About ethics: right or wrong?

I'm not suggesting that a Linden would be looking at a page to look for stuffing.
I'm saying that if a Linden is looking at a page in connection with gaming in general, they will see the stuffing.

The automated trigger levels will be imperfect. The trigger level for stuffing would have to be able to cater for natural repetition. The effect would be to open the door for a level of artificial repetition.

Even though the effects of the excessive stuffing would have been moderated in the ranking, and even if the level of stuffing flew under the radar, its existence would prejudice any other aspects of the page.
Even if the Linden decides that a particular concern about some gaming exploit other than stuffing does not actually exist, they still will have seen the stuffing.
The automation exists because the human policing of "Any attempt to.." would be impossible over the body of pages. If a human looks at a page, what the automation does is irrelevant.



In my experience, a G-Team member will hit things that they have not come to look for if they notice them in passing.
Myself and a neighbour once had prims removed and a warning for overhanging prims onto Linden land. The G-team had come to sort out a dust-up in a nearby parcel.
I appealed and had the warning removed and got permission to overhang.

It would be a brave and brass-necked stuffer who would appeal a penalty for stuffing because the stuffing should have been dealt with solely by the automation!







A "bit" different?
Your suggestion would be to allow gaming to be hidden.
My suggestion would be to filter out much of the gaming while removing the conflict between natural repetition for phrases v. artificial stuffing.

In my suggestion the removal of repetitions does not happen across the entire page.
It happens within each structured section of the page
- Parcel Name
- Parcel Description
- Each individual Item
You can have "furniture" once in the title, once in the description and once in *each* of 1000 items.
That can be extended to IBLs as well.


LL's task is far easier and significantly less complex than that of Google.
That is because
1) All parcel pages are in a fixed structure. They are all "the same".
2) LL generate the pages themselves. They host the pages themselves. Google has to deal with a completely wild and ultra-massive jungle.

Even then, I am sure that a g-team person wouldn't judge it, because the system is already judging it. S/he might inform the search team, so they can see that the system isn't performing as thought. That's what they should do in those circumstances, so that the search team has at least one actual page to monitor as they tweak away.


Of course they will be imperfect. There's no way round that. Not even Google could create a perfect system - not yet, anyway. Don't forget the 'we don't care about individuals' attitude that *has* to be adopted by all search engines.

I understand what you're saying. I just don't believe it will happen. Who is this g-team person who thinks his personal view is better than the team's view that created the system? I can't imagine a stuffed page that can get away with being stuffed and beat the system.

That was correct though. Overhanging even has its own AR type AND it isn't something that's dealt with programmatically. I really can't see a g-team person dealing personally with what he thinks is stuffing, regardless of the reason he got the page in front of him. Apart from anything else, it would be detrimental to the system (it should reported to the search team), and even pure traffic bots in boxes cannot be dealt with by the g-team if they are registered - because of the automation.

Alright, quite a bit different. But it did remind me of it - each idea included 2 pages, one of which is used for rankings, and the other can be stuffed and whatever else.

That would be better than what I thought you meant.

It's quite possible that they've done something similar, but I doubt it. My guess is that they've done something simpler.

Of course a stuffed page could beat the system.
We are agreed that the system will be imperfect. for very good reasons. How to balance pure stuffing against natural repetition?
In that environment, it is not a criticism of the design for someone to say that a page has slipped in a level of stuffing that is under a level set to account for natural repetition.

Let's not get carried away with "G-Team" and "AR" procedures.

What Lindens would we expect to be looking at the pages for a parcel?
1) Linden responding to a detection_of or complaint_about the rating of the content
2) Linden reviewing high ranking listings in Search

(2) is where the real danger lies for gamers.


I wouldn't pre-judge the policing review of Search by what is on the ground right now with regard to Traffic botting.
That ran into a swamp of greeters, models, etc and then got totally hobbled by this Scripted Agent 'licence'.
If LL were to investigate bots or camping for Traffic, they would have to go and look, check individuals for Scripted Agent status. Check if the parcels they are on are set for Search. It's a complete time-consuming mess. LL don't have the time.


Reviewing a parcel page is a complete simplicity. You just bring up one singe page and read it. Everything you need to know is right there in front of you in a second.
It would be the easiest policing task in all of LL.
The perps want to be visible! That's why they are gaming. The more successful they are at gaming, the higher the likelihood that they will be found.

If you want to check on vectors external to the page, then that needs something extra. Gaming on the page is the low-hanging fruit.


Would there be Lindens reviewing Search results?
I think that is certain - at the very least in the early days.
They do seem to be intent on cleaning up search. True - the main thrust is to make it better at finding things but there is a strong showing in their policy for the anti-gaming intent.

I agree that there will be Lindens checking the results, but not g-team types. They will be the search team types, and they'll be checking to see how effective their measures are, and no doubt adjusting parameters. But we'll have to agree to disagree about what g-teams types are likely to do and not do. I can't see them penalising for something that is dealt with programmatically.

I don't consider the adding of keywords instances to be stuffing, so we may be talking about different things. Stuffing is what you see on my page right now - and on the top ranked pages for common searchterms. Working keywords into sensible content isn't stuffing. It's a necessary, and highly reputable, part of optimising a page. The idea of being "totally natural" is all well and good, but high rankings for such pages are a matter of chance, and it isn't something that's recommended by any search engine that I'm aware of. You may disagree with anything that isn't totally natural, but you'd be disagreeing with the whitest of whitehats on the web, all the search engines themselves, and (I think) everyone in this forum. But then you may agree with some manipulation, such as working keywords into sensible content for the sole purpose of improving the rankings.

ETA:
I think that effective stuffing is history (or will be by the end if this month). Keyword manipulation will continue, of course, but not at the level of stuffing. And it's right that it should continue as a form of optimisation. I'm actually looking forward to getting my page back to how it was intended to be, especially now that the pages contain those "GO" TP links.

Despite LL using the word "may" rather than "will", I don't see them neglecting to police the newly published rules.
When confronted with some future gaming, the reaction isn't necessarily "oh, let's go and tweak the paramaters".
If what they see is likely to spread into general use, then it would make sense to program for it so that they don't have to expend human resources on never-ending whack-a-mole.
They could still zap the perps while they are working on the development.






I would regard that as optimization. I do it myself in RL work.
There can also be natural 'unnatural' language in things like headings - which are not necessarily natural sentences.

Her objection is on point and valid.

Your heart is in the right place even if your advice isn't literally correct.

An alternative to "what if everyone did this" would be "what if more people did this". Do things for everyone get better or worse? There are lots of things that more people should do, but it's good that everyone doesn't do them. There are lots of things that fewer people should do, but thank goodness at least a few of them do it.

The valid point at the bottom of your suggestion is considering the overall effect on everyone. However, that's not always the bottom line. Consider a rich guy: if we killed him and distributed all his money, maybe we'd all be better off (except him, of course). But does that justify it?

Utilitarism is the concept that what's best is what is best for all people. However, Utilitarianism is at odds with personal rights. Many people hold that individuals have rights that shouldn't be compromised, even for the greater good. For example, even with overpopulation, is it ethical for a government to restrict couples to having no more than one child? Should the government sterilize anyone who's had a child? It can be argued that this would be for the greater good.

Still, I agree with you that it's very important to consider the effect of one's actions on everyone, and to consider what would happen if more people acted the same way.

We disagree on what g-team types are likely to do. Fair enough. Neither of us know for certain, so we only have best guesses.

Yes, of course, if they find things that tweaking parameters won't fix, they'll programme for it. And that's another reason why g-team types should keep their hands off - the search team *needs* those pages so that they can test any new measures they take to deal with them.

Ah. So we do have an agreement about *some* optimising, even though it's done solely to improve the rankings Are you sure you have'nt quoted Google's "Don't do anything to your website just because search engines exist" to me in the past? I'm sure that someone did.

Only a prejudiced fool would doubt it.

No, it's only ethically objectionable if it involves deception, such as, inflating traffic statistics by running bots, whose only purpose is to make it APPEAR as though more people are visiting a place.

Doing things to raise one's rankings is reasonable. Engaging in deceitful practices to raise one's rankings is ethically questionable because of the deceit.

Deceitful ads are ethically questionable too, but unfortunately they're far too common in business, so often a business has to choose between ethics and success. That doesn't make it ethical, it just shows what one's priorities are.

I see. It doesn't include me then, as I only ever did it to improve my rankings


Hmm... I feel a thread explosion coming on

I hardly think that asking shoppers how they got to your store, prefaced with a "thank you"....after they have purchased something, will result in a "pissing in the wind" theory. You mentioned traffic several times, so I assume you are focusing on traffic. I'm focusing on "selling".....which gets the right product into the hands that want it, as conveniently as possible. That probably makes a difference in our theories.

The system can do the "selling" part adequately...the consumer either likes the product or doesn't. If you want to help it along a bit, have a central sign for the different departments (maybe with TP's scripted in). This old shop floor routine is getting tiresome.....just like in RL, some shoppers just want to browse and not be bothered by Sales folk or the owner.
I witness this when people TP in looking at renting Lands.....some want help & info.....some are simply researching and don't want to bombarded with info or an IM even. (sometimes it even has a negative impact when IM can lead a visitor simply TP'ing out of the location)


.

It's difficult when you ask purely from an ethics angle, Marcel. Go with your gut.

Way back, I took a beating in forum for sending out group invites every day. Around that time, I was also told that it was an intrusion to send "thank you's" to people, and that I would get AR'd for an unsolicited IM. Give me a break. That's when I put other people's ethics aside.....and went with my gut, and with the reaction from the people that I am "serving".....and not people that are looking in, and have no intention of ever visiting my store.

But...in doing so, you have to look at one particular practice, and judge the pros and cons, and judge whether it is smart or not for business, and judge what weight it holds, compared to the other practices. And I look at long run. Maybe some people don't address the long run in SL. You will get two entirely different opinions and thought processes, based on that aspect.

"Thank you's" and group membership hold a ton of weight in how the business plays out. Even sending out thousands and thousands.....maybe two people had a problem with it, and it wasn't even that much of a problem. Maybe a few had a problem, and refused to come back to the store because of it, and I never heard about it. But...it did not appear that it hurt anyone, based on the responses, and quite the contrary. That's what you go with.

I guarantee you, that if I started a thread, and asked if it's OK to send out group invites every day....you will get a definite NO. But these people will never set foot in our stores. Regardless of what we do. And they will never have a true glimpse at how we built our businesses, and what is required to do so. So a judgment is unwarranted. The judgment should come from people you "serve"....and from their feedback.

While you're in the store today, Marcel.....when you see the blue pop-ups come in for a sale....thank them first....then a conversation will generally follow. Maybe you already do this. While, you're in conversation.....ask them how they got to your store. I don't recall anyone minding that I ask this, and usually they are eager to give feedback. That's where your answers are. I would wager that you would be surprised at some of the answers, and might not put so much value in the practices discussed here, in this thread. For me...it also boosts confidence....and serves as a reminder that some of the processes that I use are not the "end all be all"....and when you see that....you tend to adjust the eggs in your basket, and give some other things more value.

Like Marcel...i think this thread has run its course. It's just arguing about semantics and going around in circles with some "ethical" spice thrown in!

I will end, by saying that i welcome that LL are going to end keyword stuffing (their own fault when they changed the weightings...LL must have been listening to those that wanted ALL Search be more Text based -rofl)
I welcome going back to more descriptive listings, without keyword stuffing...and hopefully they'll allow html coding too, so that we can pretty up our HTML pages once again.

Enough said.

Rene: You must have missed the landmark bit on the previous page. Sling and I ended up in agreement Not about everything under the sun, of course, but in agreement.

Ah...and here we have an example, Marcel, of exactly what I was describing.

The "old shop floor routine" built my business. People appreciate a "thank you" - they rarely get one in SL. They love to talk about decorating their homes. They like to tell you that they wish you had this item in blue. They love receiving LMs that will set them right in front of that white leather, rather than looking for a TP port, or wandering around aimlessly. They love receiving LMs to other stores, when I tell them that I don't carry bathroom sets or sex beds. They love adding you as a "friend" for future questions and advice.

Rene....I don't mind one bit, if you find the above "tiresome."

I'm absolutely certain of it.
... particularly as I've been optimising web pages for years.

It must have been someone else - I'm sure it was quoted here.

I send out Group invites every day....have been doing so for last 2 years. I'm not sure if i differ from you in that aspect...but i only send them to customers that have purchased products, so in effect my Group is closed and i don't get spammers joining (although Group IM's can now be blocked via Group "abilities"

My feeling is that you RP the onsite "Shopowner" more than most other Merchants do, which is fine if it yields you additional benefits and info.

With my Business set-up & diversity its impossible for me to be in umpteen locations at one time, so it could never possibly work for me.

That sounds as if it isn't genuine. I do pretty much the same things that I did with a RL retail store. It's a RL business, with RL dollars being spent, and I address that in my profile.....that I do not "roleplay" a business owner. It's Real.

erm....most shops i visit are void of any business owners, most are empty shops bar potential consumers. Sometimes i see Owners at the same location (via my scanner)...but in a skybox above. (maybe creating?). I have to say, that i see more Mall owners patrolling their business than Shop Owners.

I don't want to be....."most shops."

Well that's fine...i'm sure you'll reap the benefits for the attention you give to it. Which is true for any business....in part i do agree with you, when i put on my Land "salesman" hat on and hang around those available lands.....I sell it 3 or 4 times quicker, than simply relying on any advertising format to sell it for me! (i.e any of the Search engines or forum postings or Group postings/ Notices or XStreet land assistant)

It's just in my case.....it's more in doing "the rounds" and spending a few minutes at each location before moving on. I do rely on a lot of feed back from my employees.