where can I find pick camping places ?

Apart from the last line, what you wrote is essentially correct, but it doesn't vindicate your argument at all. It just means that this particular bit (what I quoted) is essentially correct.

You should stop looking at why people add places to their picks and start looking at the only place that matters - the search results. Focus on them, and you may yet see the truth. But you won't do that, will you, because it would undermine your enjoyment.

Your interpretation of what I wrote is incorrect.
I was following on the example offered of "crap vehicles", and of the crap ranking higher solely because of paid links. If that happens then the user and the engine have a problem.

If links are an indication of worth, etc, then sites with numbers of inbound links are would rank higher because of their perceived worthiness.
However, if the links for a site are simply purchased commodities, then those links carry no probability of worthiness.
If links are used to weigh ranking, then there is a greater possibility of the higher ranked sites being worthy - as long as paid links are not allowed to influence the ranking.



The more sites that link to each other based on recognition of each others content, the more chance that the very authoritative sites for a particular topic will be linked to by many others. It makes sense to encourage linking.
This only works if the links are done solely on the basis of the perceived value of the content being linked to. The manner in which the site was brought to the attention of the linking site is immaterial if any link that might arise is created solely on the base of the perception of the quality/worth of the content being linked to.





There might be cases like that. However, it is reasonable to assume that the majority of paid picks are not created on the basis of 'liking the place'.
1. If a place is so admired that large numbers of people are putting it in their picks, than it is probable that the parcel does not need to buy any picks.
2. Remember Felix's POV of a pick buyer. Take the free money regardless of what the parcel is offering and tell all your friends to come for the free money. People will be looking out for pick camping places and will flock there to sign up.

Paid picks are meaningless as indicators of worth.
Natural picks are meaningful as indicators of worth.

See that's the thing, maybe I'm a starry-eyed commie pinko hippy idealist with minimal grasp of the harsh realities of real (second) life, but wouldn't it be super duper if picks actually did imply an endorsement of a place, a suggestion of quality or some other positive attribute? We can argue til we're blue in the face about how it just doesn't work that way in the google-ized commercial WWW and speculate endlessly on what LL may have intended in that regard, but that doesn't mean that Google's way is the best way, it doesn't mean that search engines are operating to the maximum benefit of everybody involved. In fact I think it's a defensible position that people in SL and elsewhere who do things - like buy picks and bot traffic - that interfere with this (admittedly Utopian) goal are at fault for ruining the potential of the system, and some folks are understandably pissed off.

The realists don't respect the idealists.

And they don't like the Idealists using mean names like "Cheat" or "Game" or "Greed" to describe how some of the realists manipulate the system to suit their ends.

But since the realists are correct in the sense that there is no one that will stop them from doing what they are doing* in so many areas regarding the Search system .. the Realists do win by default.

Doesn't make them "right" though.








(* or approve of others doing)

Perhaps you didn't notice that the last line (and the first) mirrored the lines that I was responding to.

You should stop looking at results (the what) and start looking at what is driving them (the why) if you want to understand why the ranking happens as it does.
Focus on the why and you may yet see the truth.

You would have me look at search results as if they came out of a black box. and say "Well, they look kind of ok". We might wonder at why one site is ranked over another, but the factors that led to that ranking are hidden from us.
I prefer to see what is driving the results. When I do that, I immediately see that paid picks are a complete nonsense as an indicator of worth. I immediately see that natural picks are an indicator of worth.

I spent a few minutes trying to work the phrase "lying scum" into my post while appearing to distance myself from that position, but I finally wimped out.

Just because I don't post a great deal is no reason to assume I don't follow these these threads and take into account which merchants use tactics like these to artificially and unfairly inflate traffic figures.



Again I'll assert that the folks who artificially inflate traffic count more often than not sell inferior products either overcharging the ignorant or wildly undercutting the prices of truly talented creators who offer competing products.



Optimising or manipulating a search engine? One of the reasons that Google started selling ad words was because people were using keywords to "optimise" their search placement.



Very good, let's take Craig and Stroker as examples of the truly talented. I've bought quite a few products from both over the years. Both are long time residents who are very creative, well respected, and well known by both oldbies and newbies. Both have spent a great deal of time creating and perfecting their products. Let's say I search for sexbed or sex poses. I'm sure many will agree with me that theirs are by far the best and they should have the top rankings. But I have to visit several shops filled with uninspiring products built around a sexbed engine that can be bought as part of a business in a box. *cough* MLP *cough* The reason I have to visit all these shops is because their owners are manipulating search. How is that fair to me as a customer or Craig and Stroker as merchants? I may give up and buy an ugly and inferior product before I ever find them. Oh and btw I found neither of their shops thru the search engine but by word of mouth.

As I said before, if the quality is not there to back it up, the problem will take care of itself - either they stop paying for picks or they go away completely.

Pardon me for straying WAY off topic here, but you seem to be implying that use of the MLP scripts is somehow indicative of shoddy products. MLP is an outstanding piece of open-source scripting that is in incredibly wide use all over the grid for myriad products of all kinds that feature menu-selectable animations, including top-notch products by talented animators and builders. It's also one of very few ways end users can experiment with combining animations at home to create their own moods and scenarios, by virtue of being full-perms and working with animations from any source.

If it happens to also be used in some crappy products and shady BIAB packages, that's only because it's free and works well.

No. The problem does not take care of itself.

Other continue to pay or new ones begin to pay.
It's just the same as camping pads. There's a constant churn of places starting and folding. The problem continues. It's just different people causing it.

Wrong Colette, I respect everyones opinion. Since I am one of the realists, your statement is too generalized. The only way to make me stop respecting someone, is when they fall back to insults.


True, and I think it is not necessary either. it is quite possible to make ones point without calling someone a cheat or greedy. But, I can live with that to be honest. If you read back a few posts, you see how miss Trebuchet decided to call people like myself. That were plain insults, so she lost any form of respect she might have had.

True, "winning" does not make someone right. And in the eyes of idealists, paying for picks can be wrong. One very valid opinion, just as valid as mine saying it is not wrong. We (pro and anti) do not have to agree, as long as we can understand each other.

So what? Getting to #1 isn't easy and takes more money than it is worth. The people who command the most sales don't need to pay for picks, they get word of mouth. But at the same time, they are not entitled to the #1 spot. If they want to fight for that spot, they need to promote themselves and get people to put them in their picks one way or another.

You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

"But at the same time, they are not entitled to the #1 spot."
The person entitled to that #1 spot is ....... and the reason they are entitled to it is .......

Are you suggesting that the person entitled to the #1 spot is the person who buys the most picks?
Who's entitled to the #1 spot in Classifieds? The person with the least Picks?



You are saying that the end justifies the means.
Look around you at what's happening the world over. There are people who go by that thinking, and they are poison.

No one is entitled to anything. A spot is either paid for or earned.

then who do you think deserves the number 1 spot and why?

I feel my stuff is just as good as the next guys, but guess what, I am no where near the number 1 spot

and I have a feeling even if I could afford and were paying ppl to place me in their picks, I would still not be number 1

know why?

because picks are not the end all for search

my god the way you go on about it, one would think that the only search criteria is picks


I still don't understand why you are so hell bent on convincing people that those who pay for picks are "cheaters" and "gamers"

very negative comments to make about people you do not even know
(when will you realize that it is business, and that those who pay for picks do not see it emotionally as you do, they see it with a clear, cool, level business head)

I still think you just like being in the middle of all of this LOL

*enjoy the spotlight while you can, because the way you keep shoveling the shit around, soon you will be buried so deep that the spotlight won't even be able to find you*

To me it sounds like LL should never have published the formulas to their search system.

I could probably device a system that is convoluted enough that it will throw off any attempt at analyzing it...



Money definitely is the root of all evil :/

This is the difference between a Merit driven system and a money driven system.

The system become as warped as our RL bank system when you are entitled to make money with money.

I'm sure they didn't, the picks was just picked up on by the residents as being effective in increasing your position.

Guess you did not read the whole thread (hardly can blame you *shrugs*).

First of all LL did not publish the formula, they published the most important parameters. Not the weight they are holding, and probably not all parameters.

Second: they had no choice. Without users knowing how to optimize for search, their new engine would be worthless. Let me show you why, by using a made up parcel as an (exaggerated) example. Company name is "Home Decorations", owner is John Doe. He sells rugs, paintings, lamps, vases, sculptures, and plants for in your house.

Parcel name: John Doe's shop
Parcel description: We sell everything to decorate your home, from rug to painting. Come and see at John Doe!

This parcel would never be found if someone searches for home decoration, lamps, vases, and so on. After reading LL's article he changes it to:

Parcel name: Home decorations: rugs, paintings, lamps, vases, sculptures, and plants
Parcel description: Home Decorations: for all your rugs, paintings, lamps, vases, sculptures, and plants. rug painting lamp vase sculpture and plant.

Now the chances are way bigger that they will be found, since they optimized for it. But that is not all.
The used search engine does need inbound links to make things work best. Those are your picks. So they want us to use picks, as they are needed to make the system work better.

Now the only discussion that Sling started with stating that paying for picks is bad, dishonest, and deception (translated from german), is the discussion whether paying for picks is indeed that. The OP only asked where to find it, but we ended up in this endless discussion.

Most people in the thread seem to think there is nothing wrong with paying for picks. The system needs the picks, paying for picks is one of the ways to get them. In my case, I use boards to ask people, and I pa for them as well, since I wanted to get back to my old level of picks as soon as possible after my move.

The fact Sling feels otherwise does not bother me, each his/her own. The fact she presented it like the one and only truth, made it interesting enough to keep responding. Resulting in insults from her side, which did not do her much good.

Bottom line is: the system needs the picks. Some people pay for those picks. Some people think that is wrong. No one is right in this discussion, we just differ from opinion.

I didn't assume anything. I wrote "Perhaps you don't" - it means something quite different.

You can assert whatever you like, but you are quite wrong. Incidentally, we are talking about paying for picks - not inflating traffic. You know the difference?

Oh dear. More imagination? Google started selling adwords to make money. You do know that search services don't make any money, don't you? Sorry, but it was a means of making money, and nothing at all to do with what you said.

First, neither of those people are well-known by noobs. Second, you want search to evaluate product quality so those two are ranked very high. You can't have that. Search can't do that. Third, those people make very good animations, and so do other people so, in terms of quality, there is no good reason for those two to be ranked at the top. Fourth, MLP is perfectly good and there is no reason to reinvent the wheel when it isn't necessary

So you argument fails of four counts. Sorry.

Actually they did:

http://blog.secondlife.com/2008/03/26/tips-to-improve-your-search-ranking/

Now that is very nice put, but complete nonsense.

You say the fact that other people manipulate search, makes their stores not end up at #1. Did you ever check that? because it is utter nonsense! Before saying something, check your facts, something I now did to show how wrong you are:

Take Bits and Bobs main store as an example. Neither their parcel name nor their parcel description are optimized for search all. Now they probably do not need it (they get found by branding), but how on earth can you blame others for the fact that B&B does not optimize for search all???

Feel free to check Strokerz Toyz as well. They did some optimizing, but sexbed or sex poses are not mentioned. Again I ask you: How on earth can you blame others for something they did not put in Search?

You searched for sexbed and sex poses and did not find 2 of the bigger players in Search All. Instead of finding out why, to decide to blame it on people that "game" search. Well I have got news for you: no matter whether you are a big player or a small player, in order to be found in a search engine you need to optimize. If tomorrow picks stop counting, or payed picks get forbidden, nothing will change with the ranking of B&B and Stroker for example. Each and every store that has sexbed in their parcel description will end up above them.

I'm a firm believer that you should only get what you deserve.

Good products should get the exposure they deserve.
Bad products should be lost.

I still see a lot of shitty stuffs that are 2 or 3 years old being sold for a gazillion of L$ because the designer is putting obscene amount of money in advertising.



I'm going to take my experience as an example, i CAN'T afford huge advertising, because i need the little i earn to keep a roof over my head and food on the table.
However what i can do is try to make the best products.

Sling.

I'm not going to go through all your posts while I was asleep and quote each bit, so I'll write without quotes. Ok?

You do have a point about worth, and that natural picks are, on the whole, more likely to indicate the worth of a place than unnatural picks. I can't argue against that, and if SL was as extensive as the web and picks were as easy to add as links on the web, then solely natural picks would be ideal for the All search. So I agree with your 'worth' point. It's a good one.

But SL isn't as extensive as the web and, more importantly, picks are not as easy to add as links on the web. The problems are:-

1. Each av only has 10 picks, so we cannot simply pick the places that we would like to; i.e. we cannot just add a link (vote) to each place we like enough to merit it.

2. Instead, we usually take an LM when we think a place is so good that we want to be able to find it again. Such LMs are genuine natural votes, but they don't count for search. For instance, I want to be able to get to Bits n Bobs without having to search for it, so I have an LM. It's my vote for that place, but it doesn't count for search.

3. Consequently, picks do not reflect people's natural votes for places. They only reflect a compariviely few natural votes.

4. Worse than that, the picks (votes) of people who don't have an html page (I estimate most people) don't count at all.

5. Of the comparitively few picks that count, many are naturally friends' places (not really natural votes), many are owner picks (also not natural votes), and many are personal picks that have nothing to do with voting for the places where the picks were added.

The result is that picks as the main IBLs simply don't reflect the bulk of the population's natural votes. LMs do to a large extent, but picks don't. Consequently, the ideal that you argue for really isn't an ideal at all. It's only a minority vote - a very small minority of votes from a minority of people. The system itself is wrong.

The conclusion is that, even if nobody paid for picks, the results would still not reflect the natural votes of the population. They would only reflect a very small minority of votes, the bulk of the votes being in the form of LMs. In other words, your ideal is unattainable with the system as it is right now, even if nobody paid for picks.

But we are stuck with the system as it is right now. We are stuck with a system that cannot reflect the natural votes of people, and I don't see that arranging picks devalues the already unnatural votes system. Also paid picks cannot be taken as unnatural votes. They may be unnatural, but they may also be natural; i.e. the person may LM the place naturally, whether or not there's a pay-for-picks offer. Getting paid for a pick does not automatically mean that it's a bad/unnatural vote.

It's a nice ideal, but it isn't the way life works. You could make the most incredibly good animation that has ever been seen in SL, and you could set it for sale in a small box shop - and just wait. It won't sell, or if it ever sells according to its worth, it will be long time in future. Without taking steps to get is seen, it'll fail.

Bang on the nail!

Classified is where a spot is paid for.
Search outside of Classified is where a spot is earned.