Traffic Bots Against the TOS of LL?

BTW In case you want to know where this tidbit came from, it was from here:

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Traffic

If the bot runners on mainland were penalised by some form of resource allocation...the serious players e.g Phil will most like buy an Estate sim that LL has very limited control over. The majority of the biggest bot runners operate out of their own sims. They will load it up leaving a bit of room for genuine visitors. 50 bots would be quite normal, but i have seen them as high as 80. Mainland bot users cannot compete to that level.

It the Bots were banned....the camping pads would replace them overnight with a similar scenario playing all. Mainland owners still need to consider surrounding residents and the resources they leave spare. That's the one aspect LL will react to. The only other consideration is that it costs more to sustain camping......but some will get around that by logging ALTs, getting their partners to log ALTs.

i can't see any system that would be fair. Who makes the decision who should sit at the no.1 position of ALL search say using the keyword "Skins". Should it be the best Skin designer...thats subjective and down to personal preferences, should it be the oldest dated designer, should it be the designer that sells the most products....what is no.1?
We know everyone would like to be no.1 on that keyword search. Even if you came up with the most unbiased system....theres likely to be several hundred if not a 1000 companies selling skins of sorts. Each page displays just 10 results.....the majority of people are unlikely to flick past the first 5 pages if that......which means 95% of the entries get hardly any visibility whatsoever.....using the most popular keyword in the Skins sector.

You can't rely on LL to decide that pecking order....as clearly shown with "Showcase" tab
If you look at SL metrics, its easy to see why there's only a 1000 people from the entire SL population that make over 1000 USD per month....and a good percentage of those are Estate barons who have heavily invested in SIMs

Your statements contradict each other.

The search engines say that is not ok to spam them. You say that everyone knows this.
You say that it is ok to spam search engines.

You claim that there is no contradiction.
You say that spamming search engines against their express wishes is not an abuse. You say it is not abuse because it does not damage the engines.
Yet the search engines say that it damages them, and it it clear how it does damage them.
Google say that these attempts to manipulate search can give the user "a negative experience".
Google and other engines put much work into maintaining their credibility by trying to ensure the relevancy and ranking of listings by their criteria. Gaming activites such as yours work against that. That is why they will delist you if they detect the gaming.

What you are doing is unethical.
If you don't believe it to be so, go and edit the Wikipedia pages. There you will be free from what you describe as a vocal minority in this Forum.
Go ahead, go for a wider audience. See how the Net at large responds to your obfuscation and bluster.
You'll be sliced and diced.

Gabriele:

It is best to ignore Colette - she's a trouble-maker and stirrer (a genuine troll), as I'm sure you've seen time and time again. She claims that it was my #433 post that started the whole thing off, and you accepted it with thanks, but she pretended to be blind to your earlier #385 post, in which you called me an "arrogant asshole". It was the early posts that started it all off. Usually, only a stupid person could claim that the trouble didn't start until post #433. But Colette isn't stupid - she's a trouble-maker and stirrer (troll), and she knows exactly what she's doing. It's best to just ignore her. With Colette on your side, you really don't need enemies, as you can see from her claim about post #433. She didn't try to be helpful - she lied intentionally, for the purpose of stirring.

My post #433 is very innocuous anyway. The only thing in it that you could have objected to on a personal level is me calling you "sweetie", but it had started before then. How Colette thought she could get away with saying that that post started it all off, is beyond me - except that she needed one of my posts for the lie and I guess that one was the best she could find - and she knows that most people aren't even going to look.

Colette probably rationalises it by thinking that calling me an arrogant asshole was perfectly alright because Phil *is* an arrogant asshole after all, so that couldn't have been the start of it. Therefore it must have been something that Phil wrote later, and calling you "sweetie" will do.

In your #1163 post, you said that you had been stating your opinions in the posts that Rene quoted, but none of the posts suggested that they were just opinions. The things you wrote were all stated as facts, whether intentionally or not. If you'd included something like "imo" each time, they wouldn't have given the impression that you were stating facts, and wouldn't have been aggravating. The things you wrote in the posts that Rene quoted were all written as though they were facts and not as though they were opinions, so it's hardly surprising that they aggravated some of us.

You can't rely on unethical store owners to decide that pecking order either.
Search manipulation is some store owners attempting to dictate that pecking order.

Rene already posted about the name. The *male* version is Rene, the *female* version is Renee. You really should ignore Colette - she's just a trouble-maker and stirrer, and joining in with her stupidities isn't the wisest thing a person can do. It's inflamatory. She is ignorant about the name - leave her to her ignorance.

Happy now? As I said, I see no point in dicussing web search engines with you here. Oh and incidentally, I've had a larger audience on the subject for a long long time. Didn't you know that I'm well known in the search engine world? I was well-known even before Google came along. I know about these things, Sling - you don't.

hey!

good morning

yes in serverstats they are listed as main agents in your sim and as child agents for other sims - they use resources -> bandwidth, scripttime, physics, ...

well as i said some month ago i was a newbie and i was pissed off cos of cheating business ive spend thousands of lindens for crap and useless stuff, however doesnt matter i can afford it - but maybe others not.

meanwhile i can make all my stuff for myself, upload textures, sounds, write my script -> no more need to buy.

Your problem is that you have come to believe your own propaganda.
It gives you a completely unwarranted air of arrogance.

The amount that you might or might not know about the workings of search engines is irrelevant.
What is relevant is your unethical use of whatever knowledge you do have.

There's a phrase used in my part of the world to describe someone without soul.
"He knows the price of everything and the value of nothing."
That is applicable to you and your knowledge of search engines.



If you are well-known in the search engine world - and we'll assume that you claim to be well-known in the positive sense rather than in the notorious sense - then why not use that position to correct what you must believe to be a gross error in the Wikipedia section of keyword stuffing for instance? The practice is described there are an unethical one.
Why not use that position to explain to the world why spamming a search engine is not an abuse?
Why not name and shame Google and other engines for their practice of delisting sites that try to manipulate search ranking by unethical means?

Whether or not you are indeed well-known or notorious in the search engine world, such a campaign would be sure to raise your profile.




Other people who use unethical means to up their search ranking just get on with it and very sensibly try to keep a low profile about the activity.
What keeps these threads smoking is your need to justify the unjustifiable. You want to be well though of, but at the same time you don't want to stop doing something that makes people despise you.
You see some thread criticising search gaming and you just can't resist.
So people like me get out the pointy sticks, and we'll keep poking until you get out of our faces.

Sling.

I told you that you'll have to continue that dicussion on your own. I'm not interested in discussing it with you. Web search engines are nothing to do with SL.

lol. You really are deluded, Sling. I don't need to justify anything. I enjoy a good debate, that's all. I've said that many times in the past.

Sing, Sling, Sling. Do you *really* think that I want to be well thought of? Really? Read and learn, Sling - read and learn

True. I enjoy a good debate.

LOL. You don't have any pointy sticks, Sling. You don't have the wherewithall for that. You can't prick anyone with your logic - you need *actual* logic to do that And the only way I'll get out of your face is if my suggestion to the mod people that I am banned from here is acted on. I have no intention of leaving innocent people to be prey to people like you who spread false stuff around. Like it or not, I'm here in your face until I quit SL, or until I am banned from here. Get used to it Of course you could always go away yourself if you don't want me in your face.

True as long as Traffic exists as it does then No Bots=Mass camping

And a large increase in serverside load.

hey!


yes i know people they are camping to earn money.
as i understand they use a textbrowser (like a botapp) so it should be the same amount of useless traffic.
but dont ask me, i have no idea cos all this stuff isnt available for mac OSX.

LOL We have a VAT number here in Holland so don't have to pay it on the sim but i know it hurts on the camp pad thing there was once a place where the money tree was in the firing area so you could go take pot shots at the newbies, don't know if its still there tho and it was evil in a nice sort of way

Wow, just wow. Glad things are back to civil discussions. Some points I want to react to, even if they might be from a few pages back

@MortVen: Your arguments about bots having the same load on servers makes no sense at all. So why do you say it anyway? In my posting to you, I gave you 5 of the things that put the most load on a server, yet you ignore that one completely. Instead you name 3 things that hardly put any load to a networked system, that both bots and regular users have. Why do you ignore the facts? Either you do not understand the technical concept, or you deliberately choose to ignore it.

Furthermore you threaten to make search useless by putting up an army of bots, put html on prims, yadda yadda, yet fail to deliver. Dont get me wrong I am happy about that, because changes are big you would loose your account over it. There is a difference in putting up 20 bots to raise your traffic, and devoting your time to ruin search (and admit that in a forum). If I were you, I would be more careful. If I were you, I also would not make threats you are not serious about, because it looks kind of stupid.

In addition to that: No one ever claimed (as far as I remember) that bots put no load on a server. What has been claimed is that the load is minimal. We really are talking a few bytes, where a regular avatar would use a 100 or 1000 times as much (inventory, groups, primmy, scipted items, rezzing stuff).

@All, solution: The conclusion has long been drawn: traffic should disappear. We seem to agree on that one (well, most of us). Banning bots equals return of camping. Traffic simply is a useless figure. Maybe it once was different, but at least for the last year it is useless (and probably long before that).

@All, ethics: To some of you, using bots (or picks camping) is against your ethics. Nothing wrong with that of course. But for others, it is not against their ethics. We have different believes, nothing wrong with that either. We should just try to accept eachother. Let me try and explain what happened to me when I started my business (and to Phil too, as I can make from his postings in the past).

You start creating stuff first, and then set up a shop. Now you need to get noticed. So you investigate Search, as that is an important way to be found. Now there are 3 places important:
- Search Classifieds: It will cost a lot to get noticed there. Now I gave it a try and payed enough to get into the top 5, and it was money thrown away too, after a few weeks only a few TPs.
- Search Places: Traffic related. You see that the top 10 (or more) has traffic numbers that cannot be reached by regular traffic. Investigation shows bots or campers. Thats your competition.
- Search All: By far the easiest to optimize for. Parcel name/description, put your items for sale to show up in search, and up you go. Picks camping can help too.

Now if you read the above, you have to make choices. Search Places still is much used, so if you want to compete the best way, you need that ranking too. And if the top 10 is using bots to get there, and you have the hardware, fire up bots too. It is not that strange. You look at the competition, and use the tools they use, as long as they are allowed in SL.

Comparing this to adfarming makes no sense. Adfarming was never a tool to help your business, it was a business (extort people). Just as banking and gambling were. And now its banned (though badly enforced). If I put out a network of billboards in a decent way to help my name noticed, it is still legal, and that is a tool to help my business. See the difference?

Marcel

Thanks for the URL What i found interesting is the second line below where they specifically mention BOTs and im still using version 1.19 of the viewer and i didnt realise popular places were gone so theres a positive change and i was still under the impression an avatar had to be on the land for 5 mins so thanks for posting this link:

"Since 2006

* In 2006 traffic was changed to be a minute an avatar spends in a parcel (Ref: [1])
* The traffic of all avatars count, regardless of their membership status or if a resident or bot
* Mainland sims limited to 40 avatars generally can't have traffic over 57,600, while island estates with 100 avatar limits usually won't be over 144000, but those limits can be exceeded by avatars relogging back into a sim
* Traffic also determines which "Popular Places" are selected each night. You can see these by clicking on the Find button and selecting the "Popular Places" tab. They also appear on the Map as a "thumbs up" icon. (Note: as of viewer version 1.20, "Popular Places" is no longer included in the search system.)"

Agreed and Good Morning

Phil, I thought you wanted an end to this? Your interpretations are not going to be the same as mine and/or Colette's obviously otherwise this would have never got to where it got. You dissecting this again is just returning to that and if that is what you want then we can get on that particular merry-go-round again. It is up to you. I was hoping for better after our private chat.

My posts stand as they stand and I get to choose my meanings behind what I wrote. If I say they are just general opinions then that is exactly what they are - period.
Stop trying to tell me who I should ignore or not - I thought you agreed to try and get along better? The things I wrote aggravated you because you are doing the very thing I abhor - running traffic bots. My general opinions about this are always going to make you feel bad and targetted, those are the facts of life but it is still *NOT* personal, they are still general opinions - if you do not like it then stop using bots and they will not apply to you anymore.

When I say that the only reason people run bots is through one type of greed or another, that is my opinion and it is valid. I do think that and I stick to what I think. There are no non-greedy reasons in my opinion. It is greed for money or greed to win. You admitted as much yourself. Nowhere in my early posts where you took objection did I address you personally or use even "You" in a general sense that could be misconstrued. My viewpoints are strong as you know and they are going to upset those they oppose, again these are the facts of life. You responding to them as if I wrote them just about you personally is where this problem started, because however they seem - they are not intended to be personal and I get to choose what I mean.
Colette was only pointing out the place where the escalation began in earnest and not the first place where it is possible to say there was misunderstanding about what I wrote. The two are seperate places.

Colette has done nothing wrong and in fact did you a big favour Phil by reminding me before things got even worse that there was a point at which to make a halt in escalating things.

Phil, I seriously and earnestly urge you to think about what you are doing here. Drop this and move on or be prepared that there will be more unpleasantness. You are not going to move my opinion and I am not going to change yours. All you are going to do at this point is to escalate things again. Your choice. I am hoping you will decide against this and move forward as we agreed on a better footing.

Good Morning and I thort you had 99 hot guy bots on your sim but u got a MAC lol Bad Awnee

This is clearly a poking fun in a non-serious way and should not even have to be mentioned, to take it in anyway serious is just silly. Colette knows about the name as do I. It does even need to be discussed. Again you are attempting to tell me what to do, stop it. Colette poked fun in a non-threatening way and I followed up with a slight fun poking and after what has been posted by Rene it is the least of the issues there.

No one is telling you what to do. Someone is giving you an advice. That is a big difference. Now I do indeed think that Colette more often then not tries to poke people with a stick and see their reaction, but I am not ignoring her (nor anyone else). Neither should you (again: advice). I do not agree with Phil's advice, but read it for what it is, not for what you want.


Of course you were meaning something else, and it is probably my interpretation, but this looks like a mere threat. Nice.

Lady, you can make it look like whatever you want, but it is you AGAIN trying to seek confrontation. And I do not say that because you have a different opinion then I have, I say that because of what I read.

Marcel, I don't know if you know what has transpired earlier today or if you care but my advice is not to get into the middle of something here. It is not a threat but an expectation of an outcome that I know will transpire - again I get to choose what I mean, not anyone else. My advice to you again is to stay out of it because it is you who are seeking to make this worse if you don't. This is between Phil and me, you placing yourself in the middle is only going to make things worse.

Using condescending terms like "Lady" is not going to help either.
This is partially what escalated this mess.

hey!


a newbie has 1k items in his inventory no scripts running no group and arc 0 or 1
me as an example has 4k items, 7 groups(huge amount for me have to reduce i know), im lowscripted, simple bow, crossbow, uniform, primhairs, primshoes, arc < 2.5k in worst case - full attached incl. xCS
in idle (noncombat) mode = chatting, scripting, ... i use bandwidth 3 - 7 kbps
when im running round in combatmode bandwidth = 20 - 50 kbps
when i loggin my bandwidth is 500 - 700 kbps for ~ 10 - 60 secs to load my body inventory and sim

i have noticed people loggin in with > 600 scripts running, they will bog down the sim for maybe 5 seconds or more -> physics(movement) runs out of control
totalframetime 50 - 75 ms, simfps <10, physics fps <10
normal sim stats with one player on
totalframetime 0.6 - 1.2 ms, simfps 50, physics fps 50
serversoftware 1.24.4.xxxx

so we can see pepole have a different impact to serverload and overall performance

hey!


they fit my ego i have 99 viewers running
yesterday i was thinkin bout -> 99 bots with a followerscript and me running round on sim