Is Paying for Links in Profile Picks Cheating?

I'm gonna spank you, I agreed with you about that ages ago!

Phil hadn't.

He needed taken down a peg.

Could almost hear his backpedaling.

I don't recall anyone saying that "No one can be cheated by someone cheating to improve their rankings". I've been insisting that, for something to be cheating, someone must actually be cheated out of something, but that's different.

ROFL

he did too say no one could be cheated

hahahhahahaha

Kitty, Sling isn't that what you got out of it?

Rather than call for reinforcements from known anti-picks, why don't you quote me instead if you think I said it. Be prepared for a loooooooooong search though, because I didn't that at all.

this one?

or maybe this one?

How about this one?

This one too.

How many examples do you want Phil?

All Search is dynamic....no one is expected to hold positions, you can move up or down on a given day on any keyword.
I lost a no.1 spot on a keyword the other day...and have slipped back to no.2....now i'm trying to regain the no.1 spot again by SEO means....no picks camping involved.no bots involved, no campers on that plot involved......straight up optimisation. I might be able to get it back...i might not! I'm certainly not entiteld to that no.1 spot....even if i did hold it for nearly 6 months.

This is just one keyword out of many 1000's that could be used to search products. You move up on certain keywords .......you lose ground on others. You try and optimise as best you can so that cummulative effect of all you chosen keywords and their relative positions brings in your daily traffic. You can say gain 6 Tp's from keyword 1, 5 from another, 12 from your 3rd keyword all the way through each keyword.......then you can add in TP's from a specific keywords in your classified and from all your different classifieds, likewise with Places Searchs ......again all from different keywords, ....then there are referrals, postings on forum's Classifieds, from your customer groups, external links on 3rd party websites, from blogs........it becomes a complex matrix of how people arrive into your store.

To simply focus on Picks and have make-believe that each no.1 keyword position has been gamed is an extremely niave viewpoint to take.....sure there are some popular keywords that are Picks assisted......there too, there are many ways to skin a cat (i.e how to obtain these Picks).
Again i say Picks as they stand in Sept 08 have less effect now than they did in say Nov 07 when All Search kicked off.

Here we go

I think I will stop at 5 for now.

There are more though.

Not even nice tries Colette lol

Please explain how anything in either of these posts:-



says anything like:-

In fact my first post you quoted says exactly what I just said. It's not rocket science, for goodness sakes.

I see you've quoted some more, so I'll inlcude those in my previous post. Explain how anything in any of them of them says or indicates that "No one can be cheated by someone cheating to improve their rankings." Wake up, Colette!

Lol whatever Phil.

I proved my point.

It is possible to cheat someone out of the ranking they otherwise would have deserved.

Thus your whole contrary argument along those lines is moot.

I'm sure you have proved your point that "It is possible to cheat someone out of the ranking they otherwise would have deserved.", but you didn't need to - nobody suggested otherwise.

I see you declined to explain yourself, so I'll help...

I've kept saying, and you've quote me as saying, that for something to be cheating, someone must be cheated. Now...

It necessarily follows that, if someone is cheated, then someone is/was cheating, which is very different to what you said I said - "No one can be cheated by someone cheating to improve their rankings."

See?

I don't suppose you'd like to admit to a misinterpretation, or even a misunderstanding, would you, Colette?

ROFL too funny Phil

You were practically GLOATING that if no one could prove someone was cheated then it wasn't cheating and no one could prove you different.

So no admission of a mistake today, huh? One day you'll slip up and actaully admit to a mistake - one day.

LOL Phil, you are sooooo full of it!

On one hand you berate people for not sticking strictly to the precise wording of the thread topic (when it suits you). On the other hand to range off freely when it suits you.

YOU were the one who introduced a global concept of the meaning of 'cheating'.
BUT... you were doing so in the context of the strict wording of this thread topic.
It follows that your definition of cheating applied to to the thread topic.

Therefore, it follows that we are applying the concept of cheating to the use of paid picks to improve rankings.
You are therefore arguing that noone can be cheated by someone cheating to improve their rankings. You are arguing that it is not possible to cheat in search rankings.





You believe your own propaganda.
You are very unfortunate in this, because anybody with an ounce of sense recognises your posturings for what they are - simply a self-serving twisting of anything and everything in order to defend your unethical behaviour.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. In this forum you are the U. Hax of search-gaming. Your posts highlight the sheer dishonesty of what you practice.
The majority of search-gamers keep a low profile about the methods as much as possible. They know that every raising of the issue hastens the day that LL will get so embarrassed that they will have to move on the scams.
You keep these threads going.
I keep coming back because you totally fascinate me
-- in a sick voyeuristic sort of way


Like it or not, all these threads on search gaming are about ethics, honesty and integrity.
You might think that you score little points by choosing the terms of reference and the definition of words as it suits you. You are like a lawyer or a politician, twisting and turning to gloss over the unpleasantness of your case.
Not many people have a kind word to say about politicians or lawyers. This is because they don't really expect them to behave honestly in general.

Sling - get a grip of yourself.

You preach about dishonesty and ethics and what not....what you fail to marry up is that the thread is about paid Picks cheating the system.....whilst Phil does not pay for his Picks. He has a board(s) in his shop ....saying "if you like these products please support this business by placing this shop in your picks"....that is not unethical and no money passes hands, it's down to the individual to place his shop or not. Therefore as far as ALL Search is concerned Phil has not cheated the system if you believe paying for picks is cheating.

Now you can argue that he is cheated in terms of having traffic bots, that's a whole different argument and we have another thread running for that at the moment.

Phil is merely stating his opinions and his beliefs on paid Picks Camping as much as I as a non-user of Bots am doing so on the Bots thread.

When facts are presented or conversations with Lindens are posted on either of these threads....they are quickly passed over because it does not fit some people's agenda....who prefer to argue with hypothetical mumbo jumbo with "what if" scenarios.....like driving tests, ice skaters, hacking systems, athletes......all gobbly gook analogies.!!

You miss the point entirely.

In terms of the pure thread topic, it does not matter if Phil is paying for picks or using traffic bots. Within the letter of the thread topic, all that matters is the quality of the logic.
However, this thread has strayed from the letter of the topic title and Phil is at least as responsible for that is is any of us.

As I have said, the concept underlying all of these game-searching threads is the same. Ethical behaviour. Following close behind is the promotion of behaviour.
You, of all people, should be the last to lecture others on the sanctity of the letter of the thread topic.

Translation:


I'll get you yet, My Pretty!

And your little dog too!

Where did all those extra conditions come from?

The theoretical portion is part of the high school curriculum over here and the national average is that 66% of all adult have a driver's license so 1/3rd will be taking the test and are not ever going to be on the road. Who's being cheated out of what in for that 33% if they cheat on the test?

Not everyone who cheats on the theoretical portion will actually be a bad driver (they may have passed if they hadn't cheated for one) and they still need to pass the practical portion so an unknown percentage will still not make it to the road even if they cheated (or never actually pose a danger to the public for that matter).

So who exactly is being cheated out of what in if they cheat on the test but never do actually get on the road? They cheated so by your definition there *always* has to be someone who is cheated out of something.

Correct.

As for the rest, it has been well described as mumbo jumbo.

what has any of this got to do with paid picks and whether it is cheating the system or not???