Inventory Management

1. Don't make it voluntary. Auto-archive older stuff that hasn't been accessed in a while.
2. Please implement the auto-trash delete, and give users a choice of up to 30 days of how often to empty. We talked about it with Phoenix at length, it's time to just do it!
3. Implement local storage on items you created and have full perms on. Store it on the user's PC. Why waste server space?

Pathfinder

I'm afraid I don't have time to read the whole thread here, so praps I shouldn't post. But there is one thing I'd like to say.

If other people are like me, the current huge inventory load may be a temporary phenomenon.

Because I know (or believe) that in the next update or so I will receive the capability to start moving stuff around my inventory by dragging and dropping groups of things, I have suspended all inventory purging or sorting activity until then.

There are huge numbers of thing in there which I am intending to delete (eg hundreds of intermediate versions of own design scripted objects with intermediate bugfixes and developmental steps. Before I delete, I must sort and be sure I am keeping exactly the few I need. I will definitely be cutting my inventory by threequarters. But since I can do it in probably one twentieth the time once I can move multiple items together (copy paste reselect delete as now is just no good) I am simply not going to do it until then.

This feature is one of the highest in voted propositions, and Lindens have said they are onto it. I'm waiting.

If other people are operating the same logic, you will have seen an unprecedented build up in recent days. But you will see an unprecedented clearout once the new feature is there. (Maybe youll need to ask us to phase it in the first time, clearing inventory only on a particular day depending on the first letter of our names).

What I'm saying is, the inventory size problem may not be anywhere near as bad as you think, once the dust settles. I'll be quartering mine, for one. But not yet.

Maybe no-one else is thinking similarly. Maybe this thread already flogged this very point to death.

Sorry, I don't know. But I thought I should say it in case no-one else has.

In a former game I used to play we had an system where we had a "bank". This location could only be accessed by the one character and had a limit of X ammount of items that could be stored and not lost. Many took the time in thier banks and in thier own inventories to "box" items.

THINC has made alot of items that allow us to store items, textures, photos, etc and still use them to a degree (photos still can be showed to others).

Why doesn't LL take that idea and roll with it. Inventory size wouldn't be an issue if you take 40 photos and put them into one useable item.

PS I am using THINC only as an example as they seem to be the first one I ran across that does it all sort to speak. I know of others that provide photo viewers and storage is kinda a no brainer but thier was unique I thought for such a purpose.

For the love of god, man. There is NO reason for you to force us to buy land in order to keep our items! Not when you could just as easily allow us to export them to our own hard drives! Let US cope with the data storage issue! Encrypt them if you want to, I don't care. Just don't destroy my game if I can't pony up for land.

Nothing burns me up more than when game developers take a good product and ruin it by restricting or removing existant features.

Have you ever worked in retail? The unwashed masses do NOT react favorably when you arbitrarily start charging them for something that used to be free. I say this as one component of the aforementioned masses.

From a PR point of view, you might as well come into my shop and start demanding "protection" money.

That's my $L2, anyway.

They aren't considering this to make money, but because storage isn't unlimited. And with a ever growing population there will be a influx of more and more created items that will be shared. This means that storage needs, will grow much faster then the population. It is very costly to give every free account a unlimited storage space.

So it isn't strange that LL is thinking of a fair way to carry the burden. I think a cap somehow wouldn't be bad. But they also have to consider the fact that any mayor content creator will most likely need more storage space. If LL puts the cap at the right spot, it will only be the big content creators and the packrats* who will have to pay extra for their storage.

2nd. LL isn't creating a game, ask any linden and they will say, NO!

*I love packrats, you can ask them for anything and they will be able to drag it from their inv. *hugs*

I think this entire thread is backwards in logic. Everone's working on a solution. Now, can sombody state what the problem is?


Is the problem:
1. the asset DB is getting to big.
2. Takes too long to query assest server due to size
3. Takes too long to query assest server due to number of requests
4. LL wants another asset stream

I'm going to completly ignore possability 4 since it' political/economic and not functionlity driven

I like Huns Valen's idea of an archive directory, which could possabl be split onto a seperate asset server, solving (potential) issue 1-3


What I see as the CORE issue though is duplicatin of assets instead of having them in the Libray, and being able to easily access the Library.

If you want to use a texture from the library, you must either copy it to your inventory or to the object you want to apply it on, thereby adding another asset. Why can't the texture picker pick directly from the library (presumably with a checkbox on wether you wanted to see Library entries).

Likewise, why is the invisibilty prim NOT in the library? if ONLY 1% of the SL world population has this in their inventory, that means there are 350 copies of it.

Now think about how many other things are like that. I've got probabbly 500 freebie textures, 100 plants, etc for when I want to build something. If all those where moved to the Library, and a simple way of accessing/using them was available, I'd quickly get rid of the 600+ items. If we assume that 20% of the world are builders, having on average the same number of items that's 300,000 items. I suspect that it'd be a MUCH higher number infact, even from myown inventory. It's just much harder to quantify.

If you look at freebie textures for clothing designers, I expect the numbers would skyrocket up.

If we assume the average item takes up 12K(A lowball guess from average size of a texture), then clearing out the 300,000 items would recover 351 Megs