About ethics: right or wrong?

Nope, as you would not really offer the Searcher what they are searching for.

Sure I am. They're searching for "low prim furniture" and that's how I optimized my search page text. That's what search engines do, right?

There's even low prim furniture on the parcel, and it's for sale, so I'm not violating any rules. So if I wipe out the top two pages of Search results selling crappy low prim furniture, how is that different from somebody else's possibly less crappy low prim furniture filling those rankings?

In your original post you said you were offering 2 items without the intent of ever selling one. That is why I say no.

Say you are actually developing a business, and sell a handful of crappy low prim items, then I do not see the problem. Simply because I cannot define crappy for other people and neither can you. Maybe your self defined crappy items, are exactly what people want

You artifically inflated your rank, Marcel, and you did so for purely selfish reasons.

If "relevant results" were enough as you and Phil keep on claiming then you should accept that you might end up last but both of you admit that you'd do whatever you can to manipulate that into something *you* like better. Neither of you is actually willing to accept "relevant unbiased results" when it comes down to it but is solely interested in results you can manipulate in your favour.

If a majority agreed that you sold the finest selection of furniture in all of SL, or that someone had the best chance of finding it at your store then I'd just congratulate you on your achievement. But your ranking isn't based on merit in any way, nor would you want it to be apparantly.

The next time someone posts a "Where do I find XXX?" thread try actually searching for it and compare the results. It's not uncommon for suggestions that come up 2, 3 or more times to not show up until half a dozen pages down.

It's rare that the results match up with what a poll would suggest and people's suggestions are far better than what the search engine will come up with. Clearly the "let the best optimizer win" game doesn't yield good results and the more people who manipulate, the worse the results get.

Apparent piggyback riding is permitted in the same way that keyword stuffing is permitted.
If piggyback riding does not go against the ethics of the person doing the piggybacking, and is permitted, what is your problem? Why are you saying negative things about Floyd?

I ask this because when I criticised the activities of search gamers, I was treated to a flood of "not against the TOS", "your standards are not those of other people", "I don't see this as wrong in any way", etc.

In point of fact, keyword stuffing has a much weaker permission than does activity like taking peoples money and evicting them, selling someone else's freebies or piggybacking.
This is because keyword stuffing has been pointed out by LL as something that damages Search.



Your definition of optimization has been stretched to include dishonest practices.
The LL guidelines can be summarised in some of the headings "Appeal to Humans, Not Search Engines" , "Be Specific and Descriptive ", "Be a Good Sport "

Gaming search does hurt other people.It brings the system into disrepute. It damages the ranking of those who do not game.



This thread is an exercise in blatant hypocrisy and double standards by those people who took me and others to task for referring to bot-running, Picks buying and keyword stuffing as cheating / dishonest / wrong.

Well, god knows there's ample evidence that I can't tell what people *will* want, so maybe my luck will hold and I can't tell what they *won't* want, either.

Anyway, so we now have an existence proof of something involving search optimization that's ToS legal but unethical.

It's unethical because I wouldn't have the right intent. I'd be intentionally tricking people to come to my parcel, not because of the relevant stuff they could buy there, but because of the relevance of the search results I'd rigged.

Hmmm. I dunno, though. All I'd be doing is optimizing search. There's something a little slippery about a principle that search optimization is only okay as long as one is otherwise pure of heart.

Let's travel down that slippery slope just a bit

Suppose I spent a few weeks creating some low-prim furniture that beats the hell out of Phil's (already have scripting done that beats most SL furniture at any price, and already have legal textures). So, I'd have high-quality stuff to sell.

Now suppose my intent was only to deprive Phil and Marcel some income, so I priced my stuff aggressively and had lots of free promotions and whatnot.

Since I have extensive experience programming the SL client and already have advanced bot functions, I might as well use some "models" in my store, and I might as well have another attraction on the same parcel with some "city guards" waking about.

Am I pure of heart enough to use "search optimization"? Would I be in the right selling high-quality furniture with the goal of nothing but screwing existing merchants, and using their own tricks to do so?

No Qie it has nothing to do with being pure of heart. As soon as you start to intentionally trick customers to your place without offering what they were looking for, you are doing something wrong. When you provide what the customer is searching for, you are doing it right. Whether your store is big or small isn't important for that matter.

Of course I did, every optimalisation is selfish. So what you want to prove with telling me so?


How many times should I say this: Everybody optimizes for search. By changing parcel name, description, flagging items to be displayed in search.So what do you expect me to do? WTF are relvant unbiased results? It sounds nice but how would that work?


So how to measure the finest selection? Tell me how a search ranking can be made through that? You know pretty well what I should not do, so now tell me what I should do?


Indeed because they did not do their homework, where others did. Again the same question: what should I do in this case? The search parameters simply do not involve suggestions in the forum!


Kitty what you want is a completely new search method, but so far there is none. you compare the current results with what you would like them to be, but you fail to mention a mechanism to get there. There simply is none.

ONCE MORE
1. The current Search engine is based on the fact that we, the users, optimize our html pages for it. There is no discussion about that, as LL even told us so.

2. Comparing the results of the optimized pages, whether you like the optimizing methods or not, with an imaginary search system, is useless. We do not have an imaginary search system

3. The only discussion would be up to what level optimizing is ethical to you or me. Not the fact if we should optimize at all, as there IS NO WAY AROUND IT.

No Marcel it has everything to do with being pure of heart.

It is clear that LL are moving to ban or to discourage behaviour that you include in "optimization".

If *all* that matters is that the searcher finds relevant parcels, then there is no need for optimisation - other that structuring the web page so that the nature of the offering is as clear as possible.

Abuses such as keyword stuffing, picks buying and traffic inflation only benefit the gamer. They benefit no one else.


Why does LL say
"We've made some changes that will lower the rank of keyword-stuffed or gamed listings."

"Appeal to Humans, Not Search Engines "

"Be advised that any attempt to artificially inflate your rank in search results could result in penalties to your rank, de-listing from search, and disciplinary action against your Second Life account."

"Search Policies
Any attempt to artificially inflate your rank in search results could result in penalties to your rank, de-listing from search and disciplinary action against your Second Life account. This includes but is not limited to inappropriate use of traffic bots or Picks.

Other things that may cause your listing to receive a lower search rank include: Keyword stuffing or false representation"

Why do you think they mention keyword stuffing and false representation in the same breath?


Clearly, some of the things that you regard as mere 'optimization' are seen by LL as abuse to be punished.

Oh, I'm a moral, immoral gamer.

Sounds like a plan, but go with your own heart, and don't be concerned with judgments from others, or practices of others. This will apply to loads more than this particular topic. Hard to do 100%....but worth trying.

Pricing is important....but at the core, you would probably want to do this with the intent to establish your own market, and not use it to "deprive" someone. Probably not a good business plan on the latter. But that's a judgment call from another person, and I just suggested that you not pay attention to those, and go with your own heart. Your call.

From experience, I would suggest that bots do not buy anything, so kind of a futile attempt there. Would encourage all kinds of ways to get traffic to your store, as long as you are comfortable in those ways, and as long as the traffic involves possibilities of people actually purchasing, if staying in business is important, and if you rely on a profit to do so.

Optimizing the labeling of your products to the max is a benefit to your customers, and is a benefit to you. Works both ways. You want your new "turquoise" line to also include the word "blue"....and you would want your sofas to be titled couches a few times. You want your customer to know that you have a turquoise sofa and a blue couch, even though it is the same thing.....so that they have a productive search experience, and so that you sell the product you designed specifically with them in mind.

You also might want to take into consideration that there are a number of other ways in which to sell product and get people to your store, that do not involve using a search tool. Although it is an important tool....if you implement all other tools and promotions available.....you would not have to rely on it, solely.

Running a successful business does not involve "screwing other merchants." That concept might work for someone for a few months....but will not work in the long run.

Something's wrong here. I sure can't say that you would be in the right, if your goal is to screw someone over (in this case, other merchants...or just people you happen to disagree with).

On the other hand, you're offering a superior product, at an attractive price. You are offering the product you advertise. Your marketing methods are within the ToS (if your bots are listed as scripted agents).

I would say you did the right thing, but for the wrong reason.

Uh...where can I go to buy some?

What a load of gobbledigook!!

Why do real businesses pay big bucks for SEO services, so that on their chosen keywords they crawl up higher up the Google Search Listings (or any other Search engines) Speak to M.Kingdon as that was one of the services supplied at Organic Inc.

Who gets to decide who supplies or makes the best Skiwear in New York City (subjective). Will Caledon always be the best Victorian/Steam-punk region in SL?

Search Engine optimisation is all about crawling up the rankings regardless of quality, within the rules specified. When All Search was released LL instructed everyone to go optimised their lands, their prims for sale, collect Picks etc etc

Search Rankings will never equate to the best quality for that Keyword.....be it SL GSA or Google & any other Search Engines. It's not meant to be a Beauty contest with judges!

Okay lets try to look at this another way:

Tomorrow I start a new business, this time it is dance animations. Amazing good ones as I do have Motion Capture stuff and all. Last few weeks I have been busy creating dances, tomorrow I will open up. 25 dances to start with. The company name is Flatley's Magnificent Moves.

Now tell me, where do I start, and what is allowed/disallowed in your opinions?

Think of the following: my target audience will probably either search for dances, or dance animations. My sales boxes can be named anything, and will all have "Show in search" ticked. We do have (initially) the following thigns to work with, regarding my search ranking:
- Parcel name
- Parcel Description
- 25 times item name and description.
Those make up my html page.

Being pretty ignorant about search, I do the following:

Parcel name = Flatley's Magnificent Moves.
Parcel description: The finest couple dances, created with Motion Capture. The best dances for the best prices!
Item 1 name -description: Tango - By Flatley's Magnificent Moves
Item 2 name - description: Walz - By Flatley's Magnificent Moves
etc.....

Now the next few days I do some studying, as I cannot find myself on the first 20 pages of search all. Yet place 211 is the place I am "entitled to" with this html page.

Really, I appreciate your comments on this set up. We do not talk about traffic/picks/keyword stuffing yet. But... everything we change from now on is part of optimizing.

Of course there's need for optimisation, how else do you let people know you've got what they're looking for?



This just isn't true, if keyword stuffing, picks buying and traffic inflation allow a person to find what they're looking for then they benefit the searcher too. The very reason people have engaged in the activities you cite is to be found. If the parcels don't offer what the person is looking for, then they offer nothing but the only reason parcels generally don't offer what someone is looking for is because they don't carry the content they advertise.




They want search to look nice is why, keyword stuffed parcels with the same word over and over look awful, when those parcels are at the top of search it encourages others to do the same, pretty soon lots of parcels are doing it and at the same time other items those parcels carry aren't being advertised which makes it harder to find items.



Keyword stuffing and false representation are not linked in terms of misleading people, trying to claim they are is clutching at straws.

On your item descriptions - I think you are wasting valuable space by typing out your whole store name. You need to use a 3 or 4 letter association with your store, that people remember and identify with - in this case, perhaps FMM. You can fill that line with more important details in describing product. For instance....I use only ETC. in that line, then a thorough product description. It's also easier for them to find the products in their inventory, that way. On the second line, I use EtCetera Furniture ETC. The complete store name, but without fluff, like "magnificent moves" - odds are, someone is not going to type that word combination into a search. In this case, might rethink your store name.

Spell Waltz correctly. But misspelling will pick up a few hits, too. People often do this on Ebay.

Describe specific Tangos and Waltzes.

But there it starts... changing my company name to be easier found in search, would that be permitted by someone like Sling?

This setup is chosen intentionally, as there are tons of things to optimize. My question is what would be "ethically right" and what not

Added some more suggestions:


You do not have an Argentinean Tango available. MAKE ONE. You need this product, or you are missing some search hits and sales.
Label it FMM Argentinean Tango Motion Capture Tango Argentina Tango Argentine Tango
second line: (you really do need a different store name - the "magnificent" fluff is going to cost you valuable space on everything you attempt) insert effective Store Name - then, - Motion Capture Animations Motion Capture Dances Tango Dances Tango Animations

I don't see how a person's personal ethics has anything to do with labeling your product effectively. There are some instances where it might come into play in the store name, as we have seen.

I would say,

- It's ethical to choose a company name that is memorable and easily found. It's not ethical to choose one that someone else is already using, or a near-copy thereof.

- It's ethical to optimize your parcel for search. It's not ethical to trick people into coming to your parcel looking for something you don't have. "Tango Dance" is OK. "Free Sex sexbed sex animation Tango Dance" is not.

- It's ethical to hire models, especially if they provide an enhanced shopping experience for the customer by actually being on line and able to answer questions. It's not ethical to hide a crowd of bots in the basement.

However it seems to, people are saying optimising is bad, labelling your product effectively is optimising, so Marcel is asking whether optimising is bad or not.

I don't give a rat's ass. I need to label my Tango correctly. If I don't have a popular Tango, I better make one, and get it labeled correctly.

The underlying problem here, and why it's only (at most) accidentally a question of ethics, is that we're operating with a search algorithm for which being "effective" is to replace relevant information from the search page text with redundancy. It doesn't have to work like that.

For example, the only reason Marcel's new dance anim store should be rewarded for using the term "dance" more than once anywhere on the entire page is if there's empirical evidence--easily collected here--that having "dance" appear 3 times leads to optimal results for people finding what they seek.

And that's why I said earlier (I think in this thread) that it's a hint of possibly good news that the Lindens in charge of Search have been around the discipline long enough to use the words "information retrieval"--which is what all this stuff was called before it got dumbed-down to make web-scale search tractable. Maybe, just maybe they understand what got sacrificed, and how much we need it now.

When I start giving a rat's ass about what people (who are not running my business, and are not inside my head) want to make a determination on, as far as "good" or "bad".....then I will hand them this list to evaluate:

How many hours I spend online in the store.
How much I pay employees.
How my store is set up.
How I tend to my store group.
How I run promotions.
How I advertise.
What color sofas I make.
What I wear to work in the store.
Where I live in SL.
Where I live in RL.
What my group affiliations are.
Who is on my friends list.
What clubs I go to.
Whether or not I wear clothes on the beach.

Have them Evaluate That.

Agree with Lindal's comment above.


This Keyword stuffing is actually Linden Labs fault and no other.

When ALL search was first introduced, it was being used correctly because it had the correct weightings balance between keyword text density and other IBL's. This led to proper product listing pages with descriptions & prices with very little keyword stuffing. I remembered using html coding similarly to Phil to pretty up my Listings page...with titles underlined and using coloured fonts,sub titles and categories for products.....it was really representative of what i was selling. Even with a very appealing Listings page, i still managed to have very high keyword rankings!

Like all good things, LL managed to balls that up during Spring 2009.....by shifting the page ranking weightings towards text density bias as well as killing of html bb coding.....so here we are, with top Search entries being keyword stuffed and not being particularly useful to the consumer. IMO with these new policies LL will only be reversing what it did before ...and hopefully going back to how it was originally set out as.


It really doesn't matter what GSA 6 does....by the Springtime, the same companies now listed at the top for the most popular keywords....will be back on top again. It's almost a certainty!
Those that understand SEO and those that spend hours optimising will find themselves on top regardless on what LL tries to do. The hardest part is back & forth testing trying to hit the optimal settings....that can take tons of hours over a period of weeks as their are several variables to consider.....it's not just about finding e.g how many repetitions of a keyword begins to have a negative impact on a keyword ranking.

E.g Low Prim Furniture keyword....don't be surprised to see the same top 10 companies appearing on Page 1 give or take 1 or 2. The only difference will be nicer and more informative product listing pages......which the consumer will benefit from. It still and never will tell you which is the best creator of Low Prim furniture (subjective anyway)


.