Search: How to : Results on top

I know....Picks matter...traffic matter....bla bla bla...


Good, Good !

Let's analyze a case in particular: furniture

And the winner is...

beds & bedroom furniture @ instinct Furniture


With the follwing description: bed beds BED BEDS Bed Beds bedroom bedrooms Bedroom BEDROOM Bedrooms BEDROOMS bed room bed rooms Bed room Bed Room beds Furniture furniture FURNITURE furniture furniture furniture furniture furniture furniture furniture furniture bedding BEDDING Bedding

Ok, so how what really matter ?

Let's try to check the picks...

the best way to do is: go to the search and put the name of the store ("beds & bedroom furniture"with quotations and set the category to : People.

The results: only 2 persons !!!! OMG !!!!

Ok, let's try another criteria: The keywords of the indexed objects...

OMG !!! There is no such indexed objects at the parcel !!!

Ok, Traffic matter ? What about 2000 points in traffic ? thats the land says today !! So, this is not the differential.

Classifieds: Let's try...

Forget it ! There is no such classifieds too.


So....What is the big deal of the search ? This is a good case to study....Can someone tell me how the search really works ?

Does it work? I would think you have just proven it's a random event, or maybe crap floats!

Hey I love my bed beds BED BEDS Beds Bed I bought from them

you have unlocked the secret.

I don't get your point. That place doesn't rank highly for 'furniture', so what point are you making?

http://search.secondlife.com/search.php?s=Places&q=furniture&submit=Go
http://search.secondlife.com/client_search.php?hl=en&q=furniture&s=Places&num=100

Ranks first for me for both mature and PG.

On a simple All search for "furniture" it ranks 5th right now. It was 4th a while earlier as I remember.

What search are you using Phil?

BTW-I see 118: http://search.secondlife.com/client_search.php?hl=en&q=%22instinct+furniture%22&s=People

"Furniture @ Instinct Furniture" seems to be the most common pick which should score quite well as an incoming link I'd guess.

<off-topic>
Has that always been part of the HTML page? First time I ever noticed it .
</off-topic>

I used the in-world search. I didn't look down the first results page, but I now see it ranking at #6. The web search that Kitty posted the URL for shows it at #2 - I hadn't looked there.

Actually the description is quite good. It has those repetitive keywords later in it, but it does do what some people here have suggested - put a nice user-friendly description first. After that, nobody seems to mind adding all the keyword, so I see nothing wrong with it.

I don't recall seeing it before, and I was looking at the source quite recently.

So now that you realise that the place was actually ranked high, then you might think about the obvious point that the OP was making.

It would appear from the OP's investigation that the first page ranking on a simple generic "furniture" term resulted mainly from the keyword-stuffing, although a good description would help as well.

If it is the case that keyword-stuffing is driving ranking, then that really is old and lame.

Thankies .

The landmarks project had the ability to tag landmarks with keywords as part of the specification. I wonder if they're thinking about letting residents tag places and picking up on those tags as part of search?
It could function as a rather effective way of generating incoming links as well I guess. (Shudders at the thought of how much automatic landmark givers spam that would cause)

They could let the parcel owner tag a parcel too, but that doesn't seem particularly useful.

Ah! Now that I see the Picks in Kitty's URL, I correct myself. THe OP's test did not pick them up.
There is hope for Search after all.
- at least once Picks are removed as a ranking factor

Not only old and lame, but wrong.

The more that LL use avatar 'content' to rank Search, the more it will be gamed.
We'll be spammed to hell and back by anything that can implant links in our avatar 'content'.

With history repeating itself, things will have to get to an unbearable stage before LL move to stop it. Up until they do move on it, we'll have the ethically-impaired banging on about how it's not against the TOS.

I'd consider it really bad if they are taking steps to add things like that, when they haven't even got it so that people like yourself can actually use it normally. But it wouldn't surprise me. My brain prefers to make great new additions like that, rather than make what exists work 100%. It's a failing in me, but it shouldn't be a failing in a company like LL.

And we'll have brainless, self-righteous people, like yourself, banging on about their own personal desires.

It was just a random - wild - guess .

Curious kitties and all that .

"personal desires" ??

I post on this topic to advocate a search that is not gamed. This would make search more useful for all. I'm not an avid in-world searcher, so an honestly ranked search might benefit others more than it might myself.

You game traffic for your own personal gain.

If anyone is banging on about their personal desires, it is you.

Oh no. I don't bang on about anything. I reply to some things though. You certainly bang on about your own personal desires, and the silly thing is that you bang on about them in the wrong places. You see, Sling, anyone with even half a brain would realise that if you banged on about your own personal desires in the relevant office hours, and kept banging on about them, you might have half a chance of achieving some. But here, you have no chance whatsoever. Maybe you don't want to achieve anything - maybe you just like banging on about it. I guess brainless people are like that - it's the banging on that's the main thing - not the achieving of anything.

Example:
This thread was free of conflict until you decided to get insulting. See it now?

Kitty in Post #13
"Shudders at the thought of how much automatic landmark givers spam that would cause)"

Me in Post #16
"With history repeating itself, things will have to get to an unbearable stage before LL move to stop it. Up until they do move on it, we'll have the ethically-impaired banging on about how it's not against the TOS."

You in Post #18
"And we'll have brainless, self-righteous people, like yourself, banging on about their own personal desires."


I assume that you took my description of any persons who would try to justify automatic landmark spammers as a personal insult.
It would appear that Kitty would not approve of such spamming, although she didn't describe her reaction robustly.
My tag for spammers was a reasoned one.

Your direct personal insulting attack on me was purely emotional.
This thread was free of conflict until you decided to get insulting. See it now?

Blind as well as a dimwit, Sling? You don't recognise "ethically-impaired" as an insult? Alright, I'll change my statement to say that you are intellectually-challenged. You have to be if you believe what you wrote.

Is that better for you? No? I thought not. As I said, there was no conflict in this thread until you decided to be insulting. *You* keep banging on about your self-centered desires.

I wrote (on the topic of possible landmark-spamming) -
"With history repeating itself, things will have to get to an unbearable stage before LL move to stop it. Up until they do move on it, we'll have the ethically-impaired banging on about how it's not against the TOS."

Q. Who did I tag as "ethically-impaired"?
A. Anyone who would justify it on the grounds of it not being against the TOS.

Q. Why did I use the tag?
A. It describes someone with with low ethical standards ( a spammer or spam-supportive in this instance).


You then introduced a personal and insulting direct personal attack.
You continue to use abusive language.
e.g.
"brainless, self-righteous people, like yourself"
"Blind as well as a dimwit, Sling?"

Intellectually-challenged indeed. Sling. You don't need to name names for it to be known you mean people like me. Therefore your false statement (the insult) included me. Only an intellectually-challenged person can't see that.