um well here's a question... could you add my place to your profile picks please??

The problem with all search engines is that they have to rank pages according to something, and the effect of ranking them at all means that one page is ranked above another - rightly or wrongly. I've often used this as an example of why it is necessary to optimise for a search engine...

Suppose there are 100 hotels in New York and, as hotels, they are all pretty much equal. They all have websites and a search engine needs to display them in its reults for "new york hotels". Which do they put first, second, third....100th? All 100 are pretty much equal, so why is the 100th one at the bottom of the rankings where it won't get any traffic? It's every bit as meritous as the ones at the top. It may be unfortunate that some optimisation needs to be done, but it *does* need to be done - either that or leave all the traffic to the top ranked hotels.

Google is even worse. More than a year ago they came out with a new system where perfectly good, even unique, websites simply couldn't get all their pages in the main index. Websites need to score well in their 'profiles' - the better a site scores, the more pages it can have in the main index. The 'profile' is to do with IBLs, OBLs and some other stuff. You virtually have to jump through hoops to get all the pages of a website into Google's main index. It's not how search engines should be, but the web has grown so much, etc. etc., that Google found it necessary to go down that road.

So don't find it distasteful that optimising for the SL engine, including the acquisition of IBLs (Picks), is necessary. It's merely a fact of current search engines, and can't be avoided, except by allowing the chips to fall where they may, and possibly going out of business in the process.

ohh please don't think that i consider 'optimization' distasteful lol!! it is practical and necessary, certainly... i guess it's a case if one person's honest, it's 'optimization' - if it's a dishonest thief, lol -then- it's spamming.

just that i tried some of the things from the sticky (like placing prims in search named to my search terms) that -are- spam-ugly in my results page. :\ didn't make any much diff this time around, and now kinda ruing that i did so, just for the look of it (although i see others doing this trick to, for whatever it's worth - the sheer repetition certainly means it's meaningless to the end result). just probably wasn't worth doing at all - lol i was feeling desperate.

plus i've been honked that the thief simply named their plot 'bodyoil', and from the sticky it maybe seemed that first word 'wins' a lot of points... changed mine to see if that would help, but that messes with my wish to keep my 'branding' prominent as the name 'ny's bodyoil' instead of 'bodyoil ny's bodyoil' as i tried adjusting the other day :\ ) - do you think that is worth keeping if it makes a shave of diff, after all the picks work and other optimizing?

The 'prominence' of words does matter a little, so it's slightly better to have the main searchterm at the front of the parcel's name than further along. Also, the single searchterm "Bodyoil" is better than a name with more words, but I prefer to have the store name in the name too. My parcel name is "LOW PRIM FURNITURE with STYLE at PRIM SAVERS low prim furniture" (I put an extra "low prim furniture" at the end for good measure ). You could do something like "Bodyoil by NY'S", and have space for some more words that sell your place to the person viewing the results. For instance, would you be more inclined to visit a place that just says "Bodyoil" or a place that says "Bodyoil by NY'S - the original, and still SL's best bodyoil".

GENIOUS!! lol gosh thank you, and thank you all very much for your patience and tips and advice... steps are being taken now...

You've probably seen this but... From the DMCA page at http://secondlife.com/corporate/dmca.php



My understanding of the way things work is that if LL removes the UUIDs that are the subject of the DMCA filing then the server boxes won't be able to give them out. Of course my understanding of things doesn't have much connection with how thing actually are a good bit of the time.

hehe thanks suzanne! ... quite familiar with the webpage; the form i sussed long ago (been filing for awhile now)... it's pretty simple, but what i'd like to know in more detail is -what- is allowable to detail in the list of offending items (section 2) - what the lindens consider actionable and what isn't, and i mean:

- itemized inventory within a prim seller - clothing, skins, etc. also:

--landmarks to offending parties' location (mostly an slex thing here) - on occassion the thief will post for sale on slex for 0Ls a landmark to their inworld store... i seem to remember they will respond promptly if alerted to it.

--inworld landmarks would be near-impossible to report, but what about classifieds to offending stores? search listings? landmark-dispensing prims?? (most likely ARable only at best, but that's pretty ineffective, and since it is part of the offender's tactics in illegal enterprise, i would like to record this in the filing. maybe under section 4...)

- the prim packaging set to sell - the package may contain a mix of your stolen wears and another's wears (and not knowing whether those wears are also stolen or not, one cannot id or recognize them). if i point out this, with a mix of mine and someone else's work, is that invalidating?

- scripted one-prim sellers - 'packaging' set up for skin sales, again potentially with a mix of offending and unknown content.

- prim vendor server boxes - slex, onrez, inworld devices

- prim remote vends - those offending servers' point-of-sale devices. empty but the actual 'register' used by the thief or their alts.

if any of these cannot be included in the list, even if -most- of the list is actionable, it may invalidate the whole filing. would like to know specifically which ones if any cannot be included. and can then the 'do not include' items be included to section 4/optional info?? is there anything that could be put into 4 that would invalidate the form? (would think not, but would like to know for sure...)

another thing in section 4 - that i've done previously, but not sure if it was effective or even invalidating - thief #1 is only owner of a remote vendor of thief #2's creation, who is selling thief #3's illegal wears (originally created by thief #4!! :\) - how much of this should i spell out, without it invalidating the form?

now as far as what i've been filing per avatar, i only list what they are owner of - in the case of thief #1, only the remote vending system displaying the offending content. this much seems to work so far, but back to the potential mixed-packaging and server boxes, i dunno it seems to get funny...

now having typed thru this some, it's helping me clarify my own thoughts. and now thanks suz, i am realizing somewhat what 'actionable' really means - not that the lindens could (or would) be willing to remove content from inworld, but only will cancel the offender's account after - what, three strikes? (two would be preferred:\)... i hate that they get away with alt-hopping though.

i am inbetween on inventory removal myself. :\ and erring for now on the side against my own... i'm sure it could be a potentially terribly dangerous mechanism to have operable on the asset server. :\ frought with peril!! still gosh times like this definitely make one want it.

appreciate if you stuck thru all my rambling again lol!! again any advice/suggestions on the list, greatly appreciated... would love to get more details and maybe get a sticky together. there isn't one yet for the process that i've seen, is there?