where can I find pick camping places ?

All of this wilfully ignores the question of whether or not the practice of buying Picks is honest or ethical.
The proposition that LL might have intended the destruction of the meaning of Picks is a mighty flimsy kite to be flying.
"Not knowing LL's intentions" is just more spin.
Once a person takes a reasonable view of the situation, it becomes very clear what is going on.

Any reasonable person should see that LL wanted a better Search. Picks was such an obvious general indicator of the worth of places in the eyes of users.

Why did LL not foresee the gamers coming to destroy it?
Why do they not fix it now and remove Picks as a factor?
...the reason is the same as always.


The subject of the below is not Search, but it does illustrate the culture that would try to ignore implications and would eventually respond in a ham-fisted way.


[/url]

Simple!

1. LL "believes in the innate goodness of Second Life Residents"
I think M would have been more on the nail if he had used "hopes" rather than "believes"

2. LL hesitates to do anything that will involves them in consuming resources.


They wanted a new Search.
They bought one in - the Google appliance

They hoped (the idiots!!) that the greedy of SL would not screw it up. It would take too many resources to try and make it near-unscrewable and to police that.
The greedy immediately set to screwing it up in order to maximise their own profit.

Can't the turds simply agree with SLing so we can move on?

Just ignore and let this one die

I told them in the blog where they announced the new search. I explained it fully, and they were participating in the replies, so I can't imagine that it wasn't read.

You may well be right about where paid picks falls in LL's minds, but we don't know that, and neither does Sling, which is who I was addressing. I agree that paid picks being intentional is far less likely, and I haven't suggested that they may be intentional. What I have suggested is a little different - that LL *may* specifically want SL businesses to run the same as RL web businesses and, if that inlcudes optimising for search by things like paying for picks, then so be it. Another possibility is that LL sees search in pretty much the same way that they see SL - it's your world, you imagination. I.e. they provide the system and step back while the residents make use of it.

So I've only made suggestions, except for one thing - I insist that none of us know LL's attitude to paying for picks, including Sling, who seems to think that she does know.

Don't, i'm just tired of seeing peoples argument that as long as it's bringing business we can have as much ethic as a sociopath.

If you have, then I've missed it. What can I say.

I don't see it as having destroyed anything. Changed it slightly, but that's all - i.e. the number of paid picks you can see in people's profiles is miniscule compared to the number of normal picks you can see. So what? Live with it.

That's right.

Get up to date, Sling. You're spending far too much time in the past. Unlap yourself. Do you think anyone cares that a miniscule number of picks in profiles don't actually point to places that the people liked so much that they wanted to share with other people? Get real, Sling.

Destroyed? LOL. (see above)

Nobody is stopping you from moving on. And I see no reason to agree with someone who makes no sense.

No it doesn't. Only the bit you quoted doesn't mention either of those. I've said before that paying for picks is in no way dishonest. And it is in no way unethical. Happy now?

Who said that? You didn't answer my questions, Sling - are you awake?

Sling. You continue to dig yourself into deep holes. You state LL's intentions as though you know them. Chapter and verse please - because it's clear that you're full of waffle.

Of course LL wanted a better search, and they produced a better search. What's your point?

Nothing has been destroyed, except perhaps your ability for rational thought.

You tell us, Sling. You're the one who thinks she knows their thoghts on the subject.

Enough said

Wake up Sling! Repeat after me - "I do *not* know LL's desires, intention, hopes, or any other LL view concerning search". Say it 10 times, slowly, and if you haven't grasped it by then, write it down 100 times, or until you finally get a grasp of reality.

Your problem Phil is that you appear to believe your own propaganda.
You say that as if your simple saying of it made things so.






Wake up Phil! Repeat after me - "The question of honesty and ethicalness of search gaming is not defined by LL's thinking." Say it 10 times, slowly, and if you haven't grasped it by then, write it down 100 times, or until you finally get a grasp of honesty and decent ethics.

Most people would say that you were either wilfully ignoring it or have serious problems with comprehension of the written word.




1. What is your accurate number for "miniscule" in this context?
Is it not obvious that the number of places trying to use paid picks will grow? Once traffic if finally killed off as a ranking in any search, what do you think the parcels who currently use traffic bots and cam devices are going to try?
Get real Phil!

2. It is not the overall number of paid picks as a proportion of all picks that is the key.
The key is the concentration of picks on a small number of targets.
In pretending not to realise this, you make yourself look incredibly stupid.
Get real Phil!

I do like the way you are unable to reply to most of what I write, Sling

But it does make things so, Sling. You say somthing is dishonest, and I say it isn't. Where does that leave us? You believe what you say, and I believe what I say. Anything else?

"The question of honesty and ethicalness of search gaming is not defined by LL's thinking."
"The question of honesty and ethicalness of search gaming is not defined by LL's thinking."
"The question of honesty and ethicalness of search gaming is not defined by LL's thinking."

Oh wait a minute! The question of "honesty and decent ethics" is a matter of opinion - you think one thing, I think another, LL may think another (but we don't what LL thinks ), and other people have their own views too. So repeating that 10 times is just plain wrong.

You see, Sling, you have very set opinions about it all, but they are only your personal opinions. You may point to some people who agree with you, but there are others who don't agree with you. Your opinions are exactly like mine - they are good for you, as mine are good for me. I say that there is nothing dishonest about paying for picks, or being paid for picks, and for me, that's absolutely true. You say it's unethical, and I say it's not.

Do you see what I'm saying, Sling? Just because *you* believe something, doesn't make it true. It merely makes it your opinion/belief. The same applies to all of us, of course. I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong. So what? You do things your way, and everyone else will do things theirs. It's the way life works. Live with it, Sling.

Yes indeed! Enough said!
That's a classic Phil attempt at put-down and misdirection.

You try to avoid the contemplation of what M Linden blogged:-

"...because Linden Lab has always been pretty free-form and believes in the innate goodness of Second Life Residents and partly because imposing limits require that we hire staff to enforce them."

Do I have an insight into LL's thinkng? Yes!
How do I get this insight? Oooooh, stuff like reading what M Linden writes in the officail blog...

That message in that quote from M isn't particularly news to anyone with an interest and an inquiring mind.
However it does put it to those who defend unethical behaviour on the basis the LL have not banned it.


LL really want people to behave decently and wish to avoid the costs of going in and enforcing decent behaviour as far as possible.
Yes. I do know this.

Hey! Nobody is perfect - not even me Maybe I saw it and decided that it's such a non-argument that I ignored and forgot it. Who knows?

Er... there is no accurate number to reflect "miniscule", Sling. Look it up if you're not sure what it means.

Sling, stop trying to wind it up. If I look stupid to you, it will be because you are incapable of understanding what's being said, but that's alright. I'd wondered if the reason you don't reply to much is because you can't come up with reasonable responses. Maybe that's true.

Let's cut to the chase, Sling. Hardly anyone gives a damn about paying for picks and your opinions of it. I certainly don't. If you want to believe that it's dishonest, unethical, and is destroying picks, feel free. Nobody cares. As I said earlier, more than once, you've already lost the battle - long before this thread - but if you want to continue tilting at windmills, please do. The sails will continue knocking you off your horse

Oh Sling. You have no idea what LL's views are about search. In the words of someone not a million miles from here, "get real".

According to your theory, LL takes a stand against ad-farms (you mentioned them earlier), which naturally means that they are against everything that *you* don't like. And LL believes in the innate goodness of SL users, therefore LL believes that everything that *you* think is not good is actually bad. In the words of someone not a million miles from here, "get real". It's truly amazing that LL's opinions and yours agree so remarkably well

So then you must have read the blog where the search system and how to optimize for it was explained?

And when LL explained that picks was one of the search metrics, weren't it very obvious that people would go and try to get more picks for their place? So if you claim to have an insight to LL's thinking, tell me how paying for picks is wrong? After all, LL did tell us that in order to get a good search result, we needed (among other things) picks. And whether I ask all my friends (provided I have a big social SL network) to add my store to their picks, or give out some cash to total strangers, does not make any difference: I try to get people to put my place in their picks.

Apparantly in your idealistic world, people create and sit back, and eventually they will be found and become successful. Well I wish you good luck with conducting business that way.

A big part of becoming successful is marketing, and part of marketing is a good search result. Something you can achieve by following the guidelines that LL provides, and guess what: one of the things you have to try and get are picks. Eventually you will get those picks (take Phil as an example, with lots of picks for his place, without him paying for them), as long as customers know how to find you. Which is damn difficult without being ranked well in search.

No matter how you twist it, LL never told they mind that people pay for picks. That is the only thing we know. They told us we need picks for search, after that it stopped. No matter how much insight you think you have, this is all there is.
That is why you always keep coming back with "dishonest" and "unethical", values you hold the key for it seems. Dishonest it the biggest nonsense there is, as you cannot pay for picks without being open about it. You need a big board on which people can enter, after all. So nothing dishonest about that. And unethical... well it is quite abvious against your ethical values. So be it. It is not against mine, it is not against the values of the people joining the various pick systems. So stop pretending you are the ethical voice of SL. You are entitled to your opinion as we all are, but no one brings it so much as a religion as you do. There is not one truth out there, when we talk about ethics.

Biggest proof of that is the example of the sex with a 14 yr old. As soon as a female starts bleeding, she is biological ready for procreation. In some cultures, these days it is wrong to have sex with anyone under 18. In others that age is 16. And in some, 12 is perfectly okay.
The above has got nothing to do with picks camping, but if does illustrate very well that etics do vary a lot and there is not one truth. So stop pretending there is.

It should have been obvious to them that some people would find a way of gaming the system, but then ..."because Linden Lab has always been pretty free-form and believes in the innate goodness of Second Life Residents and partly because imposing limits require that we hire staff to enforce them." (M Linden)



And when LL explained how to buy land, subdivide it and sell it, .......
By your reasoning, they didn't say then that micro-parcel extortion was not to be done, and therefore extortion was not unethical behaviour.
When the situation created by the greedy got completely out of hand, they stamped on ad-farming.

By your reasoning, when they introduced dwell and then traffic, they didn't ban the artificial generation of traffic by zombies, so using zombies to game search eas not unethical.
Now they are pulling back on the effect of traffic in response to the abuse.

Pick buying is nothing more than an abuse by the greedy.

And yet you keep coming back to respond to my opinions...


Admit it Phil.
You don't like my opinions, but you just luuuurrrrvee being around me!


*smoooooooch!*

Nonsense. This has nothing to do with gaming the system. They told us we needed picks as part of our search ranking, that's it. YOU think it is wrong to pay people for them. I think it is just as wrong as asking friends to put your place in picks. Neither your nor mine opinion is the one and only truth, yet you present it as the truth.


Show me where LL told residents that they needed to get 16m2 parcels with spinning adds to earn money? They told us we needed picks for our search ranking. Is it so hard to see the difference?


By my reasoning, the minute they showed that traffic was important for search ranking, they knew damn well that people would make sure they had traffic. First camping, then bots. Hell, the ones profiting the most from those concurrency numbers is LL themselves probably.


YOU think it is abuse. Many people think different.

Sling, your main issue is that you present your viewpoints as the one and only truth. As soon as you stop doing that, you might be taken much more seriously. The difference between you and about any other poster in this thread, is that they clearly show they have an opinion, and you show you have the truth in your hand.

And it hasn't occured to you that they accepted it? It's not a case that it "should have been obvious to them". The fact is, they *knew* that picks would be 'arranged' before they launched the All search. It seems to me that they accept it. It also seems to me that they may welcome that people are 'arranging' picks because they help the system to work better.

And when they learned that some private island owners were scamming people, they did nothing. Ans when they learned about traffic bots and camping, they did nothing. And when they learned that <insert something else that you don't like> they did nothing. Etc. etc. Why? Probably because they want SL to work according to the residents rather than it be a police state.

Pulling back? I don't see it being pulled back.

And making statements like that is the unethical habit of those whose purpose is to mislead people. The truth is that picks buying is promoting a business, and nothing more.

LOL.

I keep coming back to correct your misleading of people. That's all.

Covering both your post and Marcel's above it:

The truth is that picks buying is promoting a business by unethical means, and nothing less.

There! Fixed it for you.



Promoting a business is good.
Not all methods of promoting a business are good.

This is a none-to-subtle point that you seem incapable of admitting.

There's nothing to "admit". There is nothing unethical about promoting a business by paying for picks, or by any other method of improving search rankings. You are, of course, perfectly free to think differently, but I'll tell you what. You promote your business in ways that you feel comfortable with, and other will promote theirs in ways that they feel comfortable with. In other words, when you do it, do it your way. Ok?

Show me where LL told residents that they need to buy picks to earn money?
They told us we need picks for our search ranking. They didn't say that that we should buy them. In the same way they didn't tell us that we needed to get 16m2 parcels with spinning adds to earn money. The greedy minority worked that one out for themselves.

Ditto for traffic bots and campers.



So why do you think that Traffic is no longer has the weight in new Search that it used to in the previous search?
If LL wanted that inflated traffic, why are they moving to kill it off? The influence of traffic on ranking is what drove the abuse. Without the perceived benefit of high traffic numbers, the abuse stops of its own accord with out LL having to get involved in ARs and policing a policy banning traffic abuse.

Why don't LL come out up front and lay down strict rules when they produce some new product feature? - as you seem to require them to do.

"...because Linden Lab has always been pretty free-form and believes in the innate goodness of Second Life Residents and partly because imposing limits require that we hire staff to enforce them." ( M Linden)

Any attempt to justify a behaviour as honest or ethical on the basis that LL did not ban it is a bogus justification.

Can I answer this one?

It's because of the Google system, Sling. It uses links as part of its ranking algorithm, and it isn't realistic to produce links on html pages that would reflect a place's traffic with any degree of accuracy. They can hardly add a link to a page for every minute of traffic that a place gets. If nothing else, the system wouldn't handle such mega-huge pages. It would be possible to pull the numbers from the database, but the system doesn't accomodate such things. So they settled on making a set of 12 pages of links for the whole of the traffic in SL, which provide a *very* low resolution. In other words, they didn't have any realistic options except to leave traffic out altogether.

It's more telling that they came up with a way of *including* traffic in the new system, as it's entirely unnecessary for the system to work well.

Another reason is that we already have a traffic-based system, so there's no need for another one. The new one was to be based on relevancy, and therefore better.

If they were really "pulling back" on traffic, they wouldn't even have included those 12 pages.

There fixed it for you...

(for some reason you do not understand that just because you have an opinion, that doesn't mean it is the "truth"

as phil said, it is your opinion, it is not the way it is for everyone... please try to understand that not everyone will agree with you... and just let it go..