Traffic Bots Against the TOS of LL?

Gambling is against LL TOS and U.S gaming laws that would warrant a permanent account removal.

Why your argument would break down is because we have 5000 mainland sims and 25000 estates......now granted a security forces or Linden appointees might well be a solution for mainland when they bring back zoning inorder to eliminate ad farms, land extortions..and should also really include Land bots too......but they won't ever apply that to Estates sim.
If they won't and can't apply that to estate sims where most of the large Main shops exists, then there is nothing to stop them installing mass camping farms...in which case we're back to square 1.....gamed traffic numbers.


Phil and others never insulted me here...some of your buddies did. It's debatable who started what. I could equally pass off your comment as " People who chose to denegrate me i offered respect initially until they chose to make snidey comments" The beginning of this thread was actually light-hearted and was going surprisingly well......ironically it all turned a bit sour around about the time you arrived in this thread.....then the personal comments started to fly. Coincidence or not?

You are right, I will try not to feed the troll or bait him, it is hard but I will try.

Lol- a blatent liar too!
Once you knew the situation with Phil's mother...you threatened to bring it to another level...not in 1 post, not 2 posts but several posts you mentioned this....it's there in black and white for everyone to see. You even want to bring up Mother related jokes for christ sake...if it wasn't for Collette holding you in your tracks and bringing you back to sanity...no doubt you would have been posting those too!

A troll would be a compliment description for you....as you're a far far lower degenerate than that!

Please, folks. Can I ask to let the thing about my mother drop now? It's finished with, and I'd like it stay that way. Thank you

done!

I think I do understand what you said.
You said that despite search engines saying that spamming them is not ok, you assert that is is ok to spam them.

Any reasonable person would describe an attempt to spam a search engine as an attempted abuse of that engine - particularly when the engine makes clear that such attempts create an negative user experience and are unwelcome. You however claim that is is not an abuse.

Presumably, you would also take issue with the Wikipedia entry describing the practice as unethical.
If you do, perhaps you should contribute to the Wikipedia stub, explaining to the world why the practice is not unethical.
It would be interesting to see the response you get from a more general audience than you have here in the forums.

I am many things but I am not a liar, what you last accused me of is not what you are saying here. You are just out to cause trouble. I never denied making the later (poor taste admittedly) joke about it and the mock threat to bring it up. That is not what you accused me of - get your facts straight.
Not that any of that has anything to do with You or why you are so bloody offensive to me and almost everyone else even before things escalated with Phil?
Why did you start being offensive to me when I did nothing to deserve it at that time except argue with Phil like everyone else?
Whats your excuse?

Sorry Mort, had to respond otherwise it will seem his accusation of me being a liar will stand unchallenged.

Phil yes I would like that too and there is patently no reason why Rene needs to bring it up at all.

My take on what Phil is saying:

Google say you can't spam their engine.

A third party buys the search appliance and then set their own criteria. They don't have to follow rules on spam for their application, they make their own rules.

So in Second Life the tips on search say:

"Keywords Matter - Think about which words Residents might type to find your listing or products and make sure to include these words in your listing. Include various forms of your keywords and emphasize specificity. For example, if you're selling swimming pools, include "swimming pools, hot tubs, diving boards, pool supplies, fountains" instead of just "pools". "

and

"Lying Sucks – When you’re writing keywords for your listings, don’t deceive your potential customers by listing things that have nothing to do with what you actually sell by providing deceptive descriptions in your keyword listings. An example of this would be to use a popular keyword, such as “dancing”, to describe your dance-free pool store."

Other people using the google search appliance may say lying means you get delisted. For example google consider misleading or repeated words as spam, from what I've read Second Life doesn't, they just say it sucks.

Of course that could just be the settling in phase of the project too. It is new after all, perhaps they are still getting to grips with it before making those kinds of policies.

If it was as simple as Ciaran describes then why 30 pages of dodging the question?

I have my doubts thats all there is to it.

But Phil will probably take any out he can get now.

Absolutely, these things evolve as their use is observed.

Had a thougt just now, would Phil and some other traffic bot runners .be willing to put up a 1 prim click to accept questionarre,. A how do you feel about BOT`s qusetionnare kind of thing , run totally controled by a third party?...biggest prob of course finding some one who everyone in the debate can agree is impartial to bot usage, but then maybe explaining exlaing in the questionairee how to make a notecard with the answers no-mod may help.But still need to be able to know that the person running the taly is honest enuf not to delete any notecards.
Most likelt impossible, but just a thought.

BTW I know my spelling suks,I just don`t care

They assume that people who consistently lie in the search will wind up having the word of mouth work against them. Sometimes it does.. other times it doesn't. They don't want to use the manpower to police the ads to make sure they're true. Can't blame LL for that.

Enforcers of the recent existing bans and policies are going to be spread very thin in the near future. I have offered up one possible suggestion that LL may well unveil a group of (perhaps voluntary) policy enforcers to help them, otherwise I cannot see how they will be able to enforce just the new zoning let alone ad farm bans and keep up watching out for casinos and the like.
It is one thing to declare a ban but without enforcement it is useless.

Frankly, Sling, I see no point in discussing it with you. You don't want to know what I meant by the statements. You only seem interested in maintaining that they contradict each other, which they don't, and your interest just seems to be for the sake of it. Sorry, but I'll have to leave you to discuss it on your own.

You're bullish, you're obnoxious,you're agressive in your comments, you generalise with sweeping statements (then again several of us are guilty of doing the same), you try and impose your will on people, when you don't like an opposing facts to your message you dismiss them as coming from a troll. I did try and answer in a civil manner to begin with......but then i grewe tiresome and weary of you. You're not here to debate...you're here to cause drama.....and its no coincidence that at the point of your arrival the whole thread degenerated and became a free-for-all. During the first 350 posts it was pretty
civil with a few small digs from opposing camps

You enter this thread around post no.364...and in you're very 1st post
which sets the tone for your follow ups



- straight away......describing it as "scummy business tactics", thus alienating several from the start...followed by "can sleep at night knowing my customers are not deceived in any way by me"

That was your 1st entry into the thread.......like a bull into the China shop!

Your 2nd post thus alientating a section of the users



You're 3rd post



You're 4th post



you're 5th post




You're 6th post and its starting to get confrontional as now its directing it towards 1 person, where before they were bullish bold sweeping statements. This is now post



at post no.385 i think we have our 1st direct insult



followed by your 7th post on the thread no.386




from that point things escalate and go downhill for the next 800 postings.

You came into the thread aggressively, making sweeping statements, alienating the other side of the argument from the get-go. Let the people judge your 1st seven contributions to this thread and waht they represent. Your arrival was the catalyst for the fall out in this thread were there were no innocent parties including myself. For 360 postings this thread was containable with a few slight digs.....in fact i remeber one even saying this was the most civil "Traffic Bots" thread ever.

So there we have it.....and you want to point fingers at me and call me a troll?
You want to make believe you were an innocent bystander and i started picking on you
for no apparent reasons- rofl
You came into the thread with a such antagonist manner, by your 10th postings you were already fully engaged in a verbal battle with Phil....which set the tone for the others..which resulted in the fall out with myself, the Preacher, Pie and Collete who got caught up in a free-for all.If anyone should leave this thread it should be the main protagonist.

You appear to be under some strange assumption that all this started in this particular thread.

Phil's been throwing out personal attacks since he got here.

And uses more of them than any other poster you have mentioned in your post.

Total lie.

Only because it's usually multiple people firing personal attacks against me, and me firing personal attacks back to multiple people. Numerically, what you said is probably true, but you intended it to sound like I am the worst attacker, and that's a blatant lie.

Well this is the first time i have posted in awhile...i feel stupid that it was such a waste of time getting caught up in all of this. It achieved nothing at the end of the day!
I have seen other RA threads were gets a bit chaotic..where usually a group target 1 person for whatever reasons. Normally i skim pass those threads.

The point is i would prefer to discuss traffic bots.....and it was more or less fine for 350 posts.

Those are my opinions about *the issues* this not the only bot thread I have been in and I see this as a continuation of the discussion. None of those comments were directed to you or personal to anyone whatsoever and I stand by them. The same cannot be said about your comment which have been highly personal and not just opinions about the issues.

You have presented your opinions as facts and took exception when I repeatedly pointed out that they were opinions only.

You claimed to speak for the vast majority of people and didn't like it when I said that you only speak for yourself.

You have repeatedly poopoo'd the remarks of others for some bizarre reason which has nothing to do with me. You still have not explained why that is. After all I am not the only one calling you troll.

You intepret my comments as aggressive but they were just to the point and brief. You may think they are just out of the blue but they are not, nobody has to start posting at the beginning of the thread to be able to give opinions, I have followed this thread like many threads and posted when I felt I had something to say.

My first post in this bot thread was to give my own testamony which is perfectly valid. I can choose my own words and as long as I am not taking a personal shot at any individual then it is fine.

You may not like it or agree with it but you cannot show it was personally aimed at anyone. It was opinion and I am entitled, though you seem to think I am not and proceeded with personal remarks aimed at the person (me) instead of the issues.

The personal shots you do show are where you are not howing the words of the person preceding them. How convenient, that really shows I did it first lol. You are going to have to try better than that.

You show me where I made a remark about the person rather than the practice of bot running or the general issue of bots before you started getting personal or before Phil took exception to a general comment which in my opinion is the point at which this headed south. You make a lot of accusations - now back it up. Show proof as there are no personal remarks in what you have shown so far - just general comments.

You don't know who I am alienating or befriending with what I post. You can only speak for yourself. You seem to have a bad habit of doing that. Unless of course any other forum member would like to say you speak for them. You assume too much.

Oh BTW NewsFlash, you come off as aggressive as anyone and yet you have even less reason than anyone and you claim you don't care about the issues, I say bull to that.

I don't claim innocence, again your words and flawed ones at that.
I just claim you are the one who started throwing dirt before I sent any your way. Prove me wrong.

It is not the first time Phil and I have fought in the forums, but hopefully it will be the last as we have made peace since this has happened. The only malcontent around here still causing problems with personal insults and dirt raking is you.

If you don't like my "aggressive posts" you are welcome to mute me. If you really wanted to discuss something you would not keep derailing things when they have gotten back to a peaceful state.

If you make the largest number, and the meanest attacks, then you are the worst attacker.

You are also the biggest escalator.

Rene is wrong about the Post that really set this latest thread off though

It was this one .. Post 433

/327/5c/279383/18.html#post2136183

Where you were deliberately condescending to Gabi.

getting back to the OP

If its gaming of traffic that you're worried about, banning bots won't solve anything.

You'll get large AV camping areas again....back to what we had this time last year.

Only viable solution is to dismiss traffic.....to be honest i rather have traffic count based unique AV's landing into area and dismissing time......but that can be gamed too, the differentials however between listings would not be as great as multiples of 1440 traffic units which we have now..

And you think you are blameless in all this? Every time I tried to discuss it with you - you threw a personal remark back at me though none was given to you. How is that wanting a discussion? This thread would have been fine after the 350 posts too if I had been able to give my opinions in peace and the personal remarks had not started to be slung at me. I reciprocate as you have seen.

Additionally ..

You didn't even get up to a post count of 300 before you started hurling attacks.

to me that is "since you got here", it is not a lie .. Go back and look at the threads.

You have a penchant for calling people stupid who disagree with you.

-------------------------------

Its also a fact that you have posted several times as many personal attacks as I have, Considering I have 5 times your post count - that is saying something.