Is Paying for Links in Profile Picks Cheating?

You are right, and I've added "imo" to it, although I did include the words "I think" in the first sentence.

I intended it to start a discussion on what being cheated really is/means, to get back to the actual topic, so do feel free to discuss it from your point of view.

I made the statement that, in order to cheat, someone has to be cheated, and nobody is being cheated, twice before in the thread, but without any responses. I'm hoping that the bickering will stop and that we discuss the actual topic - cheating.

Not entirely true. From what the anti camp thinks, the people not using the picks paying are the ones cheated. So with that argument, Paying for Picks would be cheating. Playing advocate of the devil, this is called Dutch LOL.

What can be said, is that the effect of picks is less then it once was. Rene noticed that, I noticed it as well. Both of us use the Picks camping system so we do know the effects. In that case paying for picks is virtually useless, so it is not cheating either.
Another viewpoint, is that everybody can pay for picks, so in that case no one is cheated. The people that feel cheated, can easily fight back by also implementing the system.
Yet another viewpoint: Paying for Picks is done in the open. Nothing in secret. In that case, it can also hardly be called cheating, can it?

My final conclusion though, is different:
Whether paying for picks is cheating, is in the eye of the beholder. Some will say it is, some will say it is not, the rest does simply not care. Ergo: the question will never be answered.

Ok fair enough, I am a lot tired right now so that will have to wait for another time, it is nearly 3am where I am

If someone is being cheated, I would agree that paying for picks is cheating, but I don't accept that those who are not paying for picks are being cheated. They are being affected, of course, but they are not being cheated any more than optimising a parcel's name and description is cheating those who don't do it.

Have a good night's sleep then

I am pretty sure I agree with your conclusions

Good Night Phil, Marcel, Brenda and whoever else is still around

If someone uses questionable technique A to climb up in the rankings then they pushed everyone between the ranking they would hold without that technique and the ranking they usurped one spot down and cheat those people who do not use questionable technique A out of their ranking.

Or easier: Marcel used paid picks to jump from 14 to 2 so everyone between 2 and 13 dropped one ranking lower as a result of Marcel's action.

If you don't think paying for picks is a questionable technique then you'll see it as nothing other than normal optimization.

If you think paying for picks is a questionable technique then you'll see it as cheating because someone conned their way up which inevitably pushes others down.

(And "paying for picks" really isn't terribly relevant, you can apply it to any controversial search "optimization"

Of course it pushes the others down - that's the whole point of optimising, but nobody is cheated through optimising because nobody has anything they are being cheated out of; i.e. nobody has an implicit right to any particular ranking. It's not theirs, so they can't be cheated out of it. They can be moved out of it, but they would only be cheated out of it if they had a right to it - even a moral right will do, but nobody has such a right to a particular ranking.

(You are wrong about Marcel though.)

The same could be said about any method of adding picks - ask a friend or two, add it to an alt, put a sign up inviting people to add the place if they like it, etc. It all results in others moving down, but the others aren't being cheated out of anything, because nobody has any sort of right to any particular ranking position.

why would paying for picks be considered cheating?

Is paying higher dollar than someone else for a classified ad considered cheating?

how is paying for picks any different?

It is a form or method of advertising as in trying to get more exposure better ranking etc, no different than paying a high classified fee to get better exposure and higher ranking there

Thanks for making my point:


Take it up with him, it's something he himself said (see the quotes in post 325).

a walking billboard in effect.

I could equally pay 100 noobs to wear a specfic T-shirt advertising my company and insist they wear the t-shirt for at least 4 hours a day in ordered to be paid

I could take it one step further and ask those same folk to hand LM's and notecards to the general public....now LM's do count towards ALL Search ranking even if it has low relevancy. It would be no different to the increasing notecard & LM's givers employed on many commerical lands. As soon as you land at said location you're bombarded with LM's , Group invites and notecards.

There is absolutely no excuse for what Rene has done. And if it became common around here, anyone with self-respect would leave.

You misunderstood, Kitty. I said that the whole point of optmising is to move up so that others are moved down, which it is. I didn't mention paying for picks.

However, acquiring picks is a part of optimising. So what *is* you point? We are discussing whether or not anyone is being cheated. If you have a point to make about that, please make it.

My mistake. He did get to #2 briefly at that time, but he only stayed there for a day, and picks didn't help him to get back there. It was just a very brief episode in his overall journey to the #2 where he is now.

NO Phil, first it was mocking over Mort being a furry, then it was mocking over the size of his land, then it was mocking of some contents in the profile, then more contents in the profile, then the URL.

It wasn't just one thing it was repeated in order to get people to join in the mocking. But you are the only one who joined in.

Which says something about you.

Classifieds are ranking by "amount paid", search is supposed to be ranked by "relevancy". Is whoever paid the most for something always the most relevant?

If you want to pay someone to add you to their picks then that's fine, just as long as it's not coupled to search.
If you want to pay someone to sit around on your land all day, that's fine too, again just as long as it's not coupled to search.

It's the direct impact it has in either case on search that makes it questionable. If you can't separate the paid listings from the unpaid ones then you don't have a "relevancy based" search.

---

And again, since "search ranking is determined primarily by 'relevancy'" has finally made way for the more honest "search ranking is determined primarily by manipulation" why not just replace the first page(s) with paid keywords à la Google adwords (but instead of separating the paid from the unpaid simply list the paid first and the unpaid after)?

It makes search a whole lot more dynamic since ranking is determined by how much someone is willing to pay at any given time for a click/teleport rather than have it be gamed by a select few who will always stay on top no matter what.

I speak my mind.

I am opinionated.

I don't back down to forums thugs like yourself.

Thats not trolling.

Some people believe picks should meet a strict criteria of how they are used. This criteria doesn't include financial inducement. Therefore people see payment as cheating.



I agree 100%, picks can be a form of advertising, hence why it's sensible for business owners to have information in their picks, people look at picks, indeed the knowledgebase suggest looking at the picks of a creator to find where their items are on sale.

However others don't share that view.

More likely the 5 or 6 who are willing to stay in these threads after people like you and Rene have poisoned them.

Notice on other topics it doesn't happen nearly as quickly.

Wonder why that is?

Can we try not to digress? Who is being cheated out of something? And what are they being cheated out of?

Phil you have been told hundreds of times. The fact that you disagree does not mean you do not know.

The gamers competitors are being cheated.

People shopping for that item/service are being cheated.

Exactly that. You think there's nothing wrong with acquiring picks by paying for them (or enticing people to add you in general, ie prizes, money lottery, etc) then you're going to see it as "optimising", if someone sees something wrong with acquiring picks that way then it's cheating.

If a group is supposed to run from A to B and there's a road circling a field is it cheating if one of them cuts across the field when the trajectory wasn't specifically established as a rule? Some people are going to argue that that one cheated because it was obvious everyone was expected to run along the road, others are going to argue that there's no mention of *how* you were supposed to get from A to B so no cheating occurred.

Maybe that's an analogy you'll able to comprehend better.

I disagree. As I've stated before I don't think people should be advertising in their signatures in this forum, but I don't see those who do as cheats.

The point however with picks is that store owners put their own there, is that cheating?

Friends put their friends store in there, is that cheating?

People swap picks, is that cheating?

As all these things happen with picks now and some of them were happening before search changed, I'm not sure what criteria people apply to the use of picks.

Your analogy is well understood - it would be cheating to cut across, because the other competitors have been cheated; i.e. they have had their rightful positions changed by someone who didn't run the full course.

What you are not addressing with regard to the thread is, who is being cheated, and what are they being cheated out of? There is no need for analogies.

In my opinion ..

Paying for picks is cheating

Using multiple Alts that "count" picks is cheating

The rest is not.


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

As to the other point you raised -

Forums signatures are fine, as long as they aren't too gaudy.

Bringing up your business so its discussed in thread after thread ... is messed up.