Is Paying for Links in Profile Picks Cheating?

No, but rules cover a wide area Colette.

Say for example I declare I won't smoke more than ten fags a week, and I do, I'm cheating myself.

I haven't got a Scooby Doo what you're talking about.

The google search appliance allows the IT department to use rules or simple built in features to list a document at the top of every search. Quite commonly the corporate employee handbook and more often now the data management policies.

SOX is for financial corporations, HIPPA applies to your medical records.

See thats a disconnect

From my perspective the whole rule or law requirement does not exist.

I think a lot of people in this thread (and others) are coming from that perspective.

You're all as mad as a bag of spanners then. For something to be, it has to have order.

Basically to you something like this could be wrong, but it wouldn't necessarily be cheating- because of the rules.


But to me if something like this is wrong, then its also cheating - to hell with the rules.




------------
------------
Not saying you think that paid picks are wrong, but *IF* you thought they were.

I think its just a cultural disconnect over a common usage of a word.

Yup that sums it up, I could argue that it should be considered cheating, but I wouldn't argue it is cheating.

catch 22 is the fact you did say I would be cheating the system to use tools built into the search system... how would it be cheating the system if there are no rules to say don't?

Mort it's 3am I need a little help with these references before I get keyboard face.

In other words you can't find anyone who's getting cheated out of anything even though actual cheating takes place .

Nobody is being cheated out of anything because of paying for picks, so no cheating is taking place by using that method. It's not difficult to comprehend.

Phil, if someone were to use the system in a manner that made it obvious they were at top due to some other method you don't have access to and is not forbidden (in other words they found a better shortcut)... you wouldn't be screaming bloody murder about it being cheating?

I've already posted a summary list of who is being cheated.
It covers just about everyone but the cheater.

You counter is basically that someone can only be cheated if they have a right - even a moral right - to win. Alternatively, there is an assertion that something can only be cheating if there is a specific rule against it.


Snakes and Ladders, Monopoly - these are probably games that many of us have played as children and possibly even play still.
I have seen people cheating at board games. They have done things that were not specifically banned in the rules.

Most words will have a range of meanings in a dictionary. Language is not a 100% science. If it were, there would be little need for lawyers.

The definition of cheating that fits the gaming of search is "to act dishonestly so as to gain an advantage • cheat at cards."

So perhaps we need a thread titled "Is Paying for Links in Profile Picks acting dishonestly so as to gain an advantage?"
Nothing would change in the postings apart from some people redefining "dishonestly" instead of redefining "cheating". And perhaps someone would start redefining "advantage".




It's very simple.
Traffic bots are avatar stuffing
Paid picks are IBL stuffing.


Anyone with any experience in the industry is aware of why IBLs for instance became part of search engine ranking.
Put at its simplest, the basic idea was that if a website was referred to by other websites then it indicated that the referred website was considered valuable by the referring website. That basic idea was built on with ways of weighting the referrals.

It is self-evident that if the owner of a website artificially constructs referring websites for the the purpose of taking advantage of this mechanism, then this is a dishonest attempt to gain an advantage of a higher ranking.
It is unethical. It is cheating.


Paid picks serve the same function as artificial IBLs.
Traffic bots also serve the same family of function.

Well you're hitting on some of the key ingredients in cheating there.

Is it an exploit that should be reported? The classified bug fit into this category, paid picks do not fit into this category.

I'm still awaiting someone to post the strict criteria that says picks can only be used in a certain fashion. I'm still awaiting a clarification that people can't use their picks how they see fit and that people are only allowed to like a location for a specific set of reasons.

Actually according to you and phil, it wouldn't be cheating in anyway since no rules or laws are broken. (It would be using built in functionality of the search system)

And he isn't going to say it's cheating, because then his argument falls flat that there has to be someone cheated.

Because everyone trying to use search is cheated of accurate results, everyone is cheated by search manipulation techniques.

What you are waiting for is for morality, integrity, honesty and ethical behaviour to be codified as a list of very explicit rules.
Someone who refrains from being dishonest only because there is a law against that particular dishonesty is not an honest person.

It's blindingly clear why LL chose to use Picks as a ranking factor. Overall, the excellent places would tend to be mentioned in the picks of many avatars. The sisters of avatars that other avatars are not to mess with, the best friends, the own parcels would not tend to mentioned in the Picks of many avatars.
It was a useful albeit imperfect way of determining honest votes for the top referenced parcels.
The systematic buying of Picks purely to generate search ranking ran directly against the intention of LL.
"We don't know what LLs intentions were?" Come along now.

Even Phil agreed that traffic bots were against the intentions of LL. He's just not ready yet to agree the same about Picks.

Absolute Balderdash. Using an exploit is pretty much against the rules everywhere. If I go to an ATM and withdraw £40 and it gives me £400 I'm not going to be able to keep the money.

If someone merely has access to a tool I can't afford then that's tough titty for me. If someone has access to a scripted utility they've produced then that's tough titty for me.

It's not an exploit but a feature built into the search appliance, it's where you can set rules including where one result always shows up in any search made at the top.

No what I'm waiting for is someone to say why someone can't choose to like a parcel. There's a really nice looking pub in town that has been converted from a bank, but it's not as good a pub as the one over the road that serves cheaper beer. It's a vastly superior building though. It's not unethical of me to like the cheaper pub, it's more fun there. Yet the implication here is if I like a pub that does promotions then I'm being unethical.



With the precedent of what happened with traffic I'm just completely gobsmacked that anyone didn't see this coming, especially as people had been swapping picks and promoting their friends stores before picks were counted as a ranking factor. People did that because they knew people looked at picks for locations.

Unethical use of picks would be hacking the server somehow or someone's account and placing your pick in their profile, that would be unethical.

Whilst picks remain in the hands of the resident, whilst they have a choice in the matter, it simply isn't cheating.

Traffic bots on the other hand, like camping bots and even armies of alts that have picks, are against the intent, I can see why people use them, but it's obvious they aren't individual user controlled choices. Yet this was happening already.

If they changed the metric tomorrow to the number of transactions, then L$1 items for sale would start popping up all over the grid.

As Linden Lab run the search engine it would have to be authorised by them. They have a feature in classifieds where if you pay more than anyone else you'll get to the top, but you are not guaranteed to stay there.

If they announced that for a one off payment they'd let someone stay at the top then that would be hard cheese for those who didn't win the bidding war. It might not be a nice policy but it would be clear.

If someone found a means to harvest the most popular keywords I'm not sure where that would sit. I don't know if people have a right to that information.

I think since there is no way to win or lose in this game that you can't cheat..if there were theft involved or rules broken well that would be a cheat for sure.All the rest is moral based and in real business who cares what the competition thinks?
it's the customers that make or break you.
if paying for adds is working for you then stick with it until there is a rule that says you can't do it anymore..
if you are doing your customers a disservice by doing something wrong don't do it anymore..
but if both parties are walking away with a smile..then it's a good deal..

If they found a way that I'm not aware of, good luck to them - it wouldn't be cheating. If they used a way that I don't have access to, even though I know what it is, then LL would be grossly at fault, but the person using it wouldn't be cheating.

You posted a list, but you didn't list anyone who is being cheated.

The rest of your post is based on that first sentence, so I'll ignore it.

About both parties walking away with a smile, I just received this IM:-

I receive many such unsolicited IMs and chat comments. That one actually sounds a bit contrived but it is absolutely genuine. I've never met or spoken with the person, except to reply by email, which I just did.