Traffic Bots Against the TOS of LL?

Phil I said it was not a threat almost the moment it was pointed out that it seemed that way - go read back. I am glad you chose not to escalate though - that would have been a shame over another misunderstanding.

That is true only until LL redefines what tier pays for. If LL were to say search is not a right but a privilege then that is how it is. LL reserves the right to redfine anything they like including what tier pays for.

As things are right now, which is what Kitty meant, it's implicit when buying land. The system has the "Show in search" option, so it's reasonable to believe that, when buying land, the option to show it in search is included. LL could ban someone's parcel from search if they chose, and then it would be up to the person to decide what to do next, but as it is now, "Show in search" is part and parcel of what we pay tier for; i.e. a right when paying tier because it comes with the land - not a priviledge, as it is with web engines.

Too many ifs here.

At the moment, traffic is just how many people spend how much time on a parcel. Not the reason they spend time there, so again traffic is irrelevant to relevance.

Now when I do have a private island, I am pretty much allowed to do what I want with it, as long as I do it withing the ToS. So if I hire 50 dancers that have to dance for me 24/7, I can. And it is hard to imagine LL will ever do something against that one too.

Banning bots is relatively easy to do and to enforce, but we already saw that will not solve the traffic metric because of camping. Now to ban camping seems impossible, as long as the campers are not a zillion alts of the same user (ie: bots). So I think that bringing back traffic as an actual metric of popularity is impossible, people are way too creative. I could come up with a dozen implementations that boost my traffic, yet are not camping nor bots.

Now I can see why traffic would be useful to find non-business plots, but in that case it should be possible to indicate whether your parcel is commercial or not. And that, again, would have to be enforced, where we see LL does not want/is not able to enforce the rules as they are. So I see no future there.

It was Pie that called you that - which you never saw at the time because you have her on Ignore.

Gabi had called you arrogant. Not the rest.

And knock off the defense of the condescending language

You called someone you have made clear for months you don't like "Love"

then when she asked you to stop, you said "oops, sorry sweety"

Which is as plain as day.


As for "ignoring Colette", if its so beneficial; you need to learn how to take your own advice.

You have GOT to be kidding.

How much ego is this?

In Most case people who argue with you they are using fallacious arguments?


Do you even understand what sort of claim this is?

hey!

thats what i thought in the beginning, but its not people (different persons) its clients and 10 "people" on can be:
10 persons or 1 singleperson with botapps, for me thats a difference. you know?
for trafficpoints thers no difference thats right.

Hey Colette!

I really do have you on ignore, but once in a while someone quotes what you post, so I see it. On this occasion a little birdie suggested I look at what you wrote, and I want to thank you for making me laugh You did the *very* thing that you quoted - argument from fallacy. I wrote (and you quoted):-

"In most cases where someone argues against something different to what I write, it's because they argue from fallacy."

but you argued from the fallacy that it meant:-

"In Most case people who argue with you they are using fallacious arguments?"

It's classic Colette at its finest. Thank you, sweetheart. I needed a good laugh

Which fallacy is the misinterpretation fallacy Phil? I guess I missed it somewhere

Also I missed the fallacy about responding to Spin.

And its the same thing regardless because you claim everyone doesn't understand what you write.

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

And since you've already been told about your condescending use of petnames like "Sweety" you obviously are doing it intentionally.


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

Ill tell you what, Sweaty, Piggy ...

Learn to actually ignore me - or dont

These games you play are pathetic.

You are quite right, Colette. I should have let your fallacy slip by, but it was such a howler that I had to thank you for the belly laugh.

If it's alright with you, I'll just ask you one question and then I'll leave it, because the personal stuff had died away in the thread - until you brought it back again. The question is this:-

Which part of "where someone argues against something different to what I write" don't you understand, or was it one of your famous misinterpretations that you never admit to but insist happen?

You may answer if you wish. I won't open any more of your posts, so I won't see it. I just thought it was so funny that your trolling did the VERY thing that you quoted and argued against, and I couldn't resist

Of course .. the reason everyone "doesn't understand" what Phil writes could be the fact that he apparently:

refuses to be concise.

refuses to be direct.

I understood it. But you ALWAYS say people argue against something different than what you wrote.

Thus the supposed distinction you are laughing about is irrelevant.

The fallacy in that argument Phil is you are not always correct. Either through deliberate falsehoods or refusal to provide supporting evidence.

No Mort. The fallacy was in Colette's post. I say one thing and she replies as though I said something different. That's the fallacy right there.

But let's leave it, huh? The personal stuff finished in this thread. Let's not drag it back.

I really think you need to do more reading on Logical Fallacies.

Your two major arguments on this topic are both fallacious.

The whole Many if not most/silent majority

and the whole if the Lindens don't do anything about it then it must not be cheating.

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

While this is no debate society - the true irony is you love to accuse people of fallacious arguments, when you have been making them all along.

but how so? What manipulation are you referring to.? If someone appears in the no.1 slot for a particular keyword.....is your assumption, that it must have been gamed?

For some of my more niche products....i simply use land name that is either the company name...or a few keywords that describe my products.

I don't use Picks for those.

Again following LL guidelines . i use a number of keyword variations to describe the products i sell..i don't use repeat words, i try and make sure each phrase is different so that i appear in more keyword searches. I list only the products i sell

As per LL guidelines - i tick prims for sale and to appear in search and use description similar to that of About Land.

As a result i'm top of page 1 for some relavant keyword searches.

That is not gamed in anyway....and i followed LL own guidelines and recommendations.

You can't generalise. I would bet a lot of no.1 positions are legit....the more common keywords that have more competition like hair, boots,skins, dresses,fashion.....there you might have a case.

Yes-that's a possibility. Could also mean that those that have money and are already using LL allowed tools to increase ranking will have even more of an advantage. ....which is might make it even more unfair.

There is never going to be a perfect system for determining an order for listings.

IMO classified adverts are probably the fairest of all the options available, yet there are high rollers who sit at the top of the tree that list keywords that they knowlingy don't sell. Personally, I find that worst than bots.

Nothing worst than TP'ing to a place thats being falsly advertising non-existant products.
At least with ALL Search you can view thosee product set for sale on the listings page and save yourself an unnessary trip.

The obvious gaming of that is to have some prims labelled as the same non-existent products buried and labelled for sale at keen prices.
The effect is the same as that of the false keywords. You use All Search, see the listing and TP in.

Of course I don't assume that, because not every store owner games search.

All well and good on paper....and as I stated right at the beginning of this thread......do you think LL has the manpower to police it?

It banned gambling - yet there are forms of undetected gambling going on within private groups on private sims.

Land extortion was banned - i still see 16sqm plots sold at absurd prices

Banks were banned - we see the return of WSE, last i heard it was trading shares and it has an ATM on its sim. I was under impression Banks could be allowed if they met certain criterias set by LL. I doubt WSE met those.

if you try to stop manipulation of traffic .....how would this be done with below example :
You own a SIM in which you either have your main shops or a mall on it. You use the roaming camping device which pays AV to roam around the sim (call it dynamic camping)
Once the AV leaves the sim or plot of land it pays the AV. There are no hovertext signs which shows "You have earnt 12 L so far"....you simply cannot tell if that AV walking around the area is being paid or not. My SL partner scripted such an item for our real AV models....they simply touch the small vase.....and the camping clock would start running.
There is absolutely no way of knowing they were being paid until the Linden amounts hits Transaction history of your a/c. Why did we do it ? Well our commercial plot contains a number of shops and our Models double up as Sales assitants. If we just paid them on the rotating stands, they would be unable to to assist a customer at shop located elsewhere on the plot. This way they could step off the rotation stand....and still continue being paid on a different part of the Land.

What i'm trying to say.....your ideas are all well and good....but in the reality of this VW they are not practical as LL simply does not have the resources to enforce all these changes. Having a grid Police Force is not a solution either.....many private estate owners would object to having a 3rd party come waltzing onto their SIMs (the ones that they pay 295 USD per month) and be dictated to. If they are hired externally, then it comes as additionally salary costs or fees to LL.....a sunken cost with no revenues attached to it.
If you appoint a volunteer group internally....that would spark even more derision than the externally hired unit.

Ya know you could gain a lot of forgiving supporters if you would do the brave and right thing. The Phallacy issue will not go away.

Rene: LL has the right and ability to police any and all sims at will.

Read the ToS very carefully, same for the CS

Your rights in SL are at their discretion always, since they can change them at will and are not restricted from telling you that you can't put something on your private sim.

specific clause:

5.3 All data on Linden Lab's servers are subject to deletion, alteration or transfer.

When using the Service, you may accumulate Content, Currency, objects, items, scripts, equipment, or other value or status indicators that reside as data on Linden Lab's servers. THESE DATA, AND ANY OTHER DATA, ACCOUNT HISTORY AND ACCOUNT NAMES RESIDING ON LINDEN LAB'S SERVERS, MAY BE DELETED, ALTERED, MOVED OR TRANSFERRED AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON IN LINDEN LAB'S SOLE DISCRETION.

YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY COPYRIGHT OR OTHER RIGHTS YOU MAY HAVE WITH RESPECT TO ITEMS YOU CREATE USING THE SERVICE, AND NOTWITHSTANDING ANY VALUE ATTRIBUTED TO SUCH CONTENT OR OTHER DATA BY YOU OR ANY THIRD PARTY, LINDEN LAB DOES NOT PROVIDE OR GUARANTEE, AND EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS (SUBJECT TO ANY UNDERLYING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE CONTENT), ANY VALUE, CASH OR OTHERWISE, ATTRIBUTED TO ANY DATA RESIDING ON LINDEN LAB'S SERVERS.

YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT LINDEN LAB HAS THE RIGHT, BUT NOT THE OBLIGATION, TO REMOVE ANY CONTENT (INCLUDING YOUR CONTENT) IN WHOLE OR IN PART AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON OR NO REASON, WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE AND WITH NO LIABILITY OF ANY KIND.

The only cure for traffic falsification is to remove profile pick and traffic from the relevance factor. Let people find what they are looking for without criminal influence.

Or don't and openly state criminal ethics are a desired trait of the top businesses in SL.

The top jeweler in SL has a box with 18 camp pads that pay max 100L per day and campers must be in the jeweler's camper group and have that store in their profile picks. A fine upstanding operation that serves as a gleaming bright example of how to run a successful venture in SL.

So everyone needs to go get 20 camping pads and a bunch of bots and join the party till LL has to eliminate profile pick payola and traffic from the equation before the grid becomes operational again. Because the grid will die under the weight of an additional 1 million bots. Then people can have camping that helps new residents as a gesture of generosity.

By the way the bots are have path following and avatar to avatar interaction now. AKA NPCs. Drop in on sim Fairyverse and see for yourself.

Bots are going nowhere and are here to stay. So there is one and only one solution to the problem of criminal ethics and that is to remove traffic and profile picks from relevance period. There is no other solution so don't waste your time trying to find middle ground.

Dam that surprises me after people lost a lot of L$'s just shows you can do anything here and get away with it and you will always be welcome here

WSE was never included in the ban

It wasn't a bank

Stock exchanges were not banned

WSE was/is still a scam though.