About ethics: right or wrong?

Of course they can be of benefit to the searcher, they can be of no benefit to the searcher too but if a person only looks at x amount of listings and a place with the product they want isn't showing up because others are keyword stuffing, then the searcher is missing out on a good product range.

Ideal situation would be to not reward keyword repetition so that dance dance dance dance gets a higher ranking, but LL for whatever reason changed their algorithm so that dance dance dance dance did get a higher ranking, heaven knows why they decided on that change but by doing so it started an extremely silly arms race.

So I'm not a fan of keyword stuffing but unfortunately it can serve a purpose.

Hey Mickey,
Even when you say you will be blunt, you keep nice

Of course I believe you in your own experience, but I also know my own. And moving from page 2 to page 1 meant a big difference in sales. And I know that I can do better by using other keywords that are easier to rank for and probably are being used in search as well, that is something I will try too in the future. Yet for the moment, this keyword sequence is my main objective and I see it pays off.

Probably most searchers type the keywords, and TP to one of the stores, without caring what shows on the html page.

Actually, it was meant as tongue-in-cheek, but you go right ahead and believe whatever you want, whether it is real or not, k?

Yes, I am aware of what "Hicksville" means in the vernacular. I'm sorry the humour went over your head. <.<

You're preaching to the choir here. I will also note that Bankers in just about all big economies had their hands dirtied by the shenanigans. Greed and avarice do not respect national, let alone cultural, borders.

None of that distracts from the point, however.

We've already had this argument before. Businesses do not SOLELY exist for "profits".

Existing for profit is not unethical. Pursuing unethical means for profit IS unethical.



Your fun ends where mine begins.

RL unethical business thinking is still unethical business thinking inside of SL.

It isn't meant to; it is meant to stop you from taking the food off of someone else's table for yourself.

The very nature of competition is that it takes the food off someone else's table.

Ethics stops you from kneecapping people or worse in order to get ahead. Search optimization is hardly kneecapping.

You mean you CAN'T respond to them.

Not surprised, really.

If you want to say that I am making comparisons based on DEGREE, then you either are having trouble translating what I said, or simply didn't read what I sad. Not that you care, of course.

Might as well have posted that you put your fingers in your ears and are going "LA LA LA..."; means pretty much the same thing.




It does not take "hours of work" to do that. Spend fifteen minutes researching/thinking about what the most popular search terms are, and then stick a bajillion repeats of them in your searchable content. Done. If people "do not do that", then please explain why search is so full of people DOING JUST THAT.



Heh, and thus you make my supposed "nonsense" points. Go figure.

"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. To hell with the damage it does to the utility."

Your reasons are justifications, not reasons. They aren't reasonable. Drug addicts often get into arrears from their habits, too. It doesn't justify them stealing from their neighbors just so they can maintain the unmaintainable, but I am sure they can rationalize it, too.



Has nothing to do with "pretty". Has everything to do with "functional".

Thanks for the admission, though.

That's were you're wrong, not every consumer are as meticulous as you when they go out shopping! The gaming of any Search engine exists and justified to most companies practising this...due to the very high churn rate of the SL user base. There will always be a steady flow of customers walking through those doors and buying products. If it wasn't a proven fact......why would anyone waste time or money on it?

Most consumers really don't care about the semantics of how and why 1 business is listed higher than another......they really don't. They don't care if a shop stuck a few extra "Kitchen Cabinet" keywords into their listings page.....nor do they care whether a few bots are being used to displaying products or whatever (For fashion stores, that would be modelling clothes)

I'll take it even a step further, there are good number of SL consumers that don't mind buying copybotted products on the cheap....if there wasn't the demand, there wouldn't be the supply....thus you wouldn't have Shops or Individuals selling copybotted content. It's a bit like "Drugs" scenario in RL

It's immaterial whether there are a few thousand ethical Sling-type consumers or Merchants roaming around.....that does not maketh a Grid! (numerically) Just like the real world is imperfect so is SL.

People need to stop hallucinating for a Utopian platform, it won't happen. There are 2 things you can guarantee will always exist within SL.....copybotting and gaming/ optimising any Search engine ranking system.

Not directly, it doesn't, and that's what I am talking about. Doing nothing but walking over to someone's house and raiding it for your own gain has nothing to do with "the very nature of competition", unless society has degenerated to the point where that level of survival is all we have left. Do you think that is the case?



I strongly disagree. Perhaps not to the degree, but most definitely to the direction/aim.

I'm thinking long term and impact and impressions. Maybe YOU are wrong, here. I really don't think that you can make a determination on that.

I think you overstate the situation. There is only a certain amount of money that people will spend at any given time on anything, in this case, furniture. One person getting more of it by necessity deprives others of that money. He isn't raiding anyone's house or stealing anything. He's advertising what he sells. Others are free to do the exact same thing. The person stealing is Floyd, who is using the same name to try and take the food off Phil's table.


Phil has a lot of products. I hadn't gone there before, but I went today, and he does indeed sell low prim furniture. Putting himself in a position to be found ahead of someone that doesn't sell low prim furniture has helped the person that IS seeking low prim furniture, even if it is not the style of low prim furniture that they may like. I don't know why that point is continually lost on some of you.

That's your own slant. No one has said any such thing.



It isn't rare anywhere. People know when someone is a dirty, underhanded cheat, recognizing when they are doing everything they can, both above AND below-board, to get ahead.

Businesses everywhere are NOT "all about making...profits". It isn't the SOLE reason why business exists, and people making money underhandedly at other people's expense is NOT "to everyone's benefit".

You're right, I want SL to be a different sort of world; I want the cheats, griefers, fraudsters, harassers, etc to NOT be a part of it. I already have enough of that in RL. If SL is just going to mirror all facets of RL, then why bother?

As such, if I can contribute even the smallest amount of effort to induce movement towards that apparently lofty goal, then I am happy. Those who seek to push it the other way are my enemies, being part of the problem, and I am glad to combat them whenever and wherever necessary and prudent.

Assuming that you include gaming in "search optimisation" ...

As in
Stealing a million is bad.
Stealing 100 is hardly stealing a million.

I would consider "gaming" search to be positioning yourself to be found for stuff you don't have, and is functionally spam. All the clubs that don't sell furniture, or much of it, yet ranking high for furniture do not help people to find what they are looking for.

Everything else, I consider to be advertising. Those who don't take any steps to be found deserve to be at the bottom of the heap.

No, but SL would MOST CERTAINLY benefit if people/places who use underhanded and damaging tactics to abuse the facility and other residents are removed, regardless of whether they sell what people are looking for or not. All of you.

In fact, I think they are doing just that, now, in addition to making it harder to abuse. It's only too bad that they didn't do it sooner.



You didn't have to say it; it is clear from your words and intentions that you believe it.

It's interesting that you mention those together.


It's true that people will try and find ways to game search - amd LL will be forced to expend time and resources in countering those efforts.

Does that fact mean that it is ok to game search?

You should read back and follow what you were actually talking about.

Your argument for "optimizing" was that it helps people looking for "tables" (to name a specific item) find stores that sell "tables".

My counter was that simply being sane and naming your tables "Table" will do exactly that and it's what people have been doing ages before the web search came along.

Next I pointed out that actually the sole reason for "optimizing" is that you want a better ranking and that it has absolutely nothing to do with helping people find what they want because that pretty much happens all by itself.

And you just conifrmed that with the quote above ("In order to get a better ranking I need to optimize" in particular).

There's plenty of different ways but as you yourself point out to one suggestion you, Phil and all the other like you will just game it to the same uselessness you've made of the current method.

Why not? That should be entertaining .

I already made the same proposal a few times before though: you can search for something and find it through All search and limit yourself to the few top results like most people do, and I'll find something from a store that doesn't rank high and we'll compare notes and see who finds the most "desirable" item.

You've already said that you don't see a problem with Qie's hypothetical "crappy low prim furniture" store that by definition noone would be interested in manipulating its way to the top of the results since it's "relevant" so you're rather stacking the deck in your own favour.

It might be useful to actually do a poll about the following question: When I search for something I want the top results to:
a) list stores that sell what I searched for even if they don't have what I want
b) list stores that sell what I searched for and hopefully have what I want

You're rooting for a) and I'm rooting for b). If it's a clear win for a) then you are right and as long as someone searches for "palm trees" then noone cares if the first result is a store selling the Linden library palm trees.
If it's a clear win for b) then I'm right and that store selling Linden palm trees that's "optimizing" itself to the top is abusing search and making it worse for everyone else.

I don't think I overstate it at all. The problem is that it is "low-level" enough that people think they can hide it behind moral relativism and ethical ambiguity. The "degree" arguments uncover it and point out the direction of the aim.

I understand PERFECTLY about "fair competition". We're not talking about "fair competition" here. He's advertising what he sells using damaging and underhanded means, just like the door-to-door/telephone salesmen who call at dinnertime or after hours. Sure, others are free to do the exact same thing, and cause even more damage. Can you IMAGINE what the grid would be like if every business used 30-40 bots to help "advertise" their business by attempting to inflate their listings. I can tell you that I was already pissed off about the bot situation during peak concurrency days last year and late in 2008. When even *I* can't get online to run my business, do work, socialize, etc because a bunch of greedy bastards can't seem to curb their UNETHICAL urges to stop at nothing to earn a few extra spacebucks, it tends to annoy me. *nodnods* The same applies to people PISSING IN THE WELL by POLLUTING SEARCH.

I think it is interesting that people can be all over Floyd for doing what he's doing, but turn a blind eye to what Phil has done. Personally, I think what Phil has done is more reprehensible, because it impacts more people negatively. Phil can deal with Floyd fairly easily, if he has the mind to do so. I also should point out again that I don't support EITHER of them in their actions.



Lots of people sell furniture, some even would consider theirs "low-prim" as well. Why should they be expected to have to pollute the search system even more to be able to compete?

The point isn't lost on me; I maintain that it is a JUSTIFICATION, not a reason. It still doesn't excuse doing wrong.

Lol- you're tough crowd.....no satisfying you people

You will not acknowledge that when ALL Search was first introduced, that the Page listings were actually being done properly. That has been true throughout the majority of its lifespan. Myself & Phil even went as far as pretty'ing up our pages using html coding.

....but the same whiners on this thread, were screaming "foul" because of the gaming of Picks, which at the time no doubt had a high weighting (agreed).......so we had a few of you suggesting that ALL Search should be more Text base, search more on Keywords used...and lessen the impact of Picks.
Well guess what.......LL listened, they changed the parameters last spring, in favour of keyword text density!! It didn't take an Einstein to know what was coming next....keyword spamming and non-useful listings! Thanks a bunch!
Now we have the same whiners crying "foul" again....and we have the likes of Kitty suggesting a new system based on points scoring relevancy system that includes clicking, TP'ing & buying metrics!
LL are you listening? Lets have Kitty's system instead !
Next year we'll all be back here again, and we'll have the same whiners screaming "foul", because Businesses are employing the services of Companies that enhance click throughs & purchases and handicapping the opposition with TP's & non-purchases.

No Search system is ever a Beauty Pageant, you'll never get the creators of the best products (subjective anyway) sitting on top of any search engine unless they optimising/gaming it themselves, it simply doesn't work that way.... be it All Search, be it Xstreet listings, be it Classifieds or be it Places Search. You can break down faults in each of those systems....you will never get the pure and desired results!

Rationalization.



Yes, all the people who try to play an honest game, run an honest business, and won't resort to being part of "the crowd" who cheats and lies to get ahead, but is willing to do everything else at their disposal, deserves to be at the bottom of the heap.

Yeah, I really like that sentiment.

I'll say this again.....it appears that some of you are not giving enough credit to people on how they choose to shop and how they choose to support SL businesses. Particularly, when you say "most searchers".....I disagree, and I base that on feedback from shoppers. I really think that they care more than you think.

I also think that it appears that you are shortchanging yourself, too....and not giving yourself enough credit.....if you have resorted to that as your "main objective." Several times you used the "quality" argument. I rarely talk about that, because my stuff is middle of the road, and I'm uncomfortable going there. But if you truly believe that your stuff is top quality, or that the top quality discussion has merit....any of you could rely on that aspect alone, without even worrying about search details.

How are most people going to know how they ended up where they did in search? How many people really are going to put in the time and detective work to determine exactly how that happens?

Most people do not have the kind of time to do that kind of work just to shop and have fun. They will care whether or not the results produced are what they are looking for, even if it is not necessarily their style. It would be more frustrating to find no furniture or very little of it. Quality is purely a subjective matter and cannot be reflected in the results. Quantity can, and is.

Spare me. There is nothing dishonest about putting forth what you sell, in volume. Phil isn't lying and I don't consider what he does to be cheating.

This is yet again another pointless thread because people who do not share the same values cannot engage in a productive discussion.

I get it

Thou shall not use the keyword more than X times
Thou shall not ask people to place Picks
Thou shall not have Models or staff working in the Shop

No thanks....i'll let the Search system decide!