where can I find pick camping places ?

I'm glad you admit to being wrong.

And you seem to be asserting that LL didn't want people improving their search rankings (what you like to call "gaming". Well, allow me to inform you that LL *did* intend people to do things that would improve their search rankings - and they said so in the blog when they introduced the new search (before they actually implemented it). They announced it early to, in their words, give people time to optimise their parcels. You do know what "optimise" means in the search engine world, don't you? I replied in the blog - words to the affect of, "Are your crazy?" and, because of my experience in seo, I explained what would happen with links. Did they utter even one word to the effect "People musn't do that"? No they didn't. Not one word - ever. Sling, you are so far off base with your opinion, and you assumptions about LL, that it's hard to believe.

Which brings us back to your opinion and the fact that you don't recognise that it's upto the people running the search engine to define the criteria for search. The important matter about links is the quality of a link. To an end user searching for prefabs, if the link doesn't lead them to a place selling prefabs then it's a poor quality link.

On the internet there's a lot of crap comment spam that is not good for end users who follow those links. That's not so much the case here.

Perhaps you haven't followed all the threads on these topics, so I'll explain to you why people do it. It's quite different to what you imagine.

Let's say there's a store that makes desireable items - people buy them when they see them - and the store owner lets the search rankings fall where they may. It's almost certain that the rankings will be comparitively low because the owner hasn't done anything to improve them, whereas other owners have. The goods are desirable, so the store does sell things via word of mouth, and over time, sales slowly build up.

Everything about the store and the products is good, but word of mouth is naturally slow to spread and will take a long time to reach the majority of SL's population. What's needed is a way of reaching a lot more people much more quickly, and the search system provides just that. So the store owner does things to improve the store's rankings, which causes more people to find and buy the goods, and sales improve much more quickly.

Your idea that people who optimise for search are admitting defeat is wrong. What they are doing is reaching a lot more people much more quickly. It's called 'promotion' and every RL business does it in various ways. One of the main ways with web and SL businesses is search engines. That's all it is - simply promoting a business.

Of course, people are perfectly free not to shop at places that promote themselves, just as you turn away from places that pay for picks, but the only person who loses out is the one who turns away from things they may like enough to actually buy. Example: just suppose you've seen Craig's Lovescene, and you really want it (quite a common thing), so you go to the store and see a notice offering to pay for picks. Who would lose out if you refused to buy it because of the sign? You may say that Craig wouldn't pay for picks, and that may be right, but what if he noticed that his sales are on the decline because more and more people are making and selling very good animations, which is true, and he decided to do something about his search rankings by paying for picks? Or what if someone like Craig is just getting started and has a much better animation than Lovescene, but the store and the animation isn't well known yet?

I'm pointing out that doing things to improve search rankings, such as paying for picks, has nothing to do with the goods and places being inferior. It has everything to do with reaching more people.

Very well said.

That's something you can't have from a search system. All you can have is what you get in RL and in web search engines. In RL, you see a likely shop and look around it to see if they have something you want. In web engines, you click on the results and visit websites to see if one has what you want. SL is the same as web engines - you visit places to see if they have what you want.

It doesn't make any difference whether people do things to improve their rankings or not. There is no way for a search system to rank places based on quality. You just have to go shopping and look for things you like. All a search engine can do is produce some signposts to places that *may* have something that satisfies you. It's up to you to do the shopping.

More on this...

It's not unusual for people who don't understand search engines to imagine that the rankings are based on some sort of quality, and in this forum we see desires that the top ranked places have quality stuff. But that's totally wrong. A person using search *cannot* know that "I'm going to a cool place", because a search engine cannot discern quality (or coolness), so it is no part whatsoever of its ranking criteria. All a search engine can do is offer singposts to places that seem to offer what the searcher is looking for. It is then up to the searcher to go around the places and look for him/herself.

You cannot have rankings based on quality.

You cannot "know i'm going to a cool place" from any search engine listings - however high or low they are. (Remember, we are talking about picks - All search - and not about traffic - Places tab search.)

Those things are not possible with search engines, so it's no good complaining about it.

Therefore, from a user's point of view, as long as places are ranked for the right things, it makes no difference at all whether or not some of the listings are ranked highly because the owner has done things to improve the rankings, or if all the rankings are 'untouched' by the owners. Users still have to visit places to see if they have something they like, and they still have to shop around to compare the goods at various places before making a decision. (It's called shopping )

All a search engine can do if offer signposts to likely places. It cannot rank according to quality (or coolness).

Agreed - one person's quality is another person's crap. It's highly subjective. Search is not going to replace the actual task of shopping, and the market will take care of itself - if the sales are not there to back up the payments, then the problem will eventually fix itself.

True.

Also true.

Really Phil! That is such a transparently childish remark.




You are so off base with cogent argument that it's hard to believe.

Yes. LL intended that people would optimize for search.
However, that does not in any way imply that they wished people to use any and all methods.

Your comment that you tried to warn them is very revealing - "words to the affect of, "Are your crazy?" "

You appear to be admitting that you foresaw problems for the Search arising from the use of links.
*If* there is absolutely nothing wrong with gaming and picks - why would you feel it necessary to give LL a heads up?

If everything in the garden was rosy, why did you you query the move?


"Did they utter even one word t..."
Come along now! Surprised that LL did not react??
If you were surprised then you are truly divorced from the reality of LL and they way they operate. They read your comment and others but decided that the truth was inconvenient - too much trouble for them to drop links.

The people running a search engine have to enforce whatever criteria are set.
LL are absolutely crap at policing SL. It takes too much of their resources and imaginative capability.
Look back a t the ad-farm situation. That was an *extreme* in-your-face problem. How long did it take them to move on it?



Paid picks are an equivalent of 'crap comment spam'. The parallel is in that the links are in places where they do not honestly belong. The principle behind links is that they lend authority to the destination.
Paid picks reduce the quality of the link weighting.

It does make a difference.
When presented with a list of possible places, the instinctive reaction will be to visit them top to bottom of the list.
This is why people try to be ranked very highly.

Do try to keep up.



Of course an engine can not rank by quality.
It tries to do the next best thing.
It tries to rank by 'votes' of other sites.

Paid Picks and Traffic before it were dishonest vote rigging.

Really Sling! That is such a transparently childish remark.

Ah, but you miss the point. You can only assume what LL's intentions are, but you cannot state what they are. Their silence on the tooic gives an indication that they are happy with paying for picks, but you assume they don't want it, when all the time, it's *you* who doesn't want it, and for no good reason (see my other posts).

Because I know how Google screwed up the natural linking of the web with their algo, and I assumed that LL wasn't aware of it and wouldn't want it in SL - just like your assumptions about LL. But over time we've seen that LL appears to be quite happy with it, and with other things that hardly get a mention because they aren't as well-known. It wasn't because I saw anything wrong with arranging websites (parcels) to fit an engine's algo - it was my RL business, after all.

Now you're not only arbitrarily assuming LL's opinion on paying for picks, but you are also assuming the reason why they haven't said anything against it. And the reason you are making these arbitrary assumptions? I imagine it's simply because you have your own personal bee in your bonnet about it, and you want LL on your side - but, judging by what they say and don't say, they are not on your side. Personally, I imagine that LL actually wants SL business to operate as business does in RL, which includes promoting them in the same ways. But that's my imagination, and not an arbitrary assumption.

It was a lot more complicated than saying paid picks aren't allowed. I'll write a bloody blog post for them if they're too busy. It's really not a difficult thing to do. They set the rules of search as do any people running a search engine. Enforcement is tricky yes it is but it would completely end the debate of whether they should be being used, anyone using them after such a change in policy wouldn't have a leg to stand on arguing it was ok to carry out the practice.



No that's not the case. People argue here that one shoe shop gets higher relevancy than another shoe shop. Crap comment spam would lead to one shoe shop being less relevant than a goat farm that doesn't sell shoes at all. That's a key difference. If the link is not useful to the person performing the search then it's a poor quality link but if someone searching for shoes finds shoes via the link, search is doing its job.

That's so untrue. In one way, paid picks are the equivalent of paying people to walk round wearing sandwich boards. In another way, they are the equivalent of paying for links on websites - very normal.

Absolutely not. A paid pick is totally relevant to the place at which it points, therefore it's quality is as good as it possibly could be.

That's right. It's why people do things to improve their rankings. If you read what I wrote, you'll see that it makes no difference to the user whether or not places are ranked highly because of owner actions - users still have to go to them and see for themselves if the places suit them - just like normal RL. So it makes no difference to users.

Sling, you see me behind you because I'm a lap ahead. Catch up first, and then I'll "try to keep up" with you

The votes you speak of are not dishonest (except in your blinkered view) and, for users, the search results are just the same either way - they still have to go to the places to check them out for themselves.

Someone wearing a sandwich board is patently advertising.
How many people go around wearing sandwich boards that advertise places that they like? - and simply out of the goodness of their hearts -- They like the place so much that they want everyone to know!

The nearest RL equivalent to an SL avatar paid pick would be for someone to walk around in RL engaging others in conversation, and then slipping in a comment about this fabulous place that they found - without divulging that they are actually doing this for payment.





Of course a pick links to an appropriate target. The point is that a paid pick is dishonest way of increasing ranking.
The logic in your argument means that a link in an email or crap comment spam has a "quality as good as it possibly could be."

I said that a sandwich board is an equivalent to a paid pick - not that it's exactly the same. It's an equivalent because people look at other people's profile and picks - just like people look at a sandwich board that someone is wearing.

Your mention of "They like the place so much that they want everyone to know!" is the way that *you* would like the All search to work, but that hasn't been realistic since LL changed the way that picks are used, and LL expected it not to be realistic.

When Google came along, they weren't the first to use links as a ranking factor, but they were the first to put such great ranking weight on them - specifically the link text. When they became popular a few years later, their system effectively screwed up the natural linking of the web, and it remains screwed up. Google didn't expect it but LL did, because of what happened with Google. LL chose to use the Google system with the full knowledge that links would be optimised, and they are content with it. (As I said, I actually think they want SL business to operate as RL business does.) So LL intentionally changed the use of picks from "They like the place so much that they want everyone to know!" to a major ranking factor with its implications, and it won't change back unless LL dumps the Google system. In short, you can't have what you would like. LL changed it for you, and you need to accept that.

No it's not dishonest. Who are you to decide the reasons why people can add places to their picks? It's so not dishonest that people who offer to pay for picks openly say so and everyone who is interested can see. There's nothing dishonest about it. Perhaps you think that, because a pick doesn't state whether or not it's paid for, it's dishonest. In that case you'd be wrong. Do you also want to know the nature of every link that gets every high result in Google or Yahoo! or MSN, etc.? There's no way you can get that information, and it's not your concern anyway. Your concern is whether or not the results are relevant, and that's all.

Both of those link types have "quality as good as it possibly could be", as long as they are links to what they claim to be. Just because I dislike email spam and comment spam, doesn't mean that the links are poor quality in that respect. The difference between those and the All search is that with those, the receivers really don't want them at all, but with the All search, LL is does want the links, and may even want them to be 'arranged'. You can't claim that LL's lack of action is because they don't want it but can't yet deal with it. The examples you gave earlier aren't the same. To the best of my knowledge, they did comment negatively about ad-farms and such long before they did anything about them, but they haven't said one word against paying for picks. And since it makes no difference to users, I don't see any reasons for objections.

LL did *not change* the use of picks from "They like the place so much that they want everyone to know!".
LL used picks as a major ranking factor in the new search. That's all that they did.

After they did that, people began to buy picks so as to increase their ranking.
The buying of the picks is what degraded "They like the place so much that they want everyone to know!" into an untrustworthy indication of worth.

"They like the place so much that they want everyone to know!" is the reason that links and picks seem like a great way to rank results.
Paid picks destroy that.
If picks/links no longer reflect acclaim, than they have no place in the ranking algorithm.

It is the Pick payers who changed the meaning of Picks, and you need to admit that.





In all of this you ignore the effect on the user of search. It makes no odds that the sellers and buyers of picks are up front with each other.

Why would a search algorithm be designed to use links as a ranking factor?
Come along. It's a no-brainer.
The implication of a link was that a link reflected a recommendation/acclaim.

If ranking can be achieved by setting up a cloud of paid links, then the ranking is meaningless.
Not alone that, the practice undermines the business model of the engine
1) It delivers listings to the users that are not ranked by acclaim
2) It undermines the engines separate paid listing area.

You say it makes no difference to the users.
But of course it makes a very obvious difference.
Without the influence of artificially generated links, the rankings would reflect genuine acclaim.
They will never reflect subjective "quality", but they definitely would reflect general acclaim, which is often an indication of generally perceived quality.

Paid links destroy that intuitive interpretation of ranking.

Absolute balderdash. Sorry but this is complete and utter garbage. Every store owner worth their salt puts their stores on their picks. How many people would put a store in their picks? Serioulsy, get a grip, stores are hardly ever the sort of places people have picks for.

Think of it as a sort of "word of mouth" advertising. Advertising for free money that is. If someone wants to pay me to put their place in my picks then why not? I may even tell all my friends where to go to get free money. Most will not care what the place is selling, they just want the money and they will tell their friends where to get the free money too. It sure beats sitting for hours in a camping chair. At least they get paid and can still go about their business spending that free money elsewhere. I think it is a fair trade.

This misses the point of the argument.
The whole point of paying for picks is not to give free money to avatars.
The point is to give the wholly misleading impression that avatars are recommending what the place is selling.

You put it very well -
" Most will not care what the place is selling, they just want the money and they will tell their friends where to get the free money too"

You put it really, really well!

The people selling the picks are in no way intending to recommend what the place is selling. They just want the money.


However, the end-result of the process is that the Search rankings are ordered as if the avatarss were actually recommending the place.
This is where the dishonesty of pick buying comes in.

Cieran!!

This is irony from you, right?

Good man!

no one (as far as I can see) said it did

I (speaking only for myself) said that it makes it "legal" according to the rules of SL and LL

I (again speaking only for myself) have not said either way what I think of it is on a moral/ethical side

I didn't miss the point of the argument. It is gaming the system just like camping and bot use. As soon as some of them here start feeling like they are at a disadvantage drowning in competition of paid picks, they will start screaming for the removal of those from the ranking the same as they have been doing for the removal of traffic (which would actually harm social places in the process, but they don't care). Until then, enjoy their money.

well said Phil
(makes me want to look into ways to better improve my standings, because I feel I fit into that description of a store with desirable goods but not well known and getting business mainly via word of mouth)

I just can't afford the cost of improved search