where can I find pick camping places ?

Sling, as I mentioned already, I've been involved with Google since soon after their launch. I even wrote the definitive paper about a major part of their system, that was translated into languages all round the world. However, I already replied to your Google quote, so there's no need for me to do it again. But...

Since you think it's a good idea to get in touch with Google, why don't you write to them yourself and inform them that there are people in SL who are not compying with their rule about paid links, and are improving the rankings in SL's internal engine by doing it? Go on - write to Google, Sling - you can do it

You seem most determined to avoid the obvious truth.

You keep spinning as if Google simply mixed in paid placement as if it were ranked by authoritativeness.

Look at a Google results page. The paid placements are clearly separated from the 'authoritative' rankings.
From the users point of view, this is excellent. It puts the power in the user's hands to decide which category of results they with to take heed of.


Undeclared paid link/picks are a dishonestly increasing ranking in the 'not-paid' section.
Paid pick are the same kind of dishonesty as are traffic bots. Paid picks are the 'traffic bot's of the new search.

It wouldn't matter if you personally designed the entire Google system. It would be entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not paid links in SL are dishonest and unethical.

You do keep mentioning your experience with search engines and SEO.

It just goes to illustrate that 'you know the price of everything and the value of nothing'.
You might know about the mechanics of search, but you have no feeling or empathy for the end users at all. Like all cheaters, you have strong sociopathic tendencies.

I would say that they don't care about certain forms of manipulation, otherwise they would simply exclude them from the algorithm. That doesn't take up any extra resources. The resource argument falls flat right there.

Resorting to the moral angle again when logic and common sense fail you, are we?

For the Google system, yes. As I said, that's why they have their rule.

Aha! So it's LL that "do not currently try and do the correct thing to preserve the authority of search ranking". Make up your mind, Sling. In that case, you should take it up with LL. Or, on the other hand, you should stop and ask yourself WHY LL does nothing. Better still, ask LL why they do nothing.

It is? That's odd. I thought I was simply answering your questions and repliying to your statements with good reasoning. But I think a glimmer of light is beginning to dawn on me. Correct me if I'm mistaken but it's looking to me as though anything that doesn't agree with you is "spin" and "damage limitation". It has to be, because it is obvious that what you say is right - you think it, therefore it is right. Am I getting warm, Sling?

Btw, what damage? Everything in the garden is still rosey.

I have? I wasn't aware of it but, now you come to mention it, you do seem to be on your own in this thread. Doesn't that give you a clue about something?

But you see, my dear, what Google says is all about Google's own search engine. It makes sense for them, even though it doesn't make sense for most other people and engines. Since you want to discuss Google, let's do it...

Websites are considered as advertising real estate, and space on popular websites is more valuable that space on less popular websites. Naturally, people want to advertise on the more popular sites, as they've always done. It's perfectly normal advertising, and perfectly acceptable to everyone (including Google, who came along later). The Google came along with their links-based algorithm. Over time, they became very popular and links became even more valuable, and people started to place them on sites that didn't need to be popular. Link exchanges and paying for links became a normal practise, and website owners didn't want to place links on their sites unless they got something in return - money or a reciprocal link. Google just about completely f...ed up the natural linking of the web.

A long time after that, Google decided that they didn't want to count paid links any more, so they made an internal rule for themselves. They are not able to make rules for anyone else but themselves, of course, because they cannot create laws. And we had the incedibly stupid scene where Matt Cutts (you know him? He's Google's main spam man) had a discussion in Tim O'Reilly's blog (of O'Reilly books). Matt was telling Tim that is was wrong for him to sell ads with links on the very popular O'Reilly website without using the 'correct' html code - correct for Google, but not for anyone else. So there you had the ludicrous situation where Google was trying to tell a popular website how it should and shouldn't place ads on its site. That's Google for you. And you want to align yourself with them?

So getting back to this thread, I repeat that Google makes rules for Google. Google does not make rules for anyone else. If Google views paid links as an abuse of Google, they are free to do what they want with them. If LL sees paid picks as an abuse of their system, they are free to do what they want with them. See it now? Google is Google, and LL is LL. LL told people what to do with the ranking factors and people did it. Your views don't count. If you want them to count, take it up with LL.

Aha! back to "dishonest and unethical" now are we? It's a terrific fall-back position when your up front arguments fail. I'll say it again, there is nothing dishonest about paying for picks. I've explained why before and I'm not going to repeat it just because your short-term memory is lacking. Whether or not it is unethical is subjective. To you it's unethical, to me and others, it's not.

Can I help it if I have all that experience and knowledge and you have none?

My feeling and empathy for users isn't in question here. As we all know, paying for picks doesn't affect users, and I think I've well and truly proved my knowledge of the value of things. But if I know the value of nothing, it's nothing to do with you.

You keep trying to wind it up, but without success in this thread. The words "head" and "brick wall" spring readily to mind.

Back? We never left it. It's the core of the discussion.
If this were about the terms of the TOS or what LL does or what some search engine does, there would not be this lengthy series of posts.

To take a leaf from your book of debate:
I'll say it again, paying for picks to manipulate search rankings is dishonest. I've explained why before and I'm not going to repeat it just because your short-term memory is lacking.

Definitely opinion masquerading as fact.

We didn't? You keep digressing onto other things though, such as Google etc., so it's easy to think that the discussion has moved on. If you want to argue that paying for picks is dishonest and/or unethical, your best bet is to stick to that instead of sidetracking to other things, especially when you don't understand the other things and they don't back up you arguments.

What some search engine does? Your latest major point is what some what search engine (Google) does - remember?

I'd much rather have my book of debate than yours. Mine doesn't include the silly practise of continually repeating what the other person says when I have no good arguments against it

No it's not. It's a fact, plain and simple. I explained it to you, and you failed to refute it, so we all agree that it makes no difference to users.

1. Marcel posts "And indeed Google search already used payed links."
In the context of this discussion, he's implying via half/quarter-truth that a well-known and respecded search engine , Google, has no issue with paid links.

2. I point him at Google's own page on the question of paid links.
I point him (and the gentle readers) at that page, because it explains the damage that undeclared paid links do to authoritative ranking for the user.

"Google and most other search engines use links to determine reputation. A site's ranking in Google search results is partly based on analysis of those sites that link to it. Link-based analysis is an extremely useful way of measuring a site's value, and has greatly improved the quality of web search. Both the quantity and, more importantly, the quality of links count towards this rating."

Paid links are low-quality links. They are not authoritative. They try to bypass the page ranking mechanisms. They try buy their way into an area of the search results that is intended to present results that are not influenced by direct advertising spend.


That's not a digression away from the main topic.
It's a correction of the entirely misleading statement by Marcel.
It's a further illustration of why paid links are bad for the user.






Nope!
I used your words to illustrate how unenlightening your words were.

You simply "failed to notice" my postings on why rankings made a difference to the user.
You also signally failed to provide a convincing argument as to why ranking was irrelevant. Such an argument would seem to be due since the whole point search ranking manipulation is to improve ranking so as to appear before other sites that would normally be ranked higher were it not for the manipulation.
The whole point of manipulation is to fool the user into believing that a site is more authoritative than other sites that are actually more authoritative according to the algorithm.



And who's this "we", paleface?

I didn't even try to follow that part of the thread but, if I'm not mistaken, you quoted Google at me, or at least asked me to respond to it, and I didn't post anything about Google's paid links. Google pays for a truly *massive* number of links on other people's websites, but that's neither here nor there because Google isn't the arbiter of anything (except their own internal policies), no matter how much you quote them. Oh, and Google's statements are no indication whatseover of paid links being bad for the user. I've told you that they are not, and I've explained why they are not. After that, it's up to you to use your powers of understanding what is being said. If you won't even attempt that, you are bound to continue with wrong ideas that continue to be shot down in flames. But it's your choice.

Whatever you say. To me, you repeat them back at me because you can't think of anything worthwhile to say, and you think it's sort of clever However, if you read what I write, and actually try to understand it, you would become as enlightened as the rest of us. You are unenlightened, but it's your own choice.

LOL you are good in what you do, that one I must admit

- Google uses paid links. Something entirely true.
- LL buys the Google appliance, which leaves the same room for payed links.
- LL shows us how to rank in search, including how links are created.

Entirely misleading, indeed.

Eventually it comes down to your opinion about ethics. In your opinion paying for picks is unethical. Now I do not see many people supporting you, but it still is your opinion. So why is it so hard for you to say it is merely an opinion, and nothing more?

Sorry. I should have said, everyone except you. You know - those who actually think about things and try to understand them.

I noticed a post that talked about the changed usefulness of viewing people's picks, if that's what you mean. But the change is so miniscule as to make the argument void.

Oh but I did - twice already. You didn't refute the posts, so it's naturally assumed that you have no refutation. If you have, you of all people would certainly post it. That's why we're in agreement that the changed rankings make no difference to users.

Rubbish. The whole point of changing the rankings is to get a very relevant place (just as relevant as the others at the top) higher up them where they are more likely to be seen.

Sling. There is something I can say that even you cannot deny that I say with "authority". It's the very reason why rankings are manipulated. Your non-experience in it leads you to believe, or invent, that we do it to "fool the user into thinking" this or that. We don't. We do it to improve the chances of being found by users. You can believe and invent whatever you like, but you cannot change the truth.

If the places are "very relevant", why to they need to manipulate their way up to a ranking that they would not earn without that manipulation of paid picks?

In who's view are those places "very relevant" - as in more relevant than or as relevant as others?
------ The parcel owner, and the parcel owner alone.

This is where your position falls flat on it face.

Other parcels earn a ranking due to something other than paying for picks. They are better at presenting their wares than other parcel owners. A parcel owner who sucks at presenting their wares cheats by pretending that others have 'voted' with their picks for the products of that parcel.

I've tried to explain this to you already, that's Google's opinion. Not everyone agreed, as Phil pointed out regarding the O'Reilly debate. Note this Sling, not everyone agrees with Google about paid links. There are plenty of people who disagree with google on this issue.

The other point you're ignoring is this part:

"Link-based analysis is an extremely useful way of measuring a site's value, and has greatly improved the quality of web search. Both the quantity and, more importantly, the quality of links count towards this rating."

As I've said more than once, if you can prove that paid picks are damaging the results from search, for example that those search results aren't relevant, then yes you'll have a point. However from what I see, that's not the case here.

Because the system cannot list all of the very relevant places even on the first page let alone in the top 2 or 3. Come on, Sling. Wakey wakey.

In the view of the search system.

Example:
There are far more than 10 places in SL that sell animations, but only 10 of them can be on the first results page. It's self-evident that that they are all equally relevant to a search on "animations" (remember that quality and popularity have nothing to do with relevance to the searchterm). Let's say that there are 18 such equally relevant places, so 8 of them languish on the second page while 10 of them are much more visible on the first page. Why should one on the second page settle for that when it is just as relevant to the searchterm as the #1 ranked place is? Do you see what I'm getting at, Sling?

Incidentally, the only things falling flat on their faces are your arguments, Sling, but we're used to that.

Other places can get their rankings how they like. It's irrelevant. If you had your way, those other places would just settle for being ranked much lower than equally relevant places. Presentation has nothing to do with relevancy.

Amazing!

You genuinely have comprehension issues.

"more importantly, the *****quality of links**** count towards this rating"

What *you* are ignoring was me saying that paid picks were *low quality links*.
I expressed it that way specifically because of the google extract that you think I'm ignoring.

Watch my words:

"Not everybody agrees with google"

Why is this so hard for you to grasp? Not everyone thinks paid links are low quality. This is not difficult to grasp.

The job of a search engine is to return relevant results, google want relevant results returned, people have been arguing with google as to whether paid links are relevant or not. In Second Life, paid picks do appear to produce relevant results. I've asked you more than once to provide evidence to the contrary.

It's been shown time and again that paid picks have just the same quality as unpaid picks. They are picks by individual choice. It's not for you to state the reasons why a person may or may not choose to add a pick. You can do that for your own picks, but that's all.

Jeez...get a room.

I would estimate that the vast majority of people who have expressed an opinion about it have been against it. The ones in favour of it tend to be in two group - the brown-nosers who camp in Matt's blog and the so-called whitehat SEOs, of which there's aren't all that many.

If you had no way of knowing if a person is being paid for placing a place in their picks, would it then make a difference?

exactly how does paying for a pick, make it less relevant to the search?

This is the part that confuses me with slings comments... as though paying for that pick makes it less relevant than a pick not paid for....


*shrug*

So.. I guess if someone pays 100 people to place their store in picks, those picks are less relevant than someone who gets 100 picks placements without paying for them....

*confused as to what the real issue is*

maybe sling is pissed because she can't afford to pay ppl for picks so therefor search results are lower than those who can afford to pay for picks


hell if I could afford to pay people for placing my store in their picks I would... I just can't

in business everyone is always looking for that edge

I've said it before (no where have I heard that phrase...?) :

This idea of a paid pick *not* being "relevant" to the parcel that it is linking to is totally ludicrous.
Any pick, paid or not, is "relevant" to the parcel it links to.
Why on earth are you asking me to provide evidence that a pick is not "relevant" to the parcel it links to? It's like asking me to provide evidence that blue is not blue.

The issue is not the relevancy.
The issue is the quality of the link.



Here's the way of it. It's very simple!


A person puts their creativity, energy, soul, time into creating something in SL.
They want others to see it and maybe pass some L$.
They don't have the resources to spend in the 'instant fame' of Classifieds.
They read up on the LL advice on how to optimise their parcel for search. They research and find more informtaion on the Forums and in a variety of websites.
They use their intelligence and creativity to earn a ranking in a forum where their ranking is based on how well they have used the information and how relevant their offering is to the users making searches.
One of the things that they do is to ask people to create a Pick to them if they would like to show their appreciation of the product/service that they have created. They know that Picks matter in the ranking algorithm.
They earn their placement via their intelligence and creativity.

And then what happens?

[[[[[[[[[ Edit on December 5th ]]]]]]]]]
In the paragraphs below, I originally wrote the words "awful little gobshite" , "sad little money grubber" and "suck". I accept that this was excessively inflammatory. I have edited that now to read simply as my opinion of the behaviour of those who damage SL in order to game search rankings - to "dishonest and unethical person"

[[[[[[[[[ End of Edit ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]


Some dishonest and unethical person abuses the Picks system by paying people to put Picks in their profiles. The people placing the Picks don't give a fig for anything bar the payment that they are getting for selling the Pick. The dishonest and unethical person then gets a higher ranking purely because they bought Picks. No imagination or creativity required to go the extra mile!


A user looking at search results sees results in which the 'paid for' and the 'merit' listings are separated will be cheated if they believe that the listings in the 'merit' section are based on something other than pure advertising spend. They are led to that belief by the design of the results display.
The parcels who would have ranked higher (even perhaps on the bottom of page 1 rather than the top of page 2) will have been cheated.


Then there is the general poison.
If Picks buying becomes widespread... How do I earn L$?...... the meaning of Picks in a profile has been demeaned. A trust and reputation system between avatars has been destroyed.



Picks buying is just another example of dishonest and unethical people putting their own interests before everything, with absolutely no thought for others or for the general consequences.
That's the attitude that gave us sub-prime and what ensued.
That's the attitude that gave us the likes of Enron.
That's the attitude that gave SL ad-farms and land extortion.


Pick buyers are dishonest and unethical!