already being in the view AND through the existing affordances of the different forms of SEARCH*: a) Linden blogs and inworld presence at chief charity events and even donations to 501-c-3 equivalents or actuals in SL such as the recent matching $1 million grant to 4 SL charities; b) pride of place throughout the curated Linden Destinations, starting at the drop-down menu on the opening page of the browser; c) AND most importantly, ready discovery through an ordinary search/places search on the Search interface or Legacy Search on a keyword like "art" or "nonprofit" or "cancer". Everyone can go and check this; every one can see "surfacing" and "discoverablity" of every good cause known to the world, real and imagined.

Most nonprofits in SL provide a link to their RL organization or foundation representing their cause. across SL properties and then RL properties as well.* You have not done that. If you wish to be an anonymous avatar in a virtual world, promoting your own anonymous (in RL terms) art installation group whch is not commercial in nature, we get it, truly we do. That is your right. It does not mean you are then entitled to special pleading to get your particular cause into the viewer.

Prokofy Neva, you claimed that public-interest spaces are already "over-represented" and have sufficient visibility. The examples you've provided, such as Relay for Life events, prominent galleries, Linden-supported charities and keyword searches for users who already know what to look for, do not establish those claims. They are examples of existing visibility, not platform-wide evidence that public-interest spaces are already easy for new and returning residents to discover.

My proposal is about improving discoverability for a broad range of public-interest spaces across Second Life, including education, arts, culture, accessibility, support communities and nonprofit projects. It is not based on my own region, nor am I tied to or claiming to represent any charity. Whether my region links to a real-world organisation is therefore irrelevant to the usability question being discussed.

The question remains whether new and returning residents can readily discover these spaces without already knowing their names or the keywords to search for. As you have asserted that they are already over-represented and sufficiently visible, I'd be interested in seeing the data that supports those conclusions. At present, the request for evidence still stands.

Roxksie Logan If you are not representing any RL organization or even your SL art installation group, then you need to cease trying to re-engineer the viewer because you are only heightening the impression that you are hiding your own agenda, masking it with the universalization of what is in fact your own personal determination of what is "good for society." If in fact you are truly disinterested; if in fact your proposal is benign and well-intentioned, it will not involve re-engineering the viewer and placing a special button NONPROFIT alone among categories unlike, for example MUSIC.

I might add it will also NOT involve trying to get removed anyone's post who counters your aggressive forums threads and your suddenly popular CANNY proposal under colour of being "good for society" -- a banner that is all too easy to wave, and all to hard to actually implement when the agenda is hidden.

Because your actual proposal is NOT saying "Let's think of different ways we could increase nonprofit visibility across Linden properties" but is in fact specifically in fact about invading the SEARCH interface with just one category that you believe to be ABOVE others, the outside observer can ONLY explain this effort by a) self interest or b) heavy ideology that believes "nonprofit is better than commerce". And in the diverse multinational virtual world of Second Life, that cannot stand as it threatens freedom itself for all people in all categories.

Once again, YOUR claim that "nonprofits are underserved" or "that nonprofit regions are underserved and unseen" has no evidence. You have not brought forth any evidence of this whatsoever. Anyone can go to even the faulty Search in the browser and discover all they need to discover, even if they are only five minutes old. The superior Firestorm search and the now-restored Legacy Search handily and ampily surfaces everything anyone would need from a search on THIS topic.

Prokofy Neva, you keep pointing out that you do not know who I am offline as though that weakens my proposal. It does not. Linden Lab's own Terms of Service explain exactly why you do not know. Second Life accounts operate through an Account Name and avatar identity. Linden Lab explicitly warns residents not to submit personally identifiable information such as their real name, address, email, medical information or other contact details on the Service because it is a public forum. Linden Lab also states that it does not guarantee the accuracy of any identity information about any user.

In other words, the separation between my avatar and my real-world identity is not suspicious, incomplete or a failure to provide credentials. It is how the platform is designed to function. The Terms also require users to respect the privacy of other residents, prohibit content that invades another person's privacy, and prohibit collecting information about users without their consent. You therefore have no contractual entitlement to know my real-world name, organisation, employer, affiliations or personal history. I am not required to surrender my privacy to you before I may submit a feature request, advocate for public-interest spaces or participate in Second Life.

Judge the proposal on what it says. Stop attempting to turn my protected offline identity into a qualification test.

That you and your allied groups believe that this is NOT the case; that nonprofit is "underserved" makes no sense to any even cursory observer of SL who can see every evidence of attention from Linden Lab, every evidence of special curation, and MOST IMPORTANTLY every evidence of easy affordances of a variey of SEARCH user interfaces --

If newbies or returnees or oldbies are not drinking at this fountain of goodness, it is not because they aren't It's because of human nature which is not redeemable via computer code.

Hopefully the Linden engineers and their managers will see the implications of this proposal you have made which is in fact asking for a special dispensation. That it gathers "double plus good" votes in this flawed system, like the JIRA, means nothing in a world where WE CANNOT VOTE NO. It is not a fair discussion, and not a fair vote. It is merely a false marker of artificially agitated "public" opinion that becomes the plaything of this or that faction. Lindens routinely mark as "tracked" any proposal they think might have some merit, even if they have no intention of every implementing it, adding to the false impression of efficacy of this flawed system.

That such a proposal as yours -- consciously and deliberately framed as an engineering job and not really an overall booster across frontiers -- could first be launched like a bomb on the forums, complete with complicated dashboard mock-ups AND caricatures ridiculing critics like me that went unmoderated, then land in the Canny and collect 250+ votes lets me know there are forces at work that we cannot see here.

There may be a fix being put in here, by forces unknown, and the proof of the erroneous nature of this theory will only be proved by the Lindens NOT re-engineering a viewer SEARCH they have tinkered with for 5 years or more with a sudden special bar or button. They need to make their existing flawed but certainly serviceable search work more efficiently; putting on extra buttons to satisfy this or that very motivated constituency is not the way to chief your goals, if sincere, or theirs, manifested in their skewed curation.

Roxksie LoganYou have a very limited notion of the scope of "nonprofit" if you have not observed in your 20 years in SL the fact that NONPROFITS IN SL RAISE REAL MONEY. They collect sometimes enormous sums and cash them out for tens of thousands of dollars in a recognized and approved charity like ACS RFL. "Nonprofit" does not mean "no offset of costs" or "no raising of funds for the mission of the organization, which is not to make a profit." When real money cashed out to real life is involved, yes, many people including the Lindens want to see a 501-c-3 US Tax Law status or its foreign equivalent, which they are enjoined to determine under said US Law.

The issue isn't that everybody gets to be an anonymous avatar, with their privacy, and have anonymous groups doing good as they see it without fear or favour or exposure. Of course that is the gold standard of SL which PS is sometimes not met, including by the staff themselves when they help to expose someone's RL identity, occupation, and location as a way of discrediting their critique of anything in the virtual world.

Of course I have no "contractual entitement" and that is irrelevant along with this entire changing of the topic away from your attempt to get the viewer re-engingeered. My demand to redact your proposal has nothing to do with trying to reveal your protected identity so stop trying that method to distract from my main point here: a) you have not proven that the best-known nonprofits pf any or all types are underserved, whatsoever; b) you have not proven that nonprofits that don't even raise money for their cause -- an activity that both LL and Tillia must become interested in once the amounts reach certain threshold -- are somehow neglected, either. Surely being in SL as long as you claim would make you aware of this.

You cannot urge the Lindens to re-engineer the viewer in an where know your real identity if you have payment on file and expect to cash out money donated to your cause or any cause in your factions -- but the general public . This is a very real problem that is not about you; it is a generic problem for SL and not for the first time. To demand that invisible, unaccountable avatars and groups hiding behind the terms of the TOS get to demand pride of place in the viewer from SEARCH -- and raise money or not, enhance reputation only, or not, is to misuse the platform in egregious ways.

I don't care if you are Mother Theresa; I don't care if you are Yoko Ono or Susan Unterberg or merely Sarah Smith of Golders Green or Jane Doe of Columbus, Ohio. You get to have privacy; you get to be anonymous; you get to do anything you like under the TOS safe in the knowledge the Lindens will safeguard your privacy -- more or less. Your privacy and your rights (really only privileges) under the TOS are not at stake here so don't distract with that claim. I've raised the issue of RL connectivity as a red flag of that .

So even Mother Theresa or Sarah Smith don't get to re-engineer the viewer while hiding behind a nick. That is the issue at stake here. If you wish to raise real money -- which is the goal of many nonprofits in SL -- then you have to expect that a level of trust will come with the careful management of your RL/SL interface and reputation and . If you only expect to engage entirely in non-commercial activity even to cover your own costs, say, a region tier, that's fine, but such efforts also come with a heavy notion of needing enhancement to get in the mindshare. So once again, whatever path you seek and whoever you are, you cannot achieve this with the design you have proposed which is not a generic boosting of this category overall in a rather capacious way, but is a very specific demand to re-engineer the viewer by your specifications to get "visibility" for your self-described cause. It is not in the public interest. If the Lindens fall for this, many of us will lose what faith we had in them. And surely they know if this was their goal, they had merely to curate you in Destinations as they do with select others. They don't need to chip their nails doing costly and painstaking code changes, reviews, and testing.

Roxksie LoganNo one can understand why avatars who have been in this virtual world since the very dawn of time have suddenly rocked up to demand that the viewer be re-engineered with a special "nonprofit" button -- and resisted redacting their proposal despite airy assurances that sure sure, they're open to suggestions/changes. Where have you been hiding all these years, under a Beanstalk? "Youth Wants to Know".

No one is getting into your RL business when they raise these questions of reputation . If you want to play the game of rage-baiting and trolling people into getting their posts pulled who properly confront this reality of our virtuality, that's fine but you haven't removed the problem which is generic, and not about you personally whatsoever. I am unafraid.

Roxksie LoganI have provided ample examples of the ways in which nonprofit, charitable groups, places, and events are already in fact OVERREPRESENTED in SL. The fact that LL just gave $1 Million Linden dollars to four groups of various charitable types is self-evidence of this as everything else I've outlined here. Every week I am deluged with dozen of nonprofit art and charity events and installations from various groups that I easily discover and join via search or the Events listing. You have failed to provide any example of some nonprofit activity that is somehow "languishing" and "not surfaced" in SL's search. You have yet to provide a single example of a key word that someone would need to "just know" before approaching Search. Meanwhile, any of us could cite a deluge of references and years of special attention from LL in and outside search and the browser functions.

Do you mean "Random Crew"? Perhaps that does not do well as a search term? It needs additional terms added? Or what exactly does not do well? Make your case. You have not made it. Your mockup speaks 1,000 words -- it is an invasion of the Search interface.

Jelly Doll, I do not think it is fair to say the ship has sailed when residents still clearly do care about public-interest spaces in Second Life.

Relay For Life of Second Life is the obvious example. People still build for it, attend it, donate to it, promote it, and treat it as part of the wider SL community. That is not a dead category. That is residents actively using Second Life for something beyond shopping, clubs, and rentals.

Virtual Ability is another example of a space with a genuine public-interest purpose. These kinds of places matter to people who need support, information, accessibility, community, or a safer way into SL.

I do agree that some old educational builds are stale. I am not arguing that abandoned 2006-era locations should be pushed at people just because they once had a college logo on them. If a place is inactive, badly maintained, or no longer useful, then it should not be treated as a strong result.

But that is exactly why better discovery matters. The point is not to reward dead builds. It is to make current, maintained, useful public-interest places easier to find, while making the stale ones easier to ignore.

Prokofy Neva I think this is close to the kind of practical version I would support.

A broader category such as Arts / Culture / Education / Non-Profit, or something similar, may work better than making “education” carry the whole idea on its own. A lot of the value here is not conventional classroom teaching. It is museums, archives, exhibitions, support spaces, accessibility projects, mentoring, charity work, historical builds, community learning, arts, and public-good activity.

I also agree that this probably has to be self-reported. If Linden Lab has to decide manually what counts, it will either become too narrow or it simply will not happen. Formal charity status should not be the only route in, because many useful Second Life projects are informal, community-led, and mission-based rather than legally registered non-profits.

That said, regions would also need to do their part. If they want to be found, they need clear descriptions, sensible keywords, active listings, proper event use where relevant, and landing points that make sense to visitors.

So for me the goal is still discoverability. Give residents a clearer way to find active public-good, cultural, educational, and community spaces, while also expecting those spaces to keep their own listings understandable and current.

Roxksie Logan Now that I have studied your comments on the forums and this proposal more, I actually see a fatal flaw in it that makes me now remove my vote.

It would be one thing if you wanted to add to the THEMATIC CATEGORIES ON THE ABOUT LAND MENU, which has such terms as "Art & Culture," "Nature," "Rentals," "Shopping" etc. That set of themes could definitely do with the addition of "Education/Non-profit" (and I would add, "Music" which shouldn't just be left to languish in the crowded "Events" List). Yes, make more categories and police misuse of them. An adult shop selling furniture shouldn't put itself into "Rentals" or "Nature" just to get out of the crowded theme of "Shopping" and gain visibility.

But that's not what you're proposing. In fact, I suspect, like a l ot of people, you have never studied THE LAND MENU as distinct from the inworld browser search. Even if you don't own land, go on any land parcel and pull up "about land" and study the THEMES.

Instead of THEMES like "Art & Culture" or "Business" or "Rentals," it appears you want the inworld browser FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES like "People" or "Places" or "Groups" to have a THEMATIC theme all your own called "Nonprofit/Education" that . You want special pleading and privilege for do-gooding and get ahead of the crowd struggling with land labelling or keywording for "Art" or "Education" or "Music" the other way. That is wildly unfair. The Lindens ALREADY overpromote nonprofit/charitable activities in extraordinary ways with mindshare on the splash page, interviews, blogs, their own precious personal inworld participation in things like "Relay for Life". It simply isn't just to then give over to the scarce real estate of FUNCTIONAL categories a special pleading of EDUCATION. Themes should not be mixed in with functions. If you are going to do that, then the lobbyists for "Art" or "Shopping" will say "Why can't we be there, too?"

Currently, the THEMATIC search on the web based on self-reporting of THEMES like "Art & Culture" or "Shopping" works very badly for reasons I've repeatedly explained -- failure to clean up and update, failure to establish a culture of labelling in a setting where everybody ignores and tunes out labelling . The FUNCTIONAL search works a lot better -- it updates nearly in real time, with LEGACY search we now have a much better working discovery engine.

Prokofy Neva I think this is a useful distinction, but I want to be clear about my intent.

I am not asking for a thematic category to be inserted into functional search areas such as People, Places, Groups, or Events as a special category above everyone else. If that is how the proposal reads, then it needs clearer wording.

What I am asking for is better-themed discovery for public-interest spaces. If the correct implementation is through the About Land theme/category system, destination-style browsing, or another viewer-facing thematic discovery layer, then that is completely in line with what I mean.

I agree that themes and functions should not be carelessly mixed. A group should remain a group. An event should remain an event. A place should remain a place. The issue is that residents also need a better way to browse meaningful places when they do not already know the exact name to search for.

This is not a request for special privilege for my own group, nor is it a request that Linden Lab promote one cause over others. It is about making an existing kind of Second Life activity easier to discover through clearer labelling and better viewer tools.

So yes, if the practical route is to improve or expand the thematic land/category system rather than add anything to functional search categories, I would support that. The goal is clearer discovery, not special placement.

Prokofy Neva I do not think this should be framed as forcing new residents through worthy or mechanical content. That is not what I am asking for.

I have been in Second Life for around 20 years, so I am well aware that onboarding, search, welcome areas, events, groups, destinations, land settings, and resident behaviour are complicated. I am not approaching this as someone who thinks one category or one viewer change magically fixes discovery.

I agree that people often want something immediate, social, fun, or entertaining when they first arrive. They may want music, clubs, shopping, games, building, art, quiet exploration, or just somewhere with actual people. That is normal. I am not proposing that the viewer should march anyone through public-interest spaces as if that is the "correct" way to experience Second Life.

I also agree that human hosting, events, advertising, portals, signs, groups, and direct outreach matter. Discovery tools do not replace that work.

My point is narrower than that: when residents are already looking for meaningful places, the official tools should make those places easier to find. That does not mean special placement. It does not mean forced onboarding. It does not mean Linden Lab is choosing moral winners. It means clearer themed discovery and better labelling so residents are not dependent on exact keywords, old knowledge, external lists, or luck.

I fully accept that public-interest spaces still need to do their own work: events, promotion, networking, search listings, and staff presence. But better viewer discovery would support that work rather than replace it.

So I do not see this as either/or. Human outreach matters. Advertising matters. Events matter. But clearer themed discovery inside the viewer still matters too.

AlettaMondragon Resident It's entirely incorrect to say "Legacy Search" in the inworld browser is "completely dysfunctional" for discovering "nonprofit" when you can type that key word into "search/places" and get "Nonprofit Commons" and many other actual nonprofits with the word in their name OR in their description. That's because those groups bother to pay 30L a week to put themselves in search/places, and that's what you are required to do if you want to be discovered. Everybody can afford the equivalent of US 10 cents a week for this. There is a confusion in this discussion between the thematic land menu categories which are fairly useless, along with web search, which is very flawed for reasons I've stated, and inworld browser search categories that should not have special pleading for this or that theme. If you invade functionality like "People" and "Places" with "Education" then...why not have "Music"? Or "Religions"? Why leave these "things to do" categories in the mire of "Events" or the slow loading of big "Destinations" pages?

As I've noted, "Nonprofit/Education" gets all kinds of other sometimes intangible and inaccessible boostings into the mindshare through blogs, interviews, Linden involvement, etc. etc. I have been in the nonprofit sector in RL for 50 years. I advocate for justice and fairness everywhere, including on this issue. Invading a theme into a function is special pleading and also unnecessary.

Prokofy Neva It's not only completely useless for finding educational or non-profit entries but for everything else, too.

My comment here suggests a complete overhaul of Search features and to combine them into one robust, reliable feature. I will explain that better both here and in the forum topic later.

My point is, the way I would redesign this, there wouldn't need to be a standalone top category for education in search. Rather the existing Educational category in Places that you can choose for your parcel. And the ability to choose such categories for groups as well.

Once categories exist in Places, Groups and Events alike, in a new search engine combining Websearch and Legacy Search you could just select as many of the top categories (such as Places and Events) as you wanted, and then on a filter field on the side you select the Education tag, and boom, you get everything!

The full Destination Guide would be integrated in this as well. More on that idea later.

This can be done with roleplaying, commercial, art, etcetc as well. I think it would be quite close to what already exists, but it would be more extensive and rational than the current features.

AlettaMondragon Resident So Aletta, you need to specify the factual experience inworld in what specific activity that led to this claim which I can only declare as false, as big a critic as I am of Search over the years.

o I make lists of country/language sims; charming cafes; sacred sites; rentals; nature preserves; etc. etc. These have hundreds of entries on each card maintained on a server and clients inworld. I look up these sites constantly, daily, hourly and update these listings accordingly.

o I run a business that directly depends on people using search/places and other search functions to find my offerings and I poll them publicly and individually on their experiences

o I use only the SL Viewer for lots of reasons but I respect that Firestorm saved the SL economy (although they would never put it that way) by maintaining what amounts to Legacy Search for over 15 years

o So daily, hourly, I use search and fix things related to search and I know the key-word "Nonprofit" or "Art" or "Charity" you all are so concerned with does come up; is surfaced; is plenty accessible; does not need any special visibility invading functional categories instead of thematic categories.

FILTERS ARE NOT THE SOLUTION. Why? Because they reset while you are trying to add to your search. THAT is the biggest hobble in the system now and why most people don't use "Land Rentals" or even "Land Sales" unless they are obsessive land barons. It's too clunky; it doesn't keep your search in place as even the Marketplace does. It dumps and makes you start over like "Favourites" does on the Marketplace which is also wildly infuriating. The user interface in this regards cripples the products. So no, filters can't be the solution until they stop the automatic dumps and resets.

We also have to be clear about what you mean by "just adding Charity or Nonprofit": to the About Land menu, where indeed it belongs, so that it becomes a factor searches of various kinds, or as some special category elevated to the status of People, Places, Groups. As I keep trying explain, there is a big difference.

Why does Charities get special pride of place, alone among categories, and not Music then? Why not Art? Why not Shopping?

You don't add those thematics on the search interface; you add them on the "About Land" categories and of course in your key words.

If your point is that you don't think it's fair that LAND TO RENT OR BUY and CLASSIFIEDS get to be a functional category along with PEOPLE, PLACES, GROUPs, then say so. if you feel this commercial sector is overbalanced contrasted to Nonprofits, then say so. Don't cloak that demand with universal pieties about how search needs to be overhauled.

I do not think NONPROFIT should go under LAND TO RENT OR BUY as it is a theme whereas LAND is a function. If you put NONPROFIT on that visually prominent piece of browser "real estate" then the question is begged why not Music? Art? Business? Shopping? https://gyazo.com/b4d41c40ea7431f5a462178a97e58fe9

Prokofy Neva As you noted as well, Legacy Search is better than Websearch, gives clearer results, etc. Except, there are a lot of ghost results that come up, places that don't even exist for example, or not where the search result shows. And you can't combine categories in Legacy Search. So I would fix the search database issue and then combine the Legacy Search engine with the Websearch UI.

Filters not persisting is just another thing that makes a function useless. So if you search for certain things often, the filters you used last should persist so you can run the same search the next time.

In my version there wouldn't be any special treatment for any category, everything would have its own filter that users could select or unselect as they wish at any time when searching, and multiple categories could be selected for your parcel as well. So if you do "Arts and Recreation" and "Education" at the same place, you could choose both, and if someone runs a search for all "Arts and Recreation" places, it would be there. If someone searched for Roleplay, your place with "Arts and Recreation" and "Education" tags wouldn't show there.

I think it would make it fairly easy to set up places (and also groups and events) to show in search like this. This could be still misused or abused. I don't think it would be viable to monitor this actively and fix misplaced search tags, but it would be nice for sure. However the Destination Guide should be monitored actively and closely and LL and the owners of places featured on the guide should be in contact regularly to make sure it is up to date.

Then places in the Destination Guide could get a nice purple badge or something (whatever color you like) that would show next to the name of those places in the search results. That would act like a "verified" status in this case, so if you see a result with the Destinations badge it should mean it's definitely not a random, outdated result.

It is important to keep in mind that I'm talking about a complete overhaul here, not patching a few two-decade old bugs and inconsistencies. I would rebuild the whole thing from scratch.

Marly Milena

Rewording this because I was too harsh:

I think it would have been better to say something more factual, since your idea can come across more like an advertisement than a factual statement. To me it wouldn't be a problem, but trolls and naysayers started using this comment on the forums to misinterpret this feature request:

I saw your explanation in that topic so I changed my comment here, sorry about the harsh tone earlier. I do think however that the "educational paradise" advertisement would do more harm than good, seeing that forum topic.

AlettaMondragon Resident I understand the concern about the phrase “educational paradise” being easy to misread or exaggerate, and I agree that the request is strongest when it stays focused on practical discoverability rather than promotional wording.

That said, I do not think Marly made a mess. She was supporting the proposal in good faith and trying to suggest language that would make the value of education and lifelong learning in Second Life more visible to new users.

I appreciate the support for improving Search, but I would rather keep the focus on the proposal itself rather than place too much weight on one comment.

SL Feedback Implemented HOW? As a thematic category on the "About Land" page with its themes like "Art" or "Nature"? Or a functional category like "People" and "Groups," awarding its thematic status special prominence alone among themes? Which is it? Be specific and do think about the consequences here.