where can I find pick camping places ?

Yes of course. I am in total agreement with you there. That's what is meant to happen. You pay for advertising and placement in the separate paid placement section of the search results window.
The users look at the screen and decide whether they should pay more attention to the paid placement or to the separate list of results which by implication are not influenced by payments.



You've lost me there. I don't see how someone got to a place before they sold their pick is relevant to the question of whether or not pick buying is good or bad.




I'm not in the least exercised by the umpteen other ways people get to parcels.
My point is that paid picks are damaging to SL as a whole.

They remove the meaning of Picks as part of a persons profile.
They belong in the same stable of dishonesty as do traffic bots.



Again I absolutely agree.





Perhaps the word "relevant" is causing confusion in the context of this discussion.
Perhaps the concept of "helpful to the searcher" would be a better measure.

A paid link is basically a way for an entity to spend money in order to get a higher ranking in the section of the search results that is implied not to be directly influenced by advertising spend.

Nope. "Relevant" is the correct word. It's the accepted word, and it's much better than "helpful to the searcher". But your comment might just reveal one of the places where you are going wrong, and it's something that gets a mention occasionally in these threads. Search systems hope and want to be helpful to searchers, and to achieve this, they aim at producing relevant results - relevent to the searchterm, that is, which is not necessarily relevant to the user, who may not have searched in the best way. What they cannot do is produce results that are always helpful to a specific searcher. They can only produce relevant results which may or may not suit a searcher.

Unfortunately, some people here think that the search system should produce the results that *they* want, and if it doesn't, it must be because people are influencing the results, and not because the search system can't do it. They simply don't understand search engines.

Now that's a worthy point. I'm not convinced you're right but it's a decent point. I'm not convinced you're right because advertising revenue will raise the profile of a parcel in one area that attracts more visitors full stop if done right and this affects the whole, but I'll give you credit for raising an issue that has merit.

This is what I was talking about when I said it's upto the people running the search to define their criteria, Linden Lab may well agree with you. A simple blog would really clarify that and although enforcement would be hard, this debate here would be ended at a stroke.

OK. "Helpful to the search" term then.

You say that a paid pick is relevant.
In that the paid pick points to a relevant parcel, this is a technical truth.
It would be a strange world indeed where a pick did not point to the parcel that it was picking. Saying that a paid pick is relevant is no more informative than saying that a sphere is round.


However -
What is their meaning?
How are they helpful to the search term?
In what way do they make the search results better for the user?
What is their effect?


Let's say that I engineer a few hundred picks that point to my parcel.
I can understand that the existence of these picks (of the right kind of avatars) will have the effect of increasing the parcels ranking is search results. This would benefit me. I would get greater visibility, which generally translates into greater numbers of visits. This is after all why people pay for picks.

So far, so simple.

How does the presence of those picks benefit anyone else?


I know that in the course of a discussion of traffic bots, you held that your higher ranking due to traffic bots was extremely helpful to the users. You held that because the ranking influenced to visit your store before visiting a lower ranked store, the lucky user saved a huge amount of time that would have been wasted in them visiting stores with crap products before they got to your store full of absolutely brilliant stuff.

Putting aside that particular bit of humbug, can you describe any real benefit to the user?

I don't agree with the premise that the All search carries that implication. The only implication that I can see is that the rankings are based on the relevancy that is determined by the page associated with each ranking. I see no implication as to how the pages came to have their relevancy for a searchterm - only that they are relevant for it according to the algorithm.

You could also say that the system implies that each page starts out as the equal of each other page, and then other factors, such as links, are taken into account to oder them, and you'd be absolutely wrong.

All you have is your own inferences. I don't see the implication that you mentioned anywhere.

I did say "implied not to be directly influenced by advertising spend."
The *directly* was a deliberate and important choice.

General advertising spend may or may not contribute in some way to higher search ranking.
Payment for links is a back-door to increased ranking.
The layout of the search results is clear and intuitive.
Those over there are the parcels that paid to get increased visibility.
Those over here are ones that did not pay to get increased visibility.
Let the user decide which listings they will pay more attention to.
That's the message. It is important for a search engine to be on the message. It's a matter of trust.

To say that those paying for picks are not paying the search engine for the increased visibility would be to avoid the principle at stake.
If there is a *direct* link between the amount you pay and the level of visibility, then this cuts right across the concept of main results list being free of such direct links.




Again, we have to understand why LL is not clarifying and policing these kinds of situations. I'll quote M Linden again...
"...partly 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."

Look at how long it took them to act on the ad-farm situation despite how incredibly bad the situation was
"Before the new policy, between 15%-18% of parcels were being used primarily to advertise, mostly on micro parcels. As of this post, that figure has dropped to 2% and is still dropping."
They didn't drop from 15%-18% because of the blog post. The thing had to be enforced. It took a lot of resources to do the job, and still residents were not satisfied that LL were doing enough.

LL have a number of problems that require heavy resources to solve. Policing the gaming of search is not going to be high on their priority list.
That in no way implies that gaming is not undesirable.

"Relevant" will do nicely.

A sphere is spherical, but there you go.

They intensify the relevancy.

You're on a roll

Why would they want to benefit anyone else? (See the last paragraph)

Your memory is very flawed.

If you wouldn't keep coming out with such humbug, I wouldn't need to put it aside. Think before you write

Earlier in this thread, I said that it makes no difference to the user - more than once. The system returns many very relevant places, and it doesn't matter to the user which they are, as long as they are relevant to what was searched for. So if a user searches on "sex beds", the results will be a listing of places with sex beds. It doesn't matter to the user if one place is higher and another is lower - s/he gets plenty of relevant places right there, high up in the rankings.

Any more questions?

I would think that LL indeed wants a measure of popularity to matter since they kept traffic in the equation, although they ratcheted down its effects substantially. They already know that traffic is abused by campers/bots. If they didn't want payments to affect search, they wouldn't have put in elements that can be influenced by paying others.

The logic there seems to be -
If they didn't want people to do <something> they wouldn't have created features that allow people to to <something>.

That's really funny. "They intensify the relevancy."
A parcel is either relevant or not. How can a parcel be intensely relevant?
Don't you mean "They increase the ranking"?

This one is really funny: You say "Earlier in this thread, I said that it makes no difference to the user - more than once."
This is yet another example of you speaking as if your say so settled the matter. I wonder why R and C have not taken you to task for RPing in god mode?




The idea that the ranking makes no difference to the user is totally ludicrous.
That really is the most brass-necked self-serving hogwash.
It illustrates your contempt for people in general.

You would hold that all the effort put into ranking algorithms by search engines is waste of time?
If the ranking makes no difference to the user, why bother to rank at all?

Phil! You're a total ranker.

No, Sling. They didn't "create" a feature for use, they decided to use an existing feature that was already being manipulated by payments.

Same difference really. Just go back a step.
The logic of what you proposed is they wanted people to manipulate that feature, even before the new Search came about.

The obvious question then is "Why would they want people to manipulate traffic and picks?"

There are those who would respond with the likes of " LL saw this as a way of getting money to people, regardless of the fact that it would involve the subversion of the obvious intent of the feature". ......Well, ok, they would leave out the last bit.


Another obvious question is "If LL wanted people to manipulate traffic, why are they now significantly reducing/eliminating the effect of traffic - as this will remove the motivation to manipluate traffic?"



There are those who with respond to both of those with the likes of "well, we can't know what LL intended. They might have well intended for treaffic and picks to be gamed to hell and back."



A more balanced response would be "What would a reasonable person without a vested interest make out of this?"



Another obvious question is "If LL don't want these practices, why do they not ban them?"
The answer has already been supplied by M Linden (see quotes in posts above).

If the ban the practices, they will have to divert resources to police them.
What do you thing would happen if LL banned traffic gaming and pick gaming tomorrow?

a. Ignore it. They don't really mean it.
b. Get a warning. Shit! They mean it - and they mean it for *me*
c. Well if I can't game search, nobody else can either. I'm way down in the ranking now.
d. Massive AR flood. Concierge calls. Massive forum postings. OpenSim-drama's bigger brother.
e. Masive numbers of "Can I have your stuff?" opportunities
f. All of a sudden LL have to run a bunch of abuse droids who do nothing but deal with search-gaming ARs

Let's be realistic. LL have much bigger issues on which to allocate resources.

However, this in no way means that search gaming is honest or ethical. It just means that LL can't deal with it.

And a new example of how well Sling reads...

The google search appliance already existed. And indeed Google search already used payed links.

Traffic does not play a big role in search all anymore because they bought an existing appliance. So that question has been answered a few times already. All it takes is reading.

Anyway, it does not matter that much. As said before, there is nothing that can be read anywhere pointing towards the viewpoint against paying for links. Except for Slings posts of course. LL never spoke out about it.

What I keep wondering about, is where optimizing stops and gaming begins. Is optimizing keywords and parcel description gaming as well? Is asking your friends to put up a pick gaming? Is asking in your product group gaming? Exactly on what point would I have turned from an honest business owner to a cheating unethical scammer

Another example of the fudge and spin put up by gaming apologists.
"And indeed Google search already used payed links."

Marcel, you are typing out of your ass!

Let's see what Google actually say on their own website. Would that be authoritative enough for you?


(Hi Phil!)


You're outed Sunshine!
Can't you read what Google have to say about paid links??
You don't understand plain English??

"Google works hard to ensure that it fully discounts links intended to manipulate search engine results,"

Google don't mind paid links ***as long as they are flagged as paid links***. If they are flagged as paid then Google can disregard the for authoritative ranking purposes.

Paid Picks as existing in the LL Search are in direct violation of Google requirements.

If avatar Profiles had a separate tab for paid Picks, and those Picks were disregarded for ranking purposes, there would not be a problem.


Note the category in which Google put that bit of information
- "Spam and other problems › Why should I report paid links to Google?"



Paid picks are an abuse. They are an attempt to cheat the authoritative ranking algorithm.
This is not Sling the Mother of God saying it. This is Google saying it.

If you don't have enough soul to realise the instance of cheating instinctively, than read what Google have to say on the subject.





It's very, very simple Marcel.
If you would not have obtained that pick without offering cash or free goods in return, then you are gaming the system.
The same with traffic. If the avatars would not stay on your parcel were it not for the fact that you are paying them to stay there, or you yourself controlling their presence, you are gaming the system.

No. I mean what I said - intensify the relevancy. E.g. a page is wholly relevant if it has a link pointing to it, with the searchterm in the link text. It is just as wholly relevant if it has two links pointing to it, each with the searchterm in it, but its relvancy is intensified. I.e. the second link doesn't make the page any more relevant - it just intensifies its relevancy.

In many cases I use things like "imo" and "it seems to me", but in this case, there is no need for it because what I said is true. Read and understand what I wrote and you will see that it's perfectly clear.

Are you being so obtuse intentionally, Sling? No matter. Since you seem to find it difficult to understand, I'll explain it again. (This is not an opinion, btw - it's a fact):-

A user searches on <searchterm>. The system returns a page of results, all of which are very relevant to what the user is looking for. Then remove a few of those results and replace them with a few other results that are equally very relevant to what the user is looking for. See what I mean now? It makes no difference to the user.

I don't have a store, nor do I have any stores in my Picks. When using search I always check the place on the map. If there are more dots than would be normal for a store, then I don't go there.

The only time I read picks is if I know the name of a creator and I want the LM to their store. And anyway I know where I like to shop for most things. Sometimes I see a piece of furniture or whatever that I like and will check by editing and then getting the name.

I would hazard a guess that the people who put shops in their picks for payment are newish residents and let's be honest, who is going to tp to a store in a newby's picks?

Bingo! Now you're getting there - at least as far as the All search is concerned. Not only did they want people to manipulate the ranking factors, but they also *needed* people to manipulate them for the system to work well. That's why they told us what things are used, even to the point of saying that we have time to optimise our parcels and objects for it.

Not long after the All search was launched, people were saying how bad it was, and I wrote a post to the effect that the system is good, but it's parcel owners who aren't adapting things to suit it. It NEEDS parcel owners to optimise for it, because the natural way of things in SL simply doesn't suit the system and it can't produce the best results.

See above.

The above wasn't about traffic, and neither is this thread, but you keep saying that LL is pulling back on traffic, or words to that effect, but there is no evidence for that. It's all in your imagination and wishful thinking. Just for the information though, LL didn't pull back on traffic with the All search - they intentionally ADDED traffic to the All search by contriving a means to do so. I've told you that already - your short-term memory seems to be a bit impaired.

Out of my ass even? Must look quite familiar to you then

The fact that Google's paid links are in a different color does not mean they are not there. The appliance does not make that difference, but if it did, it would make no difference. It would still be beneficial.


Not enough soul even... what a way with words.


So lucky chairs and money trees are gaming the system. And how do the optimizing parcel title, description, and items in search fit in? They are only optimized to get higher in search. Must be gaming as well?

Optimising stops, and gaming begins, when Slings arrives. She's presumably come across the word "gaming" with web engines. They can be gamed, but the methods that are discussed in this thread aren't gaming. It's just that Slings wants to paint anything she doesn't approve of in the blackest light possible, so she uses "gaming" to add a bit of effect.

No.
You're talking about actual content that the indexing can find. You would be well advised to ensure that your content is comprehensive and well presented. You would also be well advised to avoid keyword stuffing in that content. That's another thing that search engines don't like.



And so Marcel... what do you think about that bit from Goggle?
Would you dispute that they consider paid links designed to manipulate ranking as an abuse? They want people to report abusing sites to them. They see undeclared paid links as damaging.

You haven't commented on that very central point. That point is after all what the bulk of this discussion here is about.
Maybe you are still working your way through it and trying to understand it?

Sling, you haven't a clue, have you? Now you think that Google makes laws for the world. Dear oh dear. Let me explain it to you (I've been involved with Google since soon after their launch, so I think I'm qualified to do that).

Google makes rules for itself, and for nobody else. That's it in a nutshell, but I'll expand it since you seem to be a bit short on simple understanding.

A short time ago, Google decided that they didn't want to count links that were placed on websites for money. The reason is that there's a big market in selling links on sites for the purpose of improving rankings, not only in Google but in the other engines that followed Google's lead. They are free to do that because it's their engine and they can do what they like. To the best of my knowledge, Google is the only engine to do it. If any others have followed suit, they've done it since I stopped working in that field.

That's Google. This is SL/LL. Notice the difference, Sling. One is Google and the other is not. Each search engine makes rules for itself and for nobody else. LL has made no such rule for their engine. On the contrary, LL has stated what counts as links, so that we users can optimise our parcels for the new search, and they stated it in advance so that we had time to do it.

I'm sorry, Sling, but a web search engine's rules do not apply to all other engines, and Google's rules do not apply to the engines of Yahoo!, MSN, or LL's All search. The only person here who has been "outed", as you put it, is you Sling - for being so obtuse as to think that Google makes rules for all. And you outed yourself.

Hi Phil!

Why not write to Google and tell them they have it completely wrong on paid links designed to manipulate rankings? You have read through that page by now? - for the first time in your life apparently.


Tell them that all links are "relevant" and that paid links "intensify relevancy".

Go on!
All you have to lose is whatever shred of credibility remains to you.

Ah but picks they can find as well. My content is well presented, and picks make it easier to find my page. Nothing but winners. The problem would rise if I put up things in search that are not really there. THAT is search abuse, because people come to my shop to see that I do not sell what I promise. When they come now, I deliver what they were searching for. What more could they wish for?


Nothing to understand on that part. Google has paid links, and chooses to display them in a different color (or on the sidebars). Good choice too. Fact remains that Google has paid links, they generate a large income too.
And why do you think that undeclared payed links are damaging, and declared (payed to Google) are not? Could it be that is because they do not see any revenue on those? As long as they get the cash it is god, as long as they do not get the cash it is abuse? Come on, even you must see that.

Fact remains that Google has payed links, and as long as you pay Google and not anyone else, it is okay. Plus they display it in blue.

The search appliance does not know the difference between a payed link and a non-payed link. They do not display it in blue.

What was said is that LL bought a system in which payed links were already there. Was that statement wrong or not?

I know, I am not Phil, but this one is too funny to let go
As I said in my past post, Google does have paid links. So they know about them. If they were really as ethical as you want, they would not let people pay for links at all, don't you think?

Ranking first in Google is accepted if you pay Google, and not accepted if you pay someone else. Then it is abuse. Go figure.


In that case, would it not be smarter to send you as representative? Apparently you have less to loose...

You really don't have a moral clue in you head do you?

What Google say about paid links designed to manipulate ranking explains why such undeclared links are damaging (to everyone bar the person engineering the links).

The fact that LL do not currently try and do the correct thing to preserve the authority of search ranking has no bearing on the question of whether or not the practice is dishonest and unethical.


Your spin is just a damage limitation exercise.
You've made great play about me being a sole voice against the practice.

I do believe that any reasonable person would read what Google have to say, they would see the sense of it, and agree that undeclared links in LL's search are an abuse.