where can I find pick camping places ?

You probably agree that a 'worth' system based on natural Picks of all/active/piof/whatever residents would be helpful to Search.
It could come about, but the chances of that lessen each day as the paid picks increasingly destroy the meaning of Profile Picks in the same way that campers and zombies destroyed the meaning of dwell and traffic.

You line seems to be - well Picks don't work well as an indicator of worth so it's ok to mess with them. You had the same for traffic bots - traffic don't work as an indicator of popularity so it's ok to mess with it.


Today there's yet another classic topic in RA - "Newbie needs help getting...anywhere "
Same old story.
A new user looks around and wonders where it's all at.
Somebody suggests looking for green dots. Someone else warns that the dots could be zombies.
A new user could check the profile of an avatar who looks like they know what they are at. Are those picks pointing to places that the avatar actually likes or are those picks simply pointing at an empty boring place that is paying for the pick?
A new user could use search to look for places. Are the high ranked places ranked because of the place or because the owner has manipulated traffic and/or paid picks to get there?

Manipulation of traffic and picks is damaging the experience of SL.
The people causing the damage are doing it for their own profit and with no regard for the damage that they are inflicting.
Most of such people just get on with their dishonest and unethical behaviour. They don't come to the Forums trying to justify their dishonesty.
Those who do post here should not be in the least surprised if someone calls them out and describes their activity as unethical and dishonest.


If there's a discussion about the best way to torture a prim, or word a parcel description, the discussion is usualy a polite exchange of opinions. Word like 'cheat', 'dishonest', 'unethical' are unlikely to be used.
If there is a discussion about an behaviour that damages SL in the pursuit of personal gain, then those kinds of words will appear as they are the words that describe the activity.

THe person who makes it there without manipulating traffic, paying for picks or using any other dishonest measures.




No. Your interpretation is perhaps that I see picks as the major factor, but that interpretation would be wrong. I simple see paid picks as yet another in a line of behaviours by unprincipled people in pursuit of money.




I do believe you. You genuinely do not understand why I concern myself with this.
The idea that a business should concern itself with the effects of its activities on society in general is probably completely alien to you.



I'm quite sure that the scumbags who facilitated sub-prime mortgages and then camouflaged the toxic debt with cleaner debt for onward sale saw their operations with a clear, cool, level business head.
I'm quite sure that the scumbags in Enron did the same.


I'm not for a moment suggesting that traffic and pick gaming are even remotely as serious. Quite clearly they are not.
I'm saying that it's the same attitude. The same lack of ethics that's at work. The princilpe (or lack of it) is the same. It simply a matter of scale.

I've seen that quite a bit in these types of threads
"It's business!" - as if that somehow justified everything.


Dishonesty does not suddenly become honesty just because its viewed with clear, cool, level business head.

That's true, but it doesn't apply to this discussion, as there's nothing dishonest about paying for picks, in spite of your imagination. Iy's been explained very clearly to you more than once. You saying something is dishonest doesn't make it so.

I've explained it very clearly to you more than once.
Paying for picks in order to manipulate search is dishonest.
You saying something is not dishonest doesn't make it honest.

Is that also true for the insults you threw in the direction of people who pay for picks? Are those likely to appear as well? If you do not remember them, they are not that far back in the thread. Cheat, dishonest and unethical are not the ones I mean.

If I read this, any topic that does not damage SL (in your view) can be discussed polite, and as soon as in your opinion it is damaging to SL, you do not need to be polite anymore?

Paying for picks does not damage SL at all, and that is my opinion. Now I do not feel the need to throw insults at you because you think different, so I will just tell why I think they do not:

- Only picks from people with a html page do count. That is as far as well know) PIOF accounts and people who have started a group. This means most picks do not count for search anyway.
- Many picks point to parcels that do not exist anymore (just for fun, check your own picks for example). They do not do anything for search either, but are dead links.
- Even more picks are used to show how many sisters, brothers, children, friends, and so on they have. Not parcel related at all, not the slightest bit useful as links.

So paing for picks hardly renders picks useless: they aready were quite useless as far as "worth of a place" goes.

There are many things damaging SL. Paying for picks is not one of them. Whether no one pays for picks, or half of SL does, SL will not get any better or worse from it.

I'd agree if all residents picks were counted, and there was no limitation on the number of picks.

It can't come about with the current All search - not because paid picks destroy anything - they don't (study and learn about that, instead of continually casting unfounded and stupid judgements that are based solely on your imagination and wishful thinking). It can't come about for the same reason that using LMs instead can't come about. I don't think I need to expand on that, as it's obvious.

Nope. My line is that picks are picks, regardless of why they were added, and that paying for them doesn't make any search results difference to users, so they don't undermine or damage anything. If you think that people should be able to use other people's picks to find things, and that paying for picks undermines that - tough.

Don't be silly, Sling. When I first came into SL, I asked where the center is - where the people are. It's been like that ffrom the start, and you know it. SL *has* to be like that, or didn't you notice it yet?

Yeah yeah. Some old crap. There's no way round it. End of story. Oh yes there is - go to another system

Yeah yeah. Same old same old. As I said before - tough.

Who cares one way or the other? I'll tell you what. If you are so concerned about new user experience, go and spend your time helping them instead of writing all this crap. Sorted!

The only damage it does is give you an unfounded reason to write such silly stuff here. Look and learn, Sling.

See above, and look and learn.

They don't need to justify anything. Who cares what you personally think? Why should they come and correct you. If you want to be so silly, feel free.

Nobody is surprised, Sling. We've experienced your crap so many time before and, because you have nothing better to do from time to time, we'll experience it again.

Personally, if my arguments were shot down in the flames of logic and common sense as often as your are, I'd stop arguing those points. So far, I've seen you make one vaild point, but unfortunately, nothing can be done about it so you're just like Don Quixote - tilting at windmills.

That's really sad. Most people are quite happy that some people do things for personal gain, otherwise there would be nothing for them to buy - no animations, no furniture, no home, etc. etc. etc. It's sad that you are against it. But then you are not really against it, are you? So you use the inventions of your weird and wonderful brain to make your points, such as "damages" without any evidence. But that's you Sling - illogical to the end, but who cares about you?

It's odd that you keep on with the word "damages" though. Most points you've made in this thread were shot down in flames and you didn't respond because you had no answers, but you do keep on with "damages". I guess you think that, the more you are dishonest enough to say it, the more some people will be fooled by, and you may be right.

And finally...
Things are as they are, Sling, and the All search works reasonably well in spite of its limitations. The unethical way that you keep pushing your dishonest imaginations can't change anything, and I'm pleased about that.

Correction:
There is nothing dishonest about paying for picks. It's been explained to you many times already. It's dishonest and unethical of you to keep on stating something that plainly isn't true. It's an attempt to cheat and deceive people for your own personal ends.

Actually, at the start, there was exactly one club. It was, I think, called "Second Life Discotheque". So it hasn't really always been like that.



You can't just dismiss it so easily with "tough", though, Phil. For every new user who asks for help finding things here, there are probably several hundred who flew around aimlessly then never came back. Those are potential customers for you and every other content creator on the grid.

And it is hard for people to help them. Mentors aren't supposed to promote individual places that we know, but without that, we're stuck with the same search tools everyone else is. Arguably this is the Lindens' fault rather than the businesses' but it's still a problem.



Far from true, many even more complicated systems than SL are constructed for free, and even many of the more diverse SL businesses are running at a loss. There woud be less, but there wouldn't be nothing.

As far as I see it, paid = earned. And as has been pointed out here, the top sellers are not entitled to the #1 slot if they don't work at it using all available means. Fortunately for them, they don't have to. NO ONE is entitled to anything.

Come on, Sling. Search in the real world is manipulated in similar ways. Just face it - this is not meaningfully different from First Life. People pay others to have their relevance boosted all the time. There is nothing dishonest about it. It is a fruitless exercise for many that even bother. The money paid is so minuscule, I sincerely doubt that people bother to stick with it for very long.

I have seen one place that has nice things, but they bother to pay campers and pay for picks. I think their stuff is a little expensive, but it is well-made, typically with enough options to make 2 full outfits so it's really not so expensive. They are working like hell to get traffic and pay for picks at the main store, and I have seen their brand out in many malls. I think the money would be better spent otherwise but at least they have quality things. I don't fault them for trying. It's called business. There is nothing unethical about it. They just want to be visible and use any permitted means to get there.

I was using poetic license when I said it's been that way from the beginning It's certainly been like since I arrived in 2006.

It was a reply to Sling's statement that "A new user could check the profile of an avatar who looks like they know what they are at. Are those picks pointing to places that the avatar actually likes or are those picks simply pointing at an empty boring place that is paying for the pick?" and I do dismiss that with "tough". A new user could check a person's picks and find out all about the person's friends etc. It's the way it is. And Sling's suggestion that "those picks [are] simply pointing at an empty boring place that is paying for the pick" is so stupid that it merits the word "tough" - and worse.

The new arrival experience certainly is a problem, but it isn't one that prsitine picks will in any way help. The All search works very well, even though it could be better, so that isn't a problem for new users. It's only a problem for Sling.

Alight, but there'd be a hell of lot less choice I'd conjecture that there are *very* few businesses, if any, that didn't start out with the intention of making money. Even if it's only aimed at making the tier, the intention is still to make money.

The argument "it's the way it is" is always a silly one - what, so we're only allowed to discuss things that _aren't_ the way it is? That aren't true, that are imaginary?

And I don't think looking at Picks is a problem in particular, the problem is the effect it has on Search. And the effect it has on newbies - I know business people love to say that "no-one is entitled to anything", but they are quietly breeding a generation of residents who feel entitled to free L$!



It depends on what they're looking for - certainly, using Search All to find places that turn iout to be empty _is_ a problem, but that's probably got more to do with the lack of update frequency than any method of gaming the search.

But perhaps a better answer would be to visualise the Search results differently. I've actually seen attempts to do this. One method, for example, had every search result appear as a little labelled square, and then all of those squares were placed randomly in a box where they slowly bounced around like balls. If you had a particular place you wanted to find, you could look for it in the text, but there was no lazy option to just pick the "top" place since everything kept moving about, so no worries about "who's #1" any more.



It's possible, but I think nowadays it's more common to start because people enjoy making things. Thanks to the marketing and professionalism blitz, it's very hard to make money now, and people are even having to advise others to build if they want to build as long as they never expect anyone else to look at or care about what they've built - that's a new trend, and a very negative one I think.

By all means discuss them, but don't insult people because they don't agree with you, and don't make statements of fact when it's only imagination. I'm referring to Sling, of course.

Neither do I, but it's one of Sling's main arguments, as you've seen.

It doesn't have any detrimental effect on the search results. Some relevant places are moved up the rankings, and some relevant places are moved down - no detrimental effect for users.

I don't see any negative effect on newbies unless the ones that have moved up the rankings by paying for picks are those that are "empty boring places". They are not, but if they were, they wouldn't be paying for picks. Nobody pays to promote an empty place.

True. People don't pay to promote empty places.

It's a novel idea but not one that I think would be generally liked. People tend to want to read a bit about the one they click on, to see if it looks like it's suitable. Some people have complained in the forum about places that just fill their description with keywords rather than saying a bit about the place.

I agree that most businesses start because people like making things, or want to own a club, etc. but, with the probable exception of clubs, they still start to sell what they've made with the intention and hope of making money - at least tier.

I dislike that new trend because the advice is usually given by people who haven't succeeded, or by people who have heard it from those who haven't succeeded; e.g. in the forum. I still maintain that, if a person has the will and the skill to make desirable things, they can succeed in an SL business.

Welcome to the Monthy Python argument
Yes it is.
No it isn't.
Yes it *is*.
No it *Isn't*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3HaRFBSq9k
It's worth the viewing.


Well, whatever about the phrase ping-pong, there is something that amuses me greatly about this thread.


It's this "Sling talking like she is right about everything" thing.


How about this?
A. Picks buying is X
B. Picks buying is not X

One of these is apparently simply offering an opinion.
The other is apparently speaking as if it were absolute fact.

Which of them is the opinion and which one of them is the god-delusional?
Examine the wording and phrasing carefully. Spot the difference..

You don't see it?
You don't. You need more information.

So. If what A is saying is unwelcome to you, then B is the one simply offering an opinion.
It's very simple.
Some people don't like to be called out. Therefore the person saying the unwelcome thing isn't just stating their opinion. They must have something wrong with them. They can't have a reasonable opinion if what they say upsets us.

Of course I know that what I write is my opinion. I state it and I explain the reasoning behind it. However I am taken to task for not pre-pending what I write with 'in my opinion'. This despite the fact that the same phrase is noticeably rare in the postings of others.






Next:
"It's been explained to you many times."
"Earlier in this thread, I said that it makes no difference to the user - more than once. "

What is this???
Is this an exasperated all-knowing teacher or parent patiently trying to explain something to an uncooperative child?
Or is it just some guy on the Internet who believes that he is absolutely right?


Now I have used such wording, but only by copy/pasting in the reply to a post in which the wording has been used at me. This in order to point out the sheer futility of using such wording.
The post that this one quotes is the first in which we've had Ping-Pong-Ping, whereas up to now we've just had Ping-Pong. This definitely took us into Monty Pyton territory.



Phil genuinely visualises all of this as he being the wise all-knowing one and anyone who offers a contrary or unwelcome opinion as someone who needs to be enlightened by his insights.
It comes out clearly in his postings and in things like "Earlier in this thread, I said that it makes no difference to the user - more than once. "



I find this fascinating.
People's perceptions of the same situation can vary so widely for various reasons.

qft

well said Phil

unfortunately I think it is falling on deaf ears
or they just refuse to listen

Actually, they do - people will build their dream places (which in fact are places that, for whatever reason, no other human on the planet would be interested in) and then when they fail will pay out money from their own pockets as a last-ditch effort. But that's touching on a whole other issue, which is the incidence of irrational economic behaviour in SL and its effect upon business.



It's not really because it's "given by people who haven't succeeded", it's because when you have to say something to advise the hundreds or thousands of people who come into SL it feels a bit dishonest to say that after a while. I mean really, are there going to be thousands of new businesses started every day and every one is going to be a big success? You've already argued several times here that just "making desirable things" isn't enough - they have to market them too, and the need to "go to war" in that sense is rather offputting to people who just enjoy the creative side. There's also the issue of the fact that even the biggest business might make money, but it can't change anyone's behaviour, so SL will still just be the same experience no matter what you make - which is a hard, and unfortunate, lesson.

here you go again....

stating it as though it is a fact, when it is nothing more than you opinion

where is your proof that it is dishonest to pay for picks?
facts... not opinion... show us hard core, solid, back you up, facts, that paying for picks is dishonest...

That was quite a long post to discuss nothing but the discussion, so I'll just quote this bit to cover it all:-

That just about sums it up, Sling. Take a leaf out Yumi's book and discuss things normally and then I won't have to see and treat you as a child. This is how it goes with you (and with a child):-

You: Some statement or other

Someone else: A statement that disagrees with you.

You: You're unethical, a cheat and you're dishonest.

Someone else: (thinks "how bloody childish". Why not just discuss the thing rationally instead of resorting to insults?

and so on.

Two options at the extremes of the possibilities by way of illustration.
There is no suggestion there that paid picks are pointing at empty boring places.

You are either suffering from severe comprehension issues or you are deliberately manipulating my words into a straw man.


"those picks [are] simply pointing at"
v.
"or are those picks simply pointing at"

Get it right!

Finding empty places is a problem when you are looking for something social. But if you are shopping for goods or services, it generally doesn't matter. Most shops are empty at any given time of the day. But they get shoppers from time to time, and sometimes multiple shoppers. If you want shopping to be a social experience, well, we need far less competition or a far greater concurrency to achieve that in the amount of land that is available.

As for visualizing results - a thumbnail would be helpful to shoppers, not social people. And randomizing the results may make someone who is far less relevant in terms of the goods they sell have a place ahead of someone who is far more relevant.

Let's say someone is shopping for vehicles and goes to a large shop that sells pretty much everything, but only has two vehicles for sale. Someone who specializes in vehicles and has 10x the inventory would get the shaft over someone else that doesn't. Using the logic that randomization is better for the end user, the question is - is it, in this case? But with the current system based on relevance for keywords and then buttressed by picks, someone that specializes in vehicles should appear first (more vehicle links on the parcel) and then the recommendations would generally determine whether they are on page 1 or 41.

Personally, I prefer the existing system.

Or a non-geographic system, or the abiity to be in several places at the same time. Generally the search is fairly weak in general for shopping - both traffic and picks penalize shops with small numbers of goods that people can easily find.

As for visualizing results - a thumbnail would be helpful to shoppers, not social people. And randomizing the results may make someone who is far less relevant in terms of the goods they sell have a place ahead of someone who is far more relevant.



Well, except that as others have said, you can't depend on search working that way. "Vehicle links" could easily be generated by payment, or just by the person having friends, as with the older ratings parties. In fact I still maintain that the best search for shopping purposes would be the one shown in the moneysupermarket.com adverts

You misrepresent the events.
You misrepresent them as if the words were used in retaliation.
This is clearly not the reality.

If you actually read, you will see that it goes.

Me: "Picks Camping" ist schlecht. Die Auswahl wird benutzt, um den Rang des Geschäftes in der Suche unehrlich zu erhöhen. Wenn Sie Ihre Auswahl verkaufen, erhalten Sie eine kleine Belohnung. Jedoch werden Sie an einem Betrug teilnehmen.


You: No it's not.

Oh for goodness sakes. Look Sling. You may know what's in your head, but the rest of us only know what you write. Try writing exactly what you mean in future and maybe you won't be misunderstood. Alright? But if you're confused...

You question didn't show "two options at the extremes". It only allowed for two options at all, one of which was untrue.

You do realise, don't you, that the post that you quoted was me taking Phil's words and manner of stating verbatim but changed in direction??

So, what you are actually complaining of is the way in which *Phil* put it.
I suggest that you take the matter up with him.

Eh... The reason that I am concentrating on the Picks issue, is that this thread concerns Picks Camping. - where can I find pick camping places ?

I posted to advise the OP that Picks camping was a dishonest process. Although not a direct answer to her question, this was potentially a view that she would like to consider before she went off to sell her picks.
It appeared that the OP does not have English as her mother language, which is why I posted in German. She at least has been spared what followed



If some of you want to discuss the generality of Search, I'm happy to discuss that in an appropriate forum thread.
However, the blindingly obvious reason for me to have Picks as a focus is that the thread is about Picks.

Wake up Sling. One of your main points has been that paying for picks negatively affects people looking at other people's picks. It's the only "damage" that you've been able to come up with to give as a reason for saying that paying for picks causes damage, even though it's irrelevant.