where can I find pick camping places ?

I'm not suggesting that every part of every post must be responded to, but you skip most parts of many posts. One example doesn't tell the story. Why not take the 'green dots' example and explain why you first cited them, then read a response about it, and then ignored it? It's much more recent than the one you chose - just a couple of hours ago. There is a myriad of such examples in this thread. The one you chose was my response to what you wrote. You wrote as though places that manipulate search have inferior items, whether you meant it that way or not. It was a good response to what you wrote, so why didn't you reply to it? But I'll settle for a response about the green dots.


I wonder how many of these responses you'll ignore. You wrote the stuff so it's reasonable to assume you want responses, so let's see, shall we?


It's interesting that it all comes back to... when you've ignored the responses to your points. How does it all come back then? (You don't need to respond to that)


Because traffic bots and campers really are a problem when they are used to fill a sim, which is very uncommon. It doesn't follow that, since they can be used to fill a sim, that all campers and traffic bots are bad in that way. The same applies to a sim's performance being badly affected by campers which, incidentally, I suspect is not true for most of the times that people say it. What you are trying to do is the same as saying that cheese is food; food is delicious; therefore cheese is delicious. It's called argument from fallacy.

Incidentally, this thread is about paying for picks, or had you forgotten?


Really? Explain please, because I honestly don't know what you're talking about.


I imagine it's because they've blindly jumped to places where there are stacks of green dots, instead of using 'events' to find out what's on right now. Blind jumps are ok, but there's no cause for complaints if it's not what you want when you get there. Remember my survey that found that 76% of the green dots were real people avs? That was another bit that you chose to ignore


Is it ok for me to carry on, or is it looking too much like a blizzard for you? I'll carry on.


You are mistaken. Nobody tries to fool anyone into thinking any such thing. They try to move up the rankings so that they will be seen by more people, that's all. To the best of my knowledge, you don't have any personal experience of it, so you are not one who can decide other people's motives. You can either take their word for it, or you can fool yourself. And we see such statements as you described from people like yourself - with attitude about traffic bots. Can we get back to paying for picks now?


Aha!

Au contraire. That's quite a leap of imagination, Sling. If something doesn't serve my personal interests, it might as well not exist? You are really clutching at straws, Sling. However, I don't scoff at picks having a social function at all. Where on earth did you dream that up from? Picks serve a number of social purposes, including "How do you make money in SL? I get paid for having a few places in my picks. You do? Where are they? Have a look in my picks for .... and ....". Very social, if I may say so.


You still haven't learned anything, Sling. You are quite wrong, but I'm not going to explain it to you until you explain what you mean. You see, statements like those two are just unqualified statements. You need to write something like this: "People who game search impede the creation of indexing algorithms that can be helpful to the users of search. And this is how they impede it" Then explain exactly how the indexing algorithms are impeded by what those people do. The same applies to the second statement. See what I mean? In that way, we can all have a good discussion about it. Without qualifying your statements, there is nothing to discuss. But I'll do the best I can with those unqualified statements...

How do they impede them? (Incidentally, there is a huge difference between an indexing algorithm and a ranking algorithm. They are totally different. Please make sure you are using the right one)

How do they damage the meaning of the factors that they game?

The answer has been given many times over, but nothing would convince you, Sling. It's already been stated umpteen times that so long as the keywords being optimized for are representative of what is being offered on the parcel that it has no negative effect. The thing being sought for is found there. It is relevant, and helpful to the searcher. It is not representative of quality because it CANNOT be, as quality is subjective. And that is it in a nutshell. The operative term here is "so long as" - as Phil succintly stated up above, errors can happen inadvertently by having items on the parcel with show in search checked by accident. But that should not be attributed the kind of malice as has been demonstrated here.

Search optimisation yes, does it have a negative effect on SL and it depends upon how they go about it.



If it's a problem LL should act, this is an issue that can lead to people being ar'd so those who ignore the issue are out of order. However the biggest and most glaring examples of misuse come from live people, there was an infohub issue and there's a mainland sim with a sex club on a fraction of the sim that causes the rest of the sim to be pretty much unusable. Those are issues that should be addressed and Linden Lab have scope to address.



This is a clear example of bad use of resources. If I'm looking to rent shop space and see a place is full of bots and not much else, I'm unlikely to shop there. If I go to a club and find the traffic and dots are generated mostly by bots, I'm unlikely to return. In both cases it could be argued the parcels weren't relevant to my needs because I wasn't looking for bots in either scenario.



Again Sling, it's about relevancy, it's about how Linden Lab configure their search engine. When paid picks are causing issues of results not being relevant then there's a problem. The example you gave above of misleading dots can be construed as leading to irrelevant results that aren't good for a person searching for a busy location. Someone searching for shoes and finding shoes isn't an example of irrelevant results. That is the big difference.

your out of your mind!

Wow, just wow. Three times back and forth over this now, I feel I'm being at least a little bit gracious in granting that the phrasing YOU LATER CHANGED YOURSELF may have been a poor choice that led to a misunderstanding, and you're still hammering away with this childish nonsense and not giving an inch despite having made a ridiculous statement that is demonstrably wrong.

My respect for you finds new limits on a daily basis.

You did make some acknowledgments, but you said what I wrote was just plain stupid when I don't think it was. It was your choice to go straight to that level - not mine. There were other ways of responding without stooping to that so quickly.

For instance, you could have responded with something like, "Are you quite sure about that? ", and I might have replied with something like, "Hmm... maybe you have a point there. I'll rephrase what I wrote." Something like that would have been so much better.

Rha, please open your eyes here. All of what you write about Sling here is also true of those on your side of the argument (except the gamers and cheaters call, though equivalents are returned for sure)

I happen to agree with Sling (no surprise there) and the others but though I am on that side of the fence I can still see that people who I agree with including me throw the dirt. Phil and Marcel are no better but for some reason nobody on your side of the fence seems to think that they do any wrong ... at all, period.

Clearly that is wrong, there is fault on all sides in the way you describe and all have been guilty of doing those things.

However as this is all opinion and no proof that is conclusive and without any doubts can be offered the subject is still up for discussion. Why should Sling have to be convinced by something that is only stated opinion when others here do not?

Speaking as a search user (of which I am certainly in the target audience) with no agenda other than I do not want to get results where those who think they should be first are able to put themselves first instead of their peers deciding their placing in a fashion that does not involve the exchange of money, goods or services for that decision but on fair merit alone, I would like to see a search based on some other method of determining ranking. If this means a random ordering once the search has determined relevancy, then so be it if it is not possible to have anything better that would not fall foul of the influences I spoke of.

when have you seen me (I can not speak for others) argue my point as though it is right, try to convince others that my opinion is the only one to agree with, and call people nasty names because they have a different opinion

nor am I asking for folks to tell me why what they think is the only way and explain why etc

my comments to sling in this case is because she expects everyone who is against her opinion to explain fully why they believe what they believe
when the only argument on her side is still just an opinion with no facts to back it up

sure some folks on both sides are doing the same thing, but as I said I can not speak for the others, only for me.

her comments tell me that her opinion (in her opinion) are the only right ones and she doesn't have to give solid factual proof as to why, that everyone should just agree with her based on her views and her opinion, yet expects anyone who doesn't agree with her, to give solid facts as to why they support the opinion they do... (she is not following her own rules)


for me, I know folks will disagree with me, so be it, I am ok with that
what I am not ok with, is when someone stoops to the level of petty personal insults, insulting someone character, insulting someone's business practice, etc, all based on something as petty and stupid as "paid picks"

I mean come on... it is not a crime, it is not the end of the world and it by no means defines a person's character, but according to Sling it sure as hell does...
that is what gets me...

PS you might notice the only one I have issues with is Sling, because she is the one who started slinging the dirt and encompassing everyone who is not with her, as gamers, cheaters, unethical, etc etc

If folks never advertised that they are paying for picks, if picks camping stuff was not public knowledge, and if no one ever knew.... this whole thing would not be an issue


it seems the only thing that Sling has issue with, is people paying for picks...

what if I got people to place me in their picks, without paying them...if by some other means they were placing me in their picks... but not just because they like my stuff...

would it still be considered wrong by sling, or is it the money exchange that pisses her off


I honestly do not understand why she feels so vehemently against paid picks....

after all it is still a damn pick, the pick doesn't change, it doesn't magically become a better pick, or anything like that...

It is comments like this Rha...



That is throwing the dirt and while not name calling it is not very nice all the same.

I never said you personally were guilty of all the crimes here, just some and you are definitely not one of the worst ones either. My comment was mainly about Phil and Marcel and the fact you could have aimed your comments at them also and it would have been just as true but you chose only to direct them to the person you are opposed to on this issue. Some of the things said by both of them in this thread are just as bad if not worse as what Sling has said.

Notice I am not saying Sling did not throw dirt even though I am in agreement with most of her points? It is because nobody here is above throwing the dirt and that needs to be recognised imo.

All is opinion here, there are no provable facts despite what *anyone* says and Sling is not the only one to forget that from time to time.

If my friends recommend a place to me and I only later find out they recommended it based on the fact they got paid for saying it then I would consider that they didn't tell me the whole truth and those friends would not be trusted for their recommendations in the future.
If my friends told me up front they were being paid to say it then I could just think "meh, that counts for little, I'll canvas a recommendation from someone who is not paid to say it".

It is that whole truth bit that is the crux of Sling's point. If somehow search could be divided up into the paid and influenced results and the non-paid and uninfluenced results and people were able to make an informed choice about whether they wanted influenced or uninfluenced results, then that would be up front and honest in my opinion. I certainly would not ever be using the influenced part of search.
Due to the fact you cannot tell if a pick has been bought or not it means you cannot tell if results based upon them have been bought or not, if you could tell and avoid results using them then I doubt many on this side of the fence would have much of a problem with other wanting those influenced results.
For while ever it is not possible to tell or avoid results that are influenced, knowingly exploiting this and taking advantage of them is wrong in our (collective) opinion.

ok my take in this ummm discussion in the end it don't matter. Camping is camping and picks are picks in the end you decide for YOURSELF where you want to shop or not.

Also in another post that said something like people who have few things should be ranked lower(remember I can not find it right now). Yes there is not much in my shop but I do quality work and I will tell you I put my testers (other peeps) through the wringer on my testures lol. So just cause I dont have much in my shop dont mean I should be ranked lower.


I did not come in here with the idea to make money. As someone said several posts before if they do they well may be disappointed or something to that effect.


Ok before you all tear me apart when I search I do the thing up there and do it alphabetical. Or sometimes I go backwards cause you can find great things on the ones that cant rank the high up. yah I am not even hardly in the very low ranking but I make a modest living well for me lol.

Now on Camping for me hey it is a living for the ones doing it. Some of us have done it at one time or another. In the end does it really matter? Cause I shop at say 5 places for clothes the rest I search for and I dont hold to the rankings anyway.

Now I was ummm called a bot just recently cause I sit in my office, above the store and I work on textures offline, or build without moving. But I check back quite often. Told the person sorry I was AFK and he got disgruntled, wont repeat what he said, good lord and it wasnt even for a product. But let me tell you just cause a person dont move dont mean they are bots. Also I had my Alt up there not to do traffic but to sort her inventory out. Is that traffic botting? For me no!


Now mind you this is all just my opinion....

Take as you will.

Bec

THAT comment is not insulting anyone, it is merely stating that I see them shoveling a lot of shit around, nothing more
I did not insult their character, I did not tell them they are a bad person, I did not accuse them of being unethical, nor any of that stuff
I simply said, if they continue to shovel what I perceive as "shit" around, soon it will bury them

and yes, I do believe that specific person is very much enjoying the spotlight, and again, that is not an insult...

*shrug* I guess your definition of mud slinging and insulting is different than mine

The reason I directed them at Sling is because I was talking to Sling, if I were talking to phil, or marcel or anyone else, then I would have directed my opinion of their actions at them

I wasn't so I didn't

I am not disagreeing with you, yes we are all guiltly of letting things get too personal, however I have been trying damn hard to not let it get personal... I kept my comments to the legal side of what picks camping is and if it is allowed etc, eventually I put out that I am not apposed to it, and now I am being clumped in with those who are throwing the mud and slinging the insults, when I have done none of that.

I have simply asked sling for info, to explain her stance, in a clear, concise, no bs, and factual way, yet all she gives us is her opinion.
ok opinions are fine, we all have one, BUT, she puts her's out there as though it is the "law" and the only way it should be, and that if anyone disagrees with her, then they are unethical, bad, cheats, and gamers....

I have no problem with someone not agreeing with my opinion, however I do have a problem with being told I am unethical, a cheat, a gamer, etc all because I see nothing wrong with something that is legal, AND doesn't hurt anyone.. (but sling thinks it hurts someone... so then that brings us back to her saying anyone for it is a cheat, gamer, etc)

vicious circle....

the thing with picks though, as has been explained but it seems ppl like to overlook it

regardless if the pick is a paid pick or a "I like this store" pick

it is still a pick, it is still relevant to the search results... hell maybe more picks (even paid ones) will help filter away the irrelevant keyword spamming results

see a pick is based on the store parcel info, most stores will put legit info (unless they are scammy keyword spammers but that is another kettle of fish)..

so... when you do a search for thingamajigs... the stores with the picks that have thingamajigs will come up in your results... so... did you not get what you were looking for?

sling argues that the quality of the results is tainted due to the picks campers and paid picks etc....
that is a crock of shit... the system can not determine what is quality and what is not, only the shopper can do that

take my store for instance... let's say I started using picks camping and bots to bring up my rank in the search... people start finding me...

does that mean my stuff suddenly changed from being pretty darn good to crap, all because I used a paid means to get my rank up in the search results?
hell no, my stuff is still the same stuff I always had, just now more folks will find it...

paying for picks, using traffic bots, etc are all ways that (obviously) LL are allowing, at least for now, and any business savvy person who can afford to use these tools, are going to, because the name of the game is to get seen!

If feeling this way about picks camping and such makes me a bad person in the eyes of some, then so be it, nothing they say will change my mind, nothing I say will change theirs....

and life goes on

Rhaorth please show me where I said you were insulting, I only said the comment was not nice (which is perfectly true) and then went on to say that you were *not* guilty of *all* the crimes listed by you. If you read I did say it was that there were *others* who are as well as Sling.

ok so not very nice in your definition is not the same as insulting someone...

sorry I guess I misunderstood your comment when you quoted my comments about shoveling the shit

and frankly I do not see how telling someone that you think they are shoveling shit, ranks the same as someone accusing others of being unethical, etc

then again lately I am lucky to make sense out of what day of the week it is

bottom line... you are against picks camping, I am for it

shall we agree to disagree and keep our own thoughts, and such to ourselves before one of us ends up throwing insults that we do not mean, but happen in the heat of the moment?

(I know I tend to get caught up sometimes in the heat of the moment and I really do not want to say something I do not mean, but say because I am frustrated or whatnot)

Well not really, because the person who is top has decided they should be top regardless of the actual quality of their work. In results that are guaranteed not to be "tainted" as you put it with bought picks the top one is going to be a choice that a group of peers thought deserved accolade without being influenced by money or being paid by goods or services.
Now that is an entirely different thing.

lol you are placing far more emphasis on you than was meant, I just meant the usual suspects in these debates tend to be as guilty as each other, specially Phil and Marcel as well as Me and Sling.

hmmm I think you are not giving the users enough credit to decide for themselves if a place deserves the placement they get or not...

bottom line is no matter where one shows up in the search results, they still need to have quality products to get the sales...

all the placement does is get them seen before someone else, and to me, that is not a crime

*shrug*

this debate for and against could go on endlessly....

(as you can see I disagree with your opinion on the matter, just as you disagree with my opinion)

so as I said, shall we agree to disagree and move on?

Well I certainly cannot agree that the owner of place is the best person to determine their own placing though I suspect you misunderstood me.

Sure we can move on...though to what is going to be interesting.

Hey Gabrielle, I already wondered when you would show up
Now as I stated a few times before, I do not mind people thinking different then I do, and I do not expect them to suddenly agree with me.

Though as has been mentioned by several people in the thread, Sling is presenting her side of the fence as the utter truth, and that was what I had a problem with. She takes any opportunity to call people using bots/picks names.
The final straw was that posting of her where she really went over the edge, and went a step further then just calling me a cheater, immoral, unethical, whatever. You will have to scroll back some to find that one, but if anyone has been slinging mus it has been Sling this time.
We do not always agree, you and me, but you mentioned my name about three times when talking about dirt throwing, and I do not think that is correct. If anything, I always try to keep my postings clean.

This thread is long beyond the question if picks camping is right or wrong.

and the sad part is that the thread was not originally about if picks camping is right or wrong, but actually the OP wanted to know where to find picks camping locations....

someone decided to come in and immediately put down picks camping, and it snowballed from there...

*shrug*

Funny I was just thinking that about you and Phil too.


Oh but you do seem to mind an awful lot. That of course is just my opinion.

Again you see it differently, by now I have no expectation that you would not. However yet again I can see that You, Phil and Sling are all doing it in this thread even though I do not agree with your opinions on the topic I can see that Sling is in some posts throwing dirt too. Nobody on your side of the fence ever admits to doing that.

We rarely agree. You may try to keep your postings clean but in this thread as with previous ones I have either only lurked in or actually posted in too, you fail to do so despite your intentions. However you never seem to see this unfortunately and that is why we never have a meeting of the minds. Same goes for Phil.

This thread was long beyond that before I posted anything and even then the original topic had nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of picks camping. Obviously yet again the thread was derailed into the rights or wrongs of the subject matter. I beleive the OP just wanted information.