Traffic Bots Against the TOS of LL?

what I expected happens. Freaking unbelievable though, and proving exactly the use of discussing with Colette and Mort: none.

Two transcripts were posted showing Lindens position towards traffic bots at the moment. No clear thinking person could read anything else then: traffic bots are okay as long as they do not do things that are against the ToS. So they are not against the ToS themselves. Thread closed, OP answered.

But no, not for them. Mort suddenly had voicechat (strange this did not come up sooner), and Colette, well what can I say. Childish. Say bots still are unethical, and you are right insating so, as it is your belief. But simply trying to read things that are not there because you just have to be right, is beyond childish. Even more childish then replying their postings with pony. And if ever a reply like that was justified, it was on their postings responding to both transcripts.

Forgive me the rudeness, but talking to a horses ass probably gives a more sensible discussion.

Sounds more like you read more into those transcripts than they actually say sunshine.

the transcripts simply say traffics bots are at this moment allowed and not against ToS. Apparantly too hard to grasp for you and Mort. Not to your liking, so twist it around. Have fun Colette, you only prove Phil is right about your true intentions.

Furtermore, you calling me sunshine gives me an itch, please adress me by my name or not at all.

I've never really thought that was at issue in this debate, despite the thread title. Until there's specific language in the TOS about it, it's safe to assume that it isn't a TOS violation (except as misuse of sim resources on mainland sims). What's at issue is whether or not it's ethical and whether or not it should be made a TOS violation. LL is always reluctant to add rules that they'd have to work to enforce unless there's a question of their own legal liability or there's been sufficient hew and cry. Once they eliminate traffic it's a moot issue. As contentious as the debate is, I think it's good that we keep having it, if for no other reason than it makes more people aware of the issue which increases the odds that LL will eventually get off their collective behinds and act, or at least make an official policy statement.

after you called me childish and compared me unfavorably to a horse's ass? cute.

You are ignoring the infamous Linden" Out" they use on nearly every topic.

Essentially what those notes say is ..

Trafficbots are allowed by the TOS, unless those Bots are used to violate the TOS.

While a couple of examples ARE given, no where in either of those transcripts did the Linden explicitly say how the TOS would apply or not apply.

I contend that if the Lindens banned Trafficbots tomorrow, there would be no TOS change involved.

--------

They have traditionally used the TOS in that manner for a couple of years now.

--------

Its more accurate to say ..

That right now they don't use the TOS as an reason explain a ban on trafficbots.

But tomorrow they easily could.

You may be right. Did they add any language about ad farms or gambling? Either way I take their current inaction and vague statements to mean "Whatever our opinion on the subject may or may not be, we don't really want to have to deal with it. Please don't make us."

Traffic bots are not against the TOS, this thread is useless.

Make more accounts and run more bots, traffic is the problem not Phil

Yes I call you childish, and you prove that yourself, no effort from me needed. About the horseass, I simply stated one get a more sensible discussion with that.

Again, the transcripts say exactly what has been said all the time before. Even Chip seems to agree, not exaclty someone from this side of the arguments I'd say. The fact you simply refuse to see anything not supporting your view, is your loss not mine. But any credibility you might have had, is diminishing quickly.

Good thing its not you who decides on my overall credibility then, smart guy.

I hope they get rid of traffic soon but we've been waiting a long time for it to happen and we all know how fast they act

Hi Lord.

Agreed that's what will likely happen at some point. I doubt LL will ever ban bots...as a small quantity that serve for useful purposes.....but by eliminating traffic, most Bots would disappear anyhow..

actually if you read back it was mentioned earlier


There is a catch, they didn not say traffic bots are not against the ToS they said bots were fine as long as they don't violate the ToS.

It's called corporate doublespeak, just read Phils and many other posts in this thread for good esxamples.

I don't want them to Ban BOTS but as with the general consensus i totally agree traffic numbers have to go

Marcel


Kasiria Sawson = MortVent Charron's ALT

good luck proving that to folks that have heard her an me on voice chuckles.

actually pup I think one or two has heard us on voice, since I hated it as soon as it was available.

But I think the little attack chihuaha would call anyone in support of ya to be an alt... even to the point of labeling all of furnation and luskwood alts of ya

I don't know if he's taken her meds or needs new ones

Here,here.

I do not think trafficbots are against the TOS.

I do not think you should bother banning bots of any kind that provide useful functions for the people running them and that do not negavtively impact their environment. Bots are simply tools.

I do think using the concept of 'dwell' or 'traffic' as a metric for search is absurd since the institution of open registration. You can't let everyone enter the gate 100 times and expect anyone to take your head-count seriously.

LL has allowed the practice to continue simply because it still serves them to use an 'artificially inflated' 'head-count' number as a selling feature. There will be no change to 'traffic' until such time as LL does not need or figures out how to substitute the need of those 'artificially inflated' numbers.

I do not actually think Phil is the personification of the average person who uses this exploit of the search system for their own ends... I actually think the average person who uses this sort of exploit is much worse and far less interested in being perceived as the good guy. I only today noticed Phil has taken his ad off this sig tag. I believe Phil doesn't want to be the bad guy, regardless of what I might think of him personally.

I also can agree that until such time as LL decides to change any policy regarding the use of trafficbots to 'artificially inflate' one's search ranking, what Phil is doing is not breaking any rules or violating any TOS.

But I agree mostly with Chip. The more this issued is discussed the better, flame and drama be dammed.

Because policies and rules and laws and TOS won't ever change if no one cares. And at the very least, this thread proves that people DO care, regardless of how many if not most of them that might be. One would imagine that the sheer size of this thread might possibly have drawn the curiosity of a Linden or two. That would be a good thing.

Can a thing be wrong even if there is no law or rule against it? Only if enough people think so. Openly discussing it would be the best way to find out.

I thought we couldn't name names............
R... ErLANgEr = J...man Lanes ALT?

Good post Pie....without a single flame in it!

I actually agree with you although i've been arguing on the other side of the fence....but what you say is what i feel.....i think Phil and others would find it agreeable too.

They said that traffic bots are not against the current ToS. Any other interpretation is just twisting for the sake of twisting, but some don't seem to like plain language.

I agree with most of it too. Over 100 pages of posts and finally some of the anti-bots are giving straight answers to the question.

I am not in the slightest bit interested in being perceived as the good guy by people like you. I'm neither good nor bad, anyway. I am often interested in having things understood properly rather than allow the garbage that some people throw in to be seen as correct.

I removed my sig for a week, at the request of someone - to prove the point that it doesn't make a scrap of difference to the search rankings. It'll be back next Friday, if I remember on that day. I wouldn't have removed any bots for anybody here - not even for a test.

What you think of me personally is irrelevant to me. You are one if the only 2 people who is on my ignore list, and that's because of what you are, so the personal thing is mutual. The difference between us is that you deserve to be ignored because of your posts.

O well, so much for me trying to be nice.

Here's a song for you, Phil.


To all your friends, you're delirious
So consumed in all your doom
Trying hard to fill the emptiness
The piece is gone left the puzzle undone
That's the way it is

You are beautiful no matter what they say
Words can't bring you down
You are beautiful in every single way
Yes, words can't bring you down
Don't you bring me down today...

No matter what we do
(no matter what we do)
No matter what they say
(no matter what they say)
When the sun is shining through
Then the clouds won't stay


And everywhere we go
(everywhere we go)
The sun won't always shine
(sun won't always shine)
But tomorrow will find a way
All the other times

'cause we are beautiful no matter what they say
Yes, words won't bring us down, oh no
We are beautiful in every single way
Yes, words can't bring us down
Don't you bring me down today

Don't you bring me down today
Don't you bring me down today

The saying that was in my head when I wrote the previous post was "One swallow doth not a summer make". In this context, one nice post does to make a nice person.

Nor do several hundred mean spirited ones, but we can all try our best to be better people every day and give our best effort to being nicer.

I could have gone off and made a big drama asking you exactly "what you are" might have meant or how you thought it would get a rise out of me, but I chose to sing you a pretty song instead.

Have a nice Sunday Phil.