Traffic Bots Against the TOS of LL?

I agree with and endorse this post 100%. I have always said I preferred an SL where traffic was being used as originally intended with system abuses policed and where delisting and/or banning from SL were the penalties depending on how much abuse and whether it is a first or subsequent offence.

It is not too late even now, enforce a policy again all traffic abuses and all will return to how it was supposed to be. After all how can they even consider policing zoning (which is a much bigger job) and say policing search is out of the question?

Nooo, not one per IP. I'd be screwing myself with only one connection per IP! I'd say 5 concurrent would be fine (1/8th sim limit). Given that anything would be gamed, if a bot runner wants more, they would have to work with their ISP or through a portal site to do the job. Which would either cost more money or time, something that would hurt the lazier or cheaper bot runners.

This also wouldn't require a policy change, nor would it require a limit on alts. It'd also be great if they'd give us a connection counter, so we could track 'em.

It would still screw lots of other people around the world though if that were done.

hey!
@Raudf Fox
as an example i have businessline with 8 static ips so i COULD have up to 40 connects, not fair compaired to others.
this way a huge company can spam sl to dead but not a single person. the first/next step to monopoly.

That last paragraph hits the nail on the head imho

I totally agree

The reason people want to get rid of traffic, or let me say the reason I want to get rid of traffic, is because it is meaningless. The reason is not important as we all know it: camping and bots.
One other issue is the fact it is always a snapshot: If I have a very popular club that has 2 events per week, with 40 guests, I show up 2 days in search places, the other 5 days I have not too much traffic.

So Kitty, I did not ski it (- not surprisingly -), but I found it rather useless to keep on beating a dead horse.

New Search, as I mentioned before, works pretty good. At least if you know how to use it. I can always find what I want. As long as no one can come up with a better solution, it is the best we have.

And yes Kitty, I pay for picks and am not even ashamed. From the 105 picks or so for my shop, 30-40 per week come for their 25 linden I pay out weekly. Those 30-40 are the reason I keep the system, but I do not advertise it anymore and will not raise the rewards either.
Why? Because I now know that without those Picks I would be at 2nd ranking too. Raising my reward and advertise that a lot might bring me first place, but for now that place belongs to Phil. Consumers find 10 times as many products at his place then they find at mine.

So again: Traffic is useless and should go. Probably Picks should not count in Search either but they do, and do not seem to be that big an influence either. Search All as it is, is the best search we can have so far, so we should enjoy it. If anyone comes up with a better answer for search, be my guest.

Weren't you the one putting up a Jira against traffic removal by the way (I could be wrong). If so, why do you think it should stay? You know it is a worthless parameter, so why keeping it around?

Marcel

P.S. @Gabrielle: What I get in the middle of, I can pretty well decide for myself, so thanks for the advice but it is not needed. If it is just between you and Phil, get a room (or website) together, you are posting in RA so people will read and respond. And yes I read each and every posting in this topic so I know what I am reacting to.
Furthermore, Gabrielle is as far as I know a girls name, so I'll be damned if I understand what is wrong with calling you Lady.

Picks are meaningless for the exact same reason though so why focus solely on traffic?
(Camping and campingbots are one and the same to me really. I can't see much difference between a human camper, a trafficbot in a skybox, or a modelbot in the middle of the store. They all count equally as far as traffic is concerned and are artifical in all three cases)

Valid point but skipping over this one cause would get too sidetracked . I don't think anyone ever said traffic couldn't use some improvement .

The metric used and the underlying search engine are two different things. LL could drop picks and just run the new search off of traffic like the old one, or run the old one based on picks for that matter.

No, that was just LL's temporary "solution".

Compared to the current places UI which shows 25ish (can't recall exactly so taking a guess) results at once with easy two-pane navigation (as opposed to click, teleport, back, click, back, click) and the loss of features (categories and show on map as the biggest ones) the new Places was just awful in my opinion. Including part of the page with keyword highlighting below the link works fine for the web but isn't useful in SL.

If you prefer the "All" result you can just pick "Places" from the dropdown there, so there's no reason to retain the current functionality of Places.

And not unimportantly the issue that the new search didn't (and still doesn't work for me) since I couldn't (and still can't) scroll the results which effectively makes the new search rather useless.

If I had to search for a group back then I would have included that too because I tend to just get a blank page for every other group I look for and having to relog with 1.19 just to join a group isn't terribly pleasant .

So now you understand why I reacted to Phil's advice and your advice in the same way. Advice is one of the few things given freely and virtually nobody wants.
I don't care whether this is a public forum or not, a third party willfully putting themselves between two others trying to work through their problems, takes on at least part responsibility for what happens after that.

It has nothing to do with my name, Marcel. It has everything to do with being sexist. It matters not to any part of the discussion what my gender is and so you calling me "Lady" is just another way of drawing unnecessary attention to me being female and is often used by men to try to put women in their place. I object strongly to this type of thing. You could have used my name and I would not have felt that way at all. So does that mean you are trying to start problems too?

It also strikes me as funny you feel that it is perfectly OK for you to lecture me. You have done this on several occasions and call it fair in a public forum and yet you really don't like it in return and when it is from me you call it causing trouble and such. I bet if I were to inject myself between two disputing parties to give some stern lecture you would be there to tell me to keep out of it. I don't expect you to admit that though.

Had enough of my observations yet? because I have to tell you I am getting quite irritated at how this almost keeps getting resolved until some one else decides to lecture me on my behavior. Funny how these same people never lecture Phil. Oh right it is because I must be totally and unequivocally in the wrong over everything, including the threats and abuse I received - I forgot.

Kitty,

We seem to agree on most points. Picks as a metric seems to be important because somehow inbound links are needed (not sure if that is absolutely necessary though), but they are useless, I agree. They are not that much of an influence, but more then they probably should.

Traffic outlived its usefulness, indeed camping or bots both contributed to that. Not it was not that much of a useful metric to begin with anyway, so good riddance if they decide to remove it.

The Search All could replace all other search tabs as you can indeed use the drop down list to choose what category you want to search, and that works very good. The only thing I dislike, is the way the results are presented to the user. More results per page would be way better.

Probably that is one of the issues bugging me the most in threads like this. So much focus on the way search is gamed and how unethical that is, and way less focus on how search actually works. Seems to work quite well as far as finding what you need. Of course businesses optimize, and they will use tools like picks buying and traffic bots if that helps. As long as they are allowed, they will be used. So the most important question is not: how ethical is gaming search? but: how do we get the search results as trustworthy as possible?. Removing traffic would kill the traffic bots. Putting hardly any weight on Picks would remove picks camping. Both were not metrics that make sense anyway.

In the end, the key metrics for search in SL would be: parcel name/description, and items set to show in search. Those all refer to the actual things we are searching for. So if I search for a kitchen, the parcel listing the most kitchens would be first in ranking. Frankly, I think that we are very close to this already, at least that is what I experience from my searches. Now I do admit I hardly search for kitchens

Assuming I am allowed to respond to an on-topic post with my own opinions, I would like to say that I know I speak for myself and have heard more than a few others say here and in world that they don't think new search works very well at all. I don't think you can assume that is a forgone conclusion that new search works better.

Now on the inbound links issue of the new search, would the search engine really implode if nobody used picks? Would you be able to get a keyword search working still in any fashion?

I know its an extreme example but lets say picks was broken in some version and everyone's picks looked empty - would search work or not? If so then picks are not necessary. If it will not work without picks then I say LL have a huge problem coming for them in the future as picks are going to ruin search completely as more and more people are paying for them to be placed.

Did I give you advice? Can't remember that one.
Actually the only reason I reacted to that posting of you, is because I was relieved the mud-slinging (you, Phil, Rene) stopped, and then your reaction seemed to start it all over again. And I even said you might have ment it different, but it readed like a threat.


Apparently you have more problems with your gender then I do. Really, you are the first lady I address as lady, that objects to that word. And reading back my posting history should show you I never refrained to mud-slinging. Also never looking for problems , avoiding them neither though. Only typing what I want to say, that's all there is.


Again, if you want no one to "inject" themselves in a discussion on a public forum, continue in private. If you post something that me (and apparently not just me) read as a threat, I feel free to step in yes.


Frankly I had enough of your observations after your first postings in this topic. You ask me, you get the answer. Furthermore, Phil knows I think he should not react the way he does too. But you can read back as much history as you want, he never started slandering, though I do not like the way he responds to them either. You should not victimize yourself by the way, no reason to do so.

I am not going to repost all again that but let me say this - once again you start telling me what my problems are (gender), do you think that is perfectly OK and not antagonistic? If so you are wrong. So you have not had anyone treat you chauvinistically in that way - so what? I have and so have millions of women. If you didn't mean it that way then now you are getting an inkling of how I felt when my general posts are treated other than their real meaning too. So I am not playing any victim (again another accusation and slur - quite remarkable really - yet I still have the problem it seems). Facts are facts and I simply cannot believe I have to explain this again to yet another person who was not even around during the time it happened. I posted my opinions same as everyone else, they were direct and to the point, not tiptoeing around anyones feelings and yet somehow Phil's extreme reaction and response to that is my fault somehow. And yet conversely when one of you posts something insensitive that I take exception to - I am still the one with the problem - oh how convenient for you.

Really Marcel you are just adding to the problem. Do you really think I would be quite happy to have you tell me where I go wrong without wanting to respond? How long do you want this to go on for? I really want to know because the more you respond to me and tell me about the errors of my ways the more I will reciprocate as I have stated to anyone else who want to take pot shots at me.

Oh btw here is where you give me advice on the last line:


Also quite funny how you say "read it for what is it, not for what you want" isn't that what started your first lecture comment to me? That you read a threat in my words where there was none? Again I get to say what I meant - not you or anyone else.

Hmm.. didn't consider that. But to be honest, why would you have 40 connections in a sim you want actual avatars to come into? (I know, I know, if it's logical, it's not allowed!)

But that does raise a point of cost vs effectiveness. Would it be cost effective for a bot runner to do this to get more connections? Or would it at least discourage the weaker bot runners?

Why would you not be allowed?
I am quite surprised you think it does not work very well, and it makes me wonder why you (and the others you mention) do not get the correct results, and I do.
What I think, is that the way to search is that much different, that many search the wrong way, but I could be wrong. Education would really help a lot of users.
As an example, simply using the drop down list makes a hell of a difference. My first searches I did not use it, and the amount of groups and avatars really messed up the result.
The more you treat search all as you would treat google, the better the result set should be anyway.

As I said in my last post, I am not quite sure whether they are actually needed. Neither am I sure whether LL can influence the weight of the parameters. If they are able, I would opt for dropping picks, or making them less important, as they are useless metrics. They have nothing to do with the relevance of a place anyway. So on that topic we seem to agree.

Good you are responding to my topic posts now instead - lets keep it that way in the interests of peace please?

Simply put I find search does not work very well because the items that are presented have very little bearing on what I am searching for, a fair amount of the time. I am certain we do not shop for the same types of things so that might explain it.

Yes we agree on the picks part

So it seems it could be perfectly possible with proper enforcement to go back entirely to a traffic based system where the penalties for gaming it far outweighed the benefits (delisting and/or permaban).
I am not saying traffic is perfect just that if used as intended by the Lindens I believe it would work just fine.

hey!

@Raudf Fox

>>Or would it at least discourage the weaker bot runners
yes, a huge company could spam with hundreds of ips and maybe a small company could have max. 5 or 10 people on (local network and shared ip)

in my opinion fair use of shared resources is the solution.

My last reaction regarding this one. Do with it as you wish, it is meant well for what it is worth.


Really, I do not know if you are the one with the problem, and it sure is not convenient to me. Convenient would be a reaction where you admit that the posting I responded to, indeed looked more as a threat then you ment it to be.
Nor do I say you have a problem with your gender, I said it seems you have more problems with it then I have. The fact you and god knows how many women have been treated chauvinistically in the past, really will not influence the way I address you. It was in my opinion still more your interpretation, then what I actually wrote.

The fact I wrote about playing victim, was because your last sentence. In my view, that is a typical reaction of seeing yourself as a victim. Nothing to do with accusation or slur, just a mere observation.

The reason I write this all up, is because with this post to me, I think I finally see why you are reacting the way you do over and over again. And I think it would do you good, to think about it. Again in my opinion, you feel attacked way too easy, and react as someone stung by a bee. That does not do you any good.
Maybe I am wrong, maybe not, as I started this posting you can do with it as you please. I will not react to it anymore. To your on-topic posts I will of course keep reacting, as I do with everybody.


No I did not think it would make you happy, I thought it would make you think. If someone tells you where they think you go wrong, there often is a reason. Now they might be right or wrong, but what I expected, is that you would give it a thought.

Thanks I really did not remember that one. Again it was meant well.

No on this one. How would gaming be defined, and more important, controlled? Traffic will always be inflated. Even if they ban camping, people would hire 20 newbies as dancers in a club above their shop to get the traffic. or as sales employees.

Furthermore, traffic has got nothing at all to do with relevance, just as picks don't. If I look for a kitchen, I do not look for a place with 25.000 traffic points that sells a kitchen, I look for a place that specializes in kitchens. Ergo: did put a lot of kitchens to show up in search, and has it in their parcel description.

I try to be careful with my words, Gabriele. In most cases where someone argues against something different to what I write, it's because they argue from fallacy - they argue against what they'd like me to have said. An example of argument from fallacy:-

Cheese is food

Food tastes nice

Therefore cheese tastes nice.

The 3rd statement is a fallacy, and it's what some people here do *A LOT*.

I only used the words "touchy" and "sensitive" about you, and I didn't say you are too touchy. I said I wondered if you are. The reason I wondered is because of your responses to a couple of my nice posts. You may not be touchy - I just wondered if you are, and I edited my first long post today a number of times, just in case. That was todays' use of the word "touchy". I can't swear that I haven't use previously.

I'm only asking you to make it clear when something is just an opinion. It's standard practise in forums, although it does get forgotten too often. It's no big deal. It only becomes a big deal if it's omitted and people take the post to be an intentional statement of fact.

*sighs* And so it perpetuates continually. You may *think* you see all my problems clearly Marcel but I assure you that you do not know much about me at all. I would *suggest* that you also think a lot about your own reasons for doing things. What on earn makes you think after what has occurred today I am interested in anyone else making me think over the debacle? Did you not think I might have had a bellyful with Phil then Rene without you raking it over? Would it have been so hard for you to let it past and just respond to the on topic parts? By not doing so you became part of the problem that is your own responsibility. A real shame. The fact you are still at it is the biggest shame of all, considering that NOBODY WAS ATTACKED PERSONALLY BY ME UNTIL I RESPONDED TO THE ATTACKS OF OTHERS.

Over the chauvinistic part - you see my reaction as a classical victim sign but I see your stern lecturing behavior coupled with what is often a chauvinistic term where I come from as typical sign of a chauvinist.

I am anything but a victim, in fact I have fought for the right to put my opinions with my meanings and had to endure a lot of unnecessary abuse because of it. I will do so again and again until people back off and stop hassling me over it. That includes you Marcel. Hardly the stance of a victim.

I will state again - there was nothing wrong with my opening comments in this thread. The first comment I made that Phil jumped on was not quoting him, referencing him by name or even using a specific pronoun (ie. You or him). Nobody yet has explained how that could possibly be taken as anything but a general comment.
My first comment in response to Rene's assertion was a rebuttal and a direct one but valid because if there is one person you know for certain disproves an assertion (even if that person is you) then you are fine to speak authoritatively about your own experience and in your own words and those who don't like that I consider botting scummy business tactics are far more fragile than me.

Marcel, you have no need to keep doing this, I am asking you to stop, I have done so in the above post and I ask again for the sake of reasonableness. Just don't respond or just say something to the affirmative - don't embed advice, words of wisdom, lectures, observations of how flawed you think I am - I am not interested. Please just stop.

I do try to be clear Phil, but we all suffer from that. I will try to make it more clear in future - I have no problem committing to that. Now please lets just drop it.

I guess so. I chose not to respond to it as a threat, so as not to escalate anything, even though it looked like one to me. Ironically, if Marcel hadn't mentioned it, I would have remained thinking that it was an threat, so Marcel did us all a favour

It would fairly trivial to determine camping in this circumstance even if you dress it up as staff, dancers - unless they are actively engaging an audience or customers then eventually they will get catch out if someone ARs them.
I never said that traffic had anything to do with relevance but traffic is not just about business, it is about all sorts of interesting places that I want to know real people visit and if its closer to showing that real people visit a place for no other reason than they liked it.
It does not mean we cannot have keyword search also - does it?

That's true of web search engines, but not of the SL engine. Web engines are independant entities, but the SL engine isn't. It's part and parcel of what people pay tier for.