Traffic Bots Against the TOS of LL?

Gabriele:

Just out of interest, I ARed you twice, but the second one suggested that it might be good if I am banned from the forum because, if that mother thing continued, I would probably not have let you go even after the thread was finished, and it would be better if I don't have the ability to write anything.

I'm just totally amazed that this thread is still alive.

However, before it gets flushed down the toilet, I'd be quite interested to hear Phil's response to Google's and Wikipedia's bits on keyword stuffing, search engine spamming, etc.

However, should this thread have the great fortune to get nuked, Phil will have an opportunity in a later thread to have a reasoned debate on this, and why he thinks that it's OK to spam search engines.

Main plot still gets the traffic. You can stack bots on top of each other.

It generates more inbound links just like paid picks do.

Main plot only gets inbound links to the main plot, the smaller plots get their own inbound links. If people want to pay L$30 for that I don't see the issue. There's only so much you can put in the description field and the bigger your plot is the more landing points you're likely to want.

Why should someone with a fuill sim only be able to use the same amount of description fields as someone with a 512?

You made my point for me, Sling. Keyword stuffing is website content, as you found so very well. And you may still call spamming the engines "abuse" while the rest of the world calls it search engine spam

Who cares anyway?

Phil ARing people for personal attacks

Is like Vanilla Ice suing people for stealing the beat for "Ice Ice baby"

You are still being creepy Phil. Its like you don't want it to stop at all. What the hell is wrong with you?

BTW Bad taste and callousness besides I doubt anyone seriously is going to think my repeating and embellishing a comment you made about your M****r too seriously. Bodily threats, sworn vendetta's and lies about what I am or do in RL are likely to be taken far more seriously. Especially when you laid down the gauntlet and said bring it on.

Think on that. It does not matter what you think of me, is it worth possibly losing your business over?

Now hopefully we can move on.

I have my store's land divided. There's the main parcel, plus parcels for the fireplaces dept., tables dept., rugs dept., and art gallery. That way I have names and descriptions for various departments and it works ok. I see people landing in fireplaces and rugs as well as the main area. (I can't usually see far enough to know if they also land in tables and the art gallery). But I haven't yet seen the need to divide into tiny parcels. There is more to it that what Mort has mentioned.

I don't know what you mean. There is nothing wrong with me. I said that I'd ARed to have myself banned. I also said that, if the mother thing continued, as you'd cpontinued to threaten, I would probably not have let you forget it in the future. I meant in the forum. I am not meaning to be creepy. There is nothing I can do that should creep you out.

I agree that they weren't serious. It was only after I told you that she had died a few years ago, and asked you to stop using her in posts. I even said thank you, assuming that it was a good request and would be done. That was when I doubt anyone would have approved of your threats to continue.

I don't care about the business. For some months I've been wondering whether to call an end to it or not.

It's over. There's nothing I can do that should creep you out. Let it be.

Why am I not surprised.

Faced with a clear a clear statement from Google, you try and evade the point by playing with words.

You say that it's OK to spam search engines.

Google says it's not OK.
Wikipedia describes it as an unethical search engine optimization (SEO) technique.

It's an abuse. You get delisted when discovered. You admit the risk of being delisted for doing it.
It's unethical.

But you say that it's OK.

How do you rationalise that?

That's the problem you're just not capable of discussing rationally.....given all the existing parameters you move the goalposts at your earliest convenience. Where and how did the advent of World Grid Police come into it.

Phil definitely seems of the -its not wrong unless you get caught- school of "thought".

And yet you dismissed some of my earlier posts,

Which were far more on topic,

for being assumptions, hypothetical and mumbo jumbo.

/me feeds the wannabe troll some prozac laced candy... just after he edits out what someone else already caught

Hang on a minute. You said you were not talking about website content. I asked you, where is keyword stuffing? (it's website content, of course). You quote that question and said, let's ask Google, and you quoted from Google's webmaster guidelines, which didn't contradict what I said. You also quoted from wikipedia, which also didn't disgaree with what I said. What are you up to, Sling?

Everyone knows that the search engines say it's not ok to spam them. You are missing the point entirely. Search engine do not make rules for webmasters. They only make them for themselves. What a webmaster does with his/her site is *entirely* up to the webmaster, and not up to any search engine anywhere. What can't you grasp about that?

What a webmaster does with his/her is perfectly ok as long as it's legal. If s/he includes spam in the site, it perfectly ok. What's so difficult to understand? Do you imagine that search engines like Google make rules that webmasters have to comply with???

[added]
If it helps, I'll try to make eay for you...

Everyone knows that the search don't want spam.

Everyone knows that a webamster can do whatever s/he wants with the site, including adding spam to it.

Everyone knows that search engine will deindex sites that have spam in them.

It's ok for the wbmaster to include spam, and it's ok for the engines to exclude the site.

I hope that makes it clearer.

"I wouldn't even... hurt a fly.."

I am perfectly capable of discussion. It is you who seem to be unable to abandon your trolling ways.

I brought up a grid wide police force as an addition to the discussion that I thought you might be serious about having.

The reason I brought it up is because of the recent things that LL have already chosen to ban will need policing and they already claim to have too few numbers to acheive this. Ergo they might be recruiting a security force or considering it. It is not too much of a stretch to understand, unless you don't want to of course.

Of course rather than understand my posts you are another one who would rather get personal.

Go away troll.

Let's take this step by step.

1. "Everyone knows that the search engines say it's not ok to spam them" You said that.

2. If you spam them, it is an abuse of the engine. I said that. I would also hold that the search engines are saying that.

3. You say it's not an abuse.

Please explain why it is not an abuse to spam a search engine.

Agreed, at this point the best thing is to let it be.

"abuse" is your word, as you said. The engines don't say it, and the rest of the world doesn't say it. It's called "search engine spam", but you may call it what you wish.

Now. It is not an abuse of the engines because it doesn't harm them. In fact, it doesn't do anything to them. Pages that contain spam do no more to the engines than pages that contain no spam. AND the engines choose to index the sites - not the other way round. If you want to talk about how spam affects the rankings, please do.

Let's make it even simpler:

1. "Everyone knows that the search engines say it's not ok to spam them" You said that.

2. You say it is OK to spam them.

Discuss

No.

I have always disliked posts like that in forums - someone makes a statement and expects other people to dicuss it.

Also, this is about SL - not about web search engines.

for someone that preaches ethics, morality, blah blah blah

yet is an active member of this website


and why I cannot take you seriously when youself describes your character as

Character Notes:
Mainly a Husky avatar, sometimes a horse, fox, or bunny Tends towards a balanced relationship with a slight dominant personality, but is also a switch( makes a good pet at times) Will not wear a leash or collar again as a kept pet, maybe for friends on special occasions... and will not keep a pet

* Male Husky
* Occupation: Builder and explorer
* Bi, Female Preference, Switch, often dom


rofl.......Yes.. please give me the candy........i need it to stop myself from cracking up!


Bite me.....it's one of your favoruite activities i see

ROFL,

Sling had to do that because you weasel 7 ways to Sunday when she asks it as a question.

SL isn`t google so google`s rules don`t apply here untill LL classifies it as abuse, same as traffic bots

same as US laws don`t apply in africa even if we have the them in europe aswell
your beating on a dead horse