Bye bye traffic bots

Even if you are angry and losing control (and therefore the argument) can you keep the SHOUTING down please?

Pep (Some people are trying to get some sleep!)

Yes, Poop, we know you've got the patent on losing arguments.

Then one of us must have been following the wrong threads because I and a friend ARed a huge ad almost immediately and it was removed straight away. And I do remember others reporting that they'd ARed ads, etc.

Although you have been arguing solely from your imagination about the list, you aren't using quite enough imagination concerning it. You are totally wrong about it and if you care to sit back and give it some thought, instead of piling in with stuff that you don't know about, it would probably dawn on you what the list is actually used for - and then you'd probably bite your tongue for having tried to be so smart about it and ended up being so wrong. Here's a tip: try to remember what the list is - I described it at the start of this little dialogue. Then you'll realise why it doesn't monitor anything and why it isn't a report. It does get used every day, but it isn't either of those.

Alright, I'll put you out of your misery...

I said they generate a list of the top 50,000 traffic parcels every day. The traffic data itself is an irrelevance except as a means of sorting the list, so it isn't a report in any way, and it isn't the monitoring of traffic - apart from sorting, the traffic numbers are irrelevant. It comes from the system's storage of traffic numbers and not from anything to do with search so, although the list is not created for anyone to actually look at, looking at it would not be the same as "monitoring the search results" that Jack said they would do. The purpose of the list is to get its sorted order and not the traffic data. It is used to inject a small traffic influence into the All search results. It is used totally by a programme and the programme uses only the order of the list and not any data that it contains.

So you see, it isn't a report of any kind, and it isn't LL or a programme monitoring anything.

No, you are wrong so far. Monitoring is always monitoring. Gathering data together isn't always monitoring. Monitoring means keeping an eye on something; e.g. my traffic bots system monitored the number of avs in the sim, and when the number reached a certain level, it logged enough bots out to take it under that level. That's monitoring - keeping an eye on - a human eye or a machine eye, it is monitoring. Gathering a bunch of data together is not monitoring the data; e.g. downloading the Transactions and putting them into a spreadsheet is not monitoring the transactions. It's gathering the data together for whatever use. It may not even be looked at in any sort of detail.

I have no idea what you and your "friend" were following. Probably something that doesn't smell all that wonderful.

I just posted what Jack said, in contradiction to what you claimed the policy was.

We ARed, too, but that doesn't change the FACT that the policies were not significantly different in structure, in contrast to your take on it.



Blah blah.. get on with it already.



This should be fun.



It's a list, not a report, because we all know that reports are things people were meant to see, but since it is a list, people weren't meant to see it. As such, they have to imagine what is on it. Because if they actually looked at it, then it would be a report. Natch.



The traffic data itself is irrelevant, except where it is relevant, as a means of sorting the list. However, it is a list that people weren't meant to see, thus the sort order is irrelevant, making the traffic data itself truly irrelevant. Got it.

But, if it were a report, people would be meant to see it, and the traffic numbers would be relevant, because they would be used as a means of sorting the list, which would be important in figuring out who to contact first.

We know that, since it is a list, it isn't monitoring, even if they pull it more than one time, because people were not meant to see it. If they were, then it would be monitoring when they pull it more than one time.



I see, it comes from the system's storage of traffic numbers, completely separate from and not having anything to do with Search, meaning that the traffic numbers used in Search come from a completely different source.

That is interesting; why, it would completely invalidate the whole reason this policy was enacted in the first place! I mean, if we are up in arms about people gaming traffic for Search position, but the traffic numbers used in Search aren't from the same source as the traffic numbers pulled repeatedly into a list that no one was ever meant to see, then this whole exercise is completely pointless!



OK, but since we've already established that the sort order is irrelevant, since no one was ever meant to see the list, then there's no point in using it to influence the All search results, because, and I am sure you would agree, LOTS of people see the All search results.

Now, I suppose that since a "programme" is not a person, it was meant to see the list without making it into a report, and said "programme" doing so repeatedly wouldn't be considered "monitoring", that could work. Well, except if a person were to see the operation or output of said "programme", then it would throw the whole mess off again.

Maybe if we put it into a sealed black box shielded against environmentally-induced quantum decoherence that has a gun pointed at it with the trigger tied to a solenoid hooked to a Geiger counter and some, nice, radioactive isotope near the sensor. As long as we can maintain the state that no one is ever meant to see it, it could be a report/not a report and be monitoring/not monitoring at the same time. Sounds like a job for Schrodinger Linden!



QED, indeed!

OK, but putting together a list on a daily basis (your words were "every day" is not "monitoring", right?

You really are stupid, aren't you.

I'm sorry that you embarrassed yourself by trying to be smart and being so wrong, but it wasn't my fault - you decided to do it, not me.

Correct.

Hey, in the end, I am agreeing with you!

If that makes me stupid, then that would make you what?

I didn't even get to the end. I read the first 2 or 3 bits, saw the nature of the post, thought "how stupid" and posted the reply because your post didn't merit detailed replies.

It's perfectly simple. LL has access to a daily generated list of places' traffic in numerical order. They don't need to monitor the search to acquire the information. That's where we came in. How on earth you managed to make such a meal of it is completely beyond me.

This Sunday's peak login time i saw 79,500 logins (that's the peak login time for the whole week). Prior to the Bot bans it was creeping up towards 90,000, just shy of it.

So 10k worth of bots seem to have voluntarily shut down.....but there are probably still that much if not a bit more left on the grid.

Ugh, if you thought arguing over the definition of "bot" was pointless wait until you get to arguing over the definition of "monitor".

I am waiting for the grand-daddy of all semantics arguments.. defining "definition".

"It's not how we're defining the term we're arguing over, but what we actually mean when we say 'define'."

The daily high concurrency numbers were a bit odd last week. They were always 78k-79k - very consistent, which is not something that we're used to seeing. We're used to seeing it is the 80s - high 80s, low 80, mid 80s, but not within a thousand or so every day. I could be cynical and infer something from that.

I wouldn't say that ~10,000 bots have been stood down. I'd estimate less than that but, oddly, the low end hasn't changed at all. If a significant number of bots have been removed, I'd expect it to be reflected in the troughs as well as in the peaks. The daily peaks and troughs don't look like a significant number of bots have been removed. The only thing I can come up with for what I see is that some non-24/7 bots have been removed, or maybe a few of each.

Define what you mean by argument, you slacker.

*chuckles*

I'm only looking at Sunday peak login times as that's the usual peak for any given week
(approx 9pm-11pm GMT or 1pm-3pm PDT).....also recognised by M.Linden as being the peak login time when he gloats about new record logins.
It was shy of 90,000 before the ban...this Sunday it was 79500 max.

As far as lower Login numbers...I beg to differ, today (Monday) it was 46k between Midday - 2pm GMT. I have not seen it below 50k for weeks and weeks! Lowest i have seen prior to that was around 53-54k during those same hours.

I spoke to the main SL Bot provider/ seller in Dec 08, their guessimates were that 25% of the grid were bots...but that's on Dec08 login numbers....this was based on their own sales records, plus knowledge of their rival competitors in their sector.
What were Dec's login peak login numbers?....around 75-80k?.....so 20k bots might not be far off.

I only go by the concurrency when I get up (the trough period). A while back it was low 40s, then it climbed to mid 40s, and then to high 40s. Since the bot ban came into effect, I haven't seen it noticeably lower - maybe mid - high 40s now - a couple of thousand lower maybe.

My thinking for a long time has been that the trough numbers are a good indication of how many bots are used 24/7 as they will be included in it, which is why I notice the numbers when I get up. If ~10,000 bots have been removed, the trough concurrency would be much lower than it is.

i never seen it in the 40's for quite some time, prior to today. What login times did you see this?

These days I usually get up sometime between 8 and 10 a.m.

Today I was up extremely early - 5 a.m.(ish) - the middle of my night, so I monitored the concurrency number until now (8:10 a.m.). It changes about once an hour and the latest change has just occured. The number is now 48,340 - down from 51,100 and hour ago.

It's just after midnight in the west of the U.S., and people there are turning in. This is the start of the trough level. It's also typical of the time of day when I see the trough level, and the number is around the same as it was before the bots ban. It can go down a little bit more and it still won't be noticeably different to what it was before the bots ban, which, to me, suggests that hardly any 24/7 bots have been retired so far. The trough level is where their retirement would be most noticeable.

Good morning Phil Top of the morning to ya!
I got up a hour ago! 9.40 am and its dropped to 46054 users

Yup!
And that's with top Places still showing 80ish bots on Map.

A sim with a constant 24/7 (but varying individuals of course!) 20 live avatars would be a busy sim.
That's a traffic score of 28800.

Look in Map at any Place with that score or above.
Look at the dots. Look a bit later, same dots in same places.
Visit the place.
It's a complete no-brainer. Max two minutes per place to tour and confirm bots.

LL really suck badly at shooting fish in a barrel.
They can't even shoot the fish when the fish have been stunned.

I think Phil might have been right.....this is another LL half-baked policy. Quite disappointing actually

They might as well go back to the previous situation if that's the case.

If this is how it's going to be with the Adult Content policy too!

I think i have guessed why the LL desire to segregate Adult content is being rushed very quickly through.

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/05/11/congress-awaits-ftc-report-explicit-content-virtual-worlds