error message when trying to attach neko tail

okay my good tail gave me this error message last night when i tryed to attach it "Unable to create requested object. Object is missing from database." so i wrote the maker of the tail, i have had the tail for over 5 months no problems the maker told me to just wait it out its a secondlife problem and should be fixed within a day, anotehr friend of mine said to clear cache and restart sl that might fix it so i did that as well, dident work so i thought ok will just wait it out i logged on eariler today same problem and decided to wait longer then when i logged back on a few hours later i am still getting this message, is this something that isent going to fix its self? do i need to spend more L's and get a new tail? since the maker of the tail says it is an SL problem and wont give me a new tail? any advice would be helpful

Clear your SL Cache and computer cache then relog. If it is still missing from database then your not going to get it back. My shape disappeared like that. Luckily I had an alt hold a copy of it so I sent myself another one.

Always make a copy of your copyables.

all the copys of the tail arent working, and it was no transfer so couldent have my alt hold a copy :/

The tail was no transfer, so the maker has nothing to lose by giving you a replacement, but won't? If it was expensive enough to matter, it's time to look at buying from someone else.

It's a purchase made some 5 months ago. I know it's no transfer so it cannot be sold easily. However, how long does any "warranty" or "guarantee" extend to in SL? I'm sure the OP did not delete or in someway corrupt the tail...........but how does the creator know that? Pretty big chance for abuse of someone's goodwill (not everyone is as honest as we wish them to be). And I also know that it costs the creator nothing but a few minutes to research the purchase, click on the item and send it away..........but, there is some amount of time and effort put out. At some point the creator's responsibility ceases.

I'm not trying to play devil's advocate....just mentioning there is another side to this business. The OP did not do anything wrong.....but neither did the creator. Since LL won't do anything it gets sticky. I just hesitate to condemn the creator for refusing to give another copy.

I never said that this particular seller had any obligation to do anything at all. At the same time, consumers have no obligation to support that, there are plenty of excellent artisans who don't play those games.

It not about anyone playing games. It's about someone suggesting that another should perhaps find another creator simply because a particular creator did not respond the way that is desired. If it were me in the position of the OP I might go elsewhere for my replacement.......however I would not get a huff because the creator did not see it my way. Records must be kept and some searchable method must be built into the database used. Most creators in SL are hobbiest........and many may not even know how to search their transaction history. If this creator sold a lot of those tails in the preceeding 5 month period the task may be rather time consuming and possibly impossible without a purchase date to narrow it down. I know I cannot produce a date that I purchased any item without the item itself to check the aquired date..........that item is missing so whatever date I came up with would be a guess.

Some people are extremely organized. A friend of mine can tell you the purchase date, amount spent, and permissions on any item in her 20 K plus inventory.....without even launching SL. But she is very rare exception. I doubt many can do that. I know I'd have problems with a date for an item I purchased last week.

It's just not quite fair to suggest that the creator should replace anything purchased from them on an item that was purchased a week or more ago. Saying that one should look elsewhere because of the creator does not agree is pretty harsh. Especially when the item in question was purchased about 5 months ago.........or is it closer to 6? Maybe it was 4 months ago. The OP seemed a little vague.

No matter.........it happens. The software sometimes eats stuff.........we all agree that LL is not responsible for lost items (we do that when we agree to the ToS). It's not the end of the world. Plus chances are the item will show up anyway.

FWIW: The asset servers have been puking all weekend. I was not on today, but by what I understand, things were really bad today. However, I'm pretty certain the missing assets are only temporarily missing. When you log back on tomorrow, or the next day, these things will more than likely show up again.

@Peggy: The LL Transaction History only goes back the past 30 days.

That's why everyone with a need to keep track downloads them once a month.

As someone who has fought the urge to ever sell anything in SL I have no idea of what the transaction history does or does not do............short of telling me when my next premium billing date is. I only know that a seller usually checks the history if someone claims a lost purchase. I've had one occassion to ask a creator/seller for a "replacement" item (actually it was a case that I did not recieve it at all)..............that occured less than 30 mins from the time I bought the item. It was simple...........I had the facts, time, date (I was even still standing in front of the sales billboard). But, I'm questioning just how long any seller is responsible for anything lost once a certain period of time lapses.........5 months seems a little unreasonable to me.

But, as Helen and others have said, the lost items very likely will show up again in your inventory. If not, then try the creator/seller.........but don't get upset when the request is politely denied. Remember less than honest people are on SL too.........and the good will of creators/sellers is often taken advantage of.

Although after many months there's no obligation on the seller's part to replace the object, it seems to me it would be good for business to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Yes, definitely. But one never knows how many times that person as been burned. Since the transaction history dates back only 30 days (I just learned that this evening...........haha, almost 4 years in SL too ) I would expect (but not demand) a replacement within that time frame. But 5 months I would never expect it. There are reasonable limits to this "good will".

Let's say I buy a nice skirt at Wal Mart and since I don't have a washing machine I take it to the laudramat to wash it...........and I lose it in the dryer (or someone liked it so much they snatched while I was folding undies). I want it back....it's my favorite!! The laudramat has a huge sign "Not responsible for lost items". I go to Wal Mart explain my problem. No reciept because I bought the skirt 5 months ago. Is Wal Mart expected to "give me the benefit of the doubt"? Should I be pissed or upset with Wal Mart if they don't honor my request for a replacement? Should I decide that I won't shop there anymore because they won't believe me?

It doesn't make sense.

Almost every seller downloads and preserves their transaction records.
It doesn't make sense in that example, however in SL the creator can replace the object for the customer without it costing a penny.
In this world, where things go wrong and we all know the types of things that happen, it makes no sense not to replace lost items.

The ass servers are still puking this morning.

Except for the less than honest who know this trick quite well. IM or drop a notecard to the creator of an item they want stating that that person purchased the item 6 months ago and LL's servers ate it........please send me a new copy. If the seller does have records to prove it was not purchased and denies the request......no loss, the dishonest didn't loose anything and moves on to the next seller on his list. But, if the seller cannot definitively determine if the item was purchased by the requester you are saying to go ahead and give it to him/her. That is letting a scam go..........it harms other sellers, it delutes the value of your product. Sure it does not cost anything.......but in the long run (everyone considered) is that really true?

And, as I said repeatedly, it's up the seller. But, I see no reason to criticize or steer clear of sellers who refuse to do so on purchases that long ago. It just seems unfair..especially for the "little guys" trying to make a dent in a market utterly controlled by the "big guys".