How LL could make bots irrelevant

First the Land Cutting policy this Wednesday. May be a few weeks before the Traffic Gaming policy emerges, but LL is under a huge amount of resident pressure about this now. Yep. Transcript at https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:Qie_Niangao/Jack_Linden_Office_Hour_Transcript/2009-01-15 That comment actually worries me, suggesting that LL still intends to retain Traffic for Search ranking, and will only try to (somehow) fix the gaming. There are some influential and (surprisingly) smart residents who still favor that, too. It will be interesting to see what LL actually plans to do with this.

Surely the best way to make bots irrelevant would be to add a "generate traffic" setting to Parcel options, which would do the same as bots without needing to run them.

Random search would not have the claimed effect, as some would be luckier than others. Round Robin search could still be gamed by bots regularly running searches in quick succession to bring "their" store's turn up faster.

You think? I think there were people (plural) who expressed that view. The numbers, 2 or 3, may have varied slightly but the idea was the same.

Oh, I think there are bot-haters around. You can see them whenever something goes wrong with SL. They start threads to blame bots - because they are ignorant on the subject. There are current and recent threads all about how bots are to blame for the current and recent database problems, when even a small amount of common sense shows that it's not true. And if a small amount of common sense isn't handy, there is always the very recent statement from LL in their thread about the database issues and the bad weekend.

There is no smoke about it - except from your side. I've never praised the use of Picks. What I have said is that IBLs are very useful for determining relevancy, which they are. It's why all the major search engines rely heavily on them. I've also said that LL contrived Picks as IBLs for the sake of having IBLs, and I've described LL's use of the links-based system as trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. So leave out the propoganda, Sling, and try to stick to realities. It does help, y'know, and you don't show yourself up as often

Yeah, this is one of the other things that worries me about LL taking lesser actions than removing Traffic from Search altogether. If bots can't game Traffic, something else will, and it will be something that has a much bigger impact on the grid. If other forms of traffic manipulation such as camping are removed, even higher impact behaviors will replace it.

For example, although it may sound like a positive thing to encourage places to sponsor events to gain more "popularity" (as if that won't be instantly and undetectably gamed to death), each popular event has about the same grid-breaking impact as a sim-wide griefer attack. Promoting that behavior across the grid would make our past weekend disruptions look like hiccups.

"Oh, I think there are bot-haters around."
to
Oh, I think that there are traffic-bot-haters around.
Fixed it for you.

Whatever the load imposed on the overall grid by traffic bots, they certainly will have an effect at times when avatars are dumped off the grid and try to get back in. THe bots wil hammer the login servers.

The good thing about people screaming about bots is that it raises awareness of their existence, which will naturally lead to the awareness of the thing being a scam.

No come along Phil.
You've defended the Pick Buying process in SL. Your comments about ncreasing relevancy have been specific to SL Search.

If you have now come around to the realisation that Picks are not suitable as IBLs then that's good.

You probably did But they don't say "traffic bots" - they just say "bots".

True - IF avs are dumped off the grid but, as a traffic bot runner, I don't see it happen. It's just fiction because it suits the traffic bot haters' argument. Traffic bots don't crash like people do when they are doing things. Traffic bots are dumped when the sim is restarted, but not for any other SL reason that I can discern.

I won't get into an argument with you about your incorrect choice of words, but you are right that the screaming does raise the awareness of a small percentage of users - specifically that bots cause the problems that we see, which of course is wrong, but the 'aware' people donm't know that it's wrong. So we get bot-haters, who have little to no understanding, invading so many of LL's threads, shouting for the end of traffic bots instead of shouting for the end of traffic rankings, and the result could be bad for users (read Qie's post prior to yours).

Good luck to get Phil and the others to admit the bots place any load on the grid. They will scream about assets and sim impact, never mind the bots individually may be less than an avatar there. But there is the network side (logins and related background processes) to consider, as well as the fact: They are not running 1 bot but many therefore they are using up more resources.

LL can start implementing the misuse of grid resources AR on bots used for the sole purpose of creating higher traffic ratings, or in general.

they can even require you to own the whole sim before you can use X number of bots or camping pads. (which works out best. Suddenly a sim owner has access to 4 slots for campers/bots...)

This is what I fear will happen. There are a number of people who inject anti-bot posts everywhere they can - even in LL's threads like the quarterly stats report, and the current outages thread. To them, most of SL's woes are down to traffic bots. They don't realise that it's down to traffic rankings and they don't shout much for the removal of those, so LL may just take the easy option (to shut those people up) and outlaw traffic manipulation, which will make things worse for users.

Sorry Sling but I said a very long time ago (near the beginning of the All seach) that LL's use of the GSA is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, specifically because they contrived IBLs for the purpose. Other than that, of course I've posted about the value of Picks for search rankings. I posted information on how to optimise for the new search - remember? LL contrived Picks as IBLs and, if anyone wants to improve their rankings, they have to improve the quantity of Picks. Something wrong or smokey about that? I also explained why parcel names are so important, and other things. I was wrong to do that too?

I know it's kinda a waste of time responding to your posts on bots Phil but -

a) How is outlawing traffic manipulation the easy way out? Seems like way more work and way more expensive than other solutions
b) How could this possible make things worse for users? Surely it will only negatively affect bot runners.

Short-term "easy" in that they can just make a policy and worry about enforcement later. It would take the heat off, and even placate the folks who still have the delusion that their precious Traffic scores would be of value "if only it weren't gamed."

The way it's worse for users without bots is that something else--and something worse--will replace bots as along as Traffic is a ranking metric. Doesn't matter if camping is limited or even removed. As I pointed out above, even the apparently well-intended alternative of running Traffic-generating Events will have a worse impact on grid performance than campers, and campers worse than bots. (It's easy to see why, technically: The more real avatars in a region, and the more active they are, the more avatar-to-avatar asset combinatorics and potential physics interactions.)

I suppose the two of you are starting from the assumption that the policy will fail. Personally I think you're way wrong on this. LL's ad farm policy was 100% a success and the right traffic policy will be just as good. I guess there's no real need to argue about it though because we will get to see the results in just a few short weeks. Also, silly rabbit, traffic bots aren't affected by physics.

The claim I've seen is that to work, the traffic manipulation policy would be
a) anything that's considered manipulation;
b) no warnings;
c) parcel blocked from all Searches forever as punishment.

So there's a strong incentive not to go looking for a "something else".

The way I see it is that screams about "bots!!!!!" -- even if sub-optimally informed -- will get people who were unaware of their existence to ask the question "Bots? What are they? Why do they exist?"
The answer they will find is that they primarily exist to give a false impression of a parcel's worth. They are part of a scam. Their purpose is to mislead.

People might or might not come to the belief that 10s of thousands of traffic/camp bots are not a significant contributor to grid instability.
Whatever they come to believe, they will have become aware of search gaming.

If more people are aware of the issue, it makes it easier to out other gaming scams.

If outlawing traffic manipulation will make things worse for the users, then I say bring it on. It could only make things worse if LL don't outlaw the scams that will replace traffic gaming. If LL begin to make a corporate policy effort to eliminate abuses, then they could be kept moving on it. Getting them to move in the first place is the hardest bit. It require a change in culture.

Not changing a bad staus quo on the basis that worse things might happen is the stance of cowards and scoundrels.

I suppose I should inject the contrary viewpoint, which is that the anti-botters are arguing from an ulterior motive, since they know that without some traffic gaming, the parcels that are popular today stay popular forever.

Or Linden Labs can add a TOS entry that strictly forbids the use of a bot.
Why? Because the only reason you would use one is to make believe people actually visit a sim.

Campbots, gone, any bot just gone. or camping altogether. Camping costs you more on electric bills, than it makes you money.

Owners of bots that still use them. Ban! forfeit all their owned land and objects. just gone, and stay out.

It's the best solution to control a crowd that just won't listen to you anyway.

b is unlikely and c is highly unlikely n my opinion. Personally, and I'm just guessing, I think it will be the following:

a) Limit to camping spots, say, 3 per sim.
b) Ban on bots with a primary purpose to increase traffic.

LL will request that people go around sending in ARs on violations. Warnings and second warnings and temporary suspensions will continue as always. You'd be surprised at how much people freak out after they've received a little 24 hour suspension. It won't take too many of those before people change their ways.

*edit: There'll also be a special mention of people selling traffic bots/services. Jack seemed to find that especially distasteful.

It might be worth injecting that Devil's Advocate point - if only so that it can be hit on the head.

There may well be some people who are against traffic manipulation, but who are not against Search manipulation. The end of Traffic as a ranking factor would give more value to other ranking manipulation for them.

I wouldn't see any ulterior motive in someone who is not currently using traffic bots wishing to see the end of them.
Nina feels that she has to run her bots or suffer a reduced income. Logically, that means that her competition are losing income because of her traffic bots. Once enough of her competitors begin to run an equivalent number of bots, she would have to double up. Rinse and repeat.
The nearest that the competitors would get to "ulterior motive" is being spared the trouble of having to get into an arms race of increasing and widespread use of traffic bots.

3 camping spots per sim? Who gets them?
edit: Whatever parcel owner gets them, who sits on them? Bots belonging to the owner? Why not allow 3 traffic bots in a box instead? /edit

"Oh no Squire! These are store models. People need to see the clothes on actual avatars. People need to see the couples animations without having to wait and proposition other customers in the store."

I think LL find the services distasteful as they highlight the gaming nonsense. Roll-your-own operations are just as bad. In a way, I welcomed the advent of people advertising the services. It rubbed LL's nose in the doo-doo that they had been wilfully ignoring.


Keeping traffic while outlawing the gaming of it might have a chance to work if LL have learnt from the ad-farm experience.
Ad-farmers put up ban lines in place of prims as an immediate response. LL should have and could have slapped that immediately. They didn't. Whatever they are planning, here's hoping that they have brainstormed for the inevitable work-arounds that avaricious parasites will come up with.

These kind of silly edge cases will be argued about on the forums ad infinitum just like they were for ad farms but in the end LL will just common sense and their best guess to beat down abusers.



I think LL were always in favour of camping when the money went to newbies. If someone is paying people to attend then that's essentially the same as being popular anyway so there's not much to be done about it.




Uh, yes they did. Don't you remember the famous knitting warning? - http://www.ace-exchange.com/home/story/BDVR/589 That was August 20, the ad ban was blogged September 4th.

In the last few threads about traffic bots, the conclusion one could draw was quite simple: Remove traffic as a search metric. That is still the best way to go, but there are of course alternatives:

* Banning bots. Would help to a certain degree. But most traffic bots would probably be replaces by camping pads, and those have a much higher impact, and still influence search results.

* Banning bots and camping. Would seem a good one, but ask yourself how long it will take someone, to find a new way to influence traffic. Like paying a handful of noobs for each hour they spend on your parcel. Detectors to check on their time spent. Took me 1 second to invent this, so again, not the best solution.

* Banning influencing traffic. Seems impossible to me, as for example events are influencing traffic as well. so do we have to forbid events? Money and lucky chairs? Money trees?

* Random search results: Utter nonsense. LL might as well remove Search all together. Each and every search engine's purpose is to find the most relevant results to a query. Random results are not the slightest bit relevant.

We do have, as most important search, the Search All. As I said before, it still needs optimizing (like more results per page) but it works pretty well. As long as the parcel owner does optimize their parcel for search of course. Traffic is hardly relevant in that search.

So, simply remove places search, or remove traffic from places search, and we are there.

@Elanthius: Don't you run land bots? And may I ask how many? It might be just me, but your postings read a bit as if traffic bots on their own are bad (please correct me if wrong). But aren't landbots just as bad? Or maybe worse, as they do put a much bigger load on the system? And just as traffic bots, they were invented to get ahead of the competition. Traffic bots to get higher in places search, landbots to beat anyone else when buying land.

Yeah, I run land bots and I'm sure it's all very hypocritical of me.

I started this post by writing a huge list of ways in which traffic bots are evil and landbots are totally awesome but it would surely be wasted on this audience.

My personal opinion is that LL should do nothing more or less than remove the Search Places tab. Keep traffic, it has hardly any effect on Search All that I'm aware of. I'm top of Search All on a variety of land related search terms and have never used traffic bots. Places is worthless to me, and I'm quite sure people would whine if it vanished but it would not affect the actual economy one iota or anyone's ability to find things.

Ultimately my personal opinion is of little value though because all indications are that Jack is going to announce some policy change that will reduce traffic gaming as I detailed earlier. I'm optimistic about this approach for the reasons I explained earlier. I do think though that it is going to be quite an inefficient and very human-error-prone way of solving the problem.

*edit: Oh one last thing, I have tons of avatars for a variety of purposes, many to hold groups, banking bots, avatar scanning, map creation, land buying, searching, price adjusting. I mean, I really have a lot but the actual landbotting operation doesn't really require that many online at once. You could theoretically get away with 1 I'd guess most people have 4 or 5 or something.

In which case, we should definitely keep bots, because Search manipulation is ten times worse - being based largely on secrets and exploits in the GSA.

Yes, I know there is a great deal of public information on optimizing parcels for Search, but that just has the same "arms race" effect - once everyone is applying the public information, it has to be the secrets left over that break the tie.



That's just camping.



No, the purpose of search engines WAS originally to find the most relevant results to a query, but that was when the web was largely an informational resource and a relevant result meant, for example, that when you searched for "angler fish" you got a page all about the angler fish rather than a forum post by someone who used it as a example, or a page about fishermen which mentions both "anglers" and fish, etc.

But especially on SL, the purpose of search engines is largely to find businesses from which to purchase a product, and once a business is a specialist in a particular field, it's as "relevant" to that field as any business can be. Beyond that, any sorting is essentially just random or gamed. I mean, there are apparently real life small business alliances who are considering suing Google for the huge choke that they apply to internet commerce, because even if one business can get the top spot, another is swept off the page. (And no, it doesn't seem like a very valid lawsuit, I know.)

Perhaps a better way would be to display search results in some means other than a list, which doesn't apply a reading order? Or to give alternative incentives? I was recently trying to script a vendor that would give a discount based on the parcel's position in search, so if it was 50% of the way down in Search, all products would be 50% discounted, to encourage customers to read the entire list. Unfortunately I couldn't find a way of doing it without needing the business owner to run a PHP script, and in any case, probably nobody would use it due to the prisoner's dilemma (ie, if everyone _else_ uses it, you benefit from the search distribution boost without needing to give a discount yourself - so everyone waits for everyone else to use it)