Spamming The SL Search Systems

Interesting (and to go on a bit of a tangent, after all this discussion is so tired and boring, debating the meaning of words? Yawn...) because, to be honest, if I'm looking for trees or houses or some landscaping thing (which is the only thing I ever really buy) then I do indeed search for "tree" or "house" and go from there. How can you know specifically the exact type and colour of shoe you want upfront? That seems crazy. I'm looking for pretty trees, not "50yr old beech tree with 20 branches"

That's an example of why a simple ban on traffic manipulation will make the Places tab search results worse and not better, but that's a different topic.


Desmond:

1. Those rows of "low prim furniture" would be keyword stuffing.

2. I won't cry foul at all if you do as you suggested. I don't cry foul at what anyone does, except promote things that they don't have.

3. The reason I went out and told people this stuff is because "spam" is one of the words that a few people try to insult others with, when they don't like something. It came up today when someone asked "are bots allowed", and someone's reply was that "bots are spam" (among other things), meaning that bots are wrong, so I thought I'd write about spam.


Amaranthim:

You'll know some of this but... The html page is the parcel's page in the All search system. They are what the system ranks for a searchterm. The main content of the page is put there by the parcel owner in the form of the names and descriptions of objects, and s/he can choose exactly what text to put in the page, by arranging objects/prims accordingly. I'm not talking about the parcel's name and description - we all know that they are on the page. I'm talking about the page's main content.

Another form of html page manipulation was stopped very recently. Object names and descriptions could contain html code, so pages were created that both looked a lot nicer and ranked a little better. Links to other parcels could be included in that way, which could be particularly useful since all links are not equal in the system.

The html code input was stopped, but arranging for the exact text that you want on the page, with a view to higher rankings, can be done and is being done.

Thank you Phil for the explanation- that helps

Try a search for men's hair.

It's not keyword stuffing. It's "keyword putting" Keyword stuffing is a particular seo method. Including all the relevent keywords, even one after the other as you wrote them, isn't it - not even remotely.

i was just last night talking to a person on how people use words for the wrong thing so much that it becomes the norm..

Like gay,Gay and Ghey one means Happy and jolly..one means .hey i'm gay and i'm proud..another means ..hey dewd your being gay or that house is ghey..i'm still trying to figure out if it means like bad paint job or if the house is actally gay lol

Fat and Phat..one means over the limit or something people cook with..
the other means wow you're hot!!!

theory to us means "still not a fact yet" but in science it means "oh yes it's a fact cause we said so..we are scientists for god sake we know" lol

now google and search engines are going to tell us what spam is when it comes to a search..when in reality they should be telling us about spam when we use their email accounts..

we get cluttered into word changes because a fad takes over and tries to change it's meaning or expand on another meaning that has nothing to do with it's area..

Just Crazyness on the loose!!! hahahaha

i search for specific things because i know that i will get better results returned to me. If i am looking for a beach house, tree house, brick house...then i add the adjective. As for not knowing that i was red high heeled sandals...hey, im a woman and ive a got a kickin red outfit and i need shoes to go with it LOL. i suspect that you probably do have a more defined idea of what you want but just dont use search that way. Most people that ive spoken with in my classes etc do look for specifics...gold pocket watch, oak tree, birch tree, palm tree, etc.

Well, I agree with Humpty Dumpty. When I use a word it means exactly what I wish it to mean and if the meaning is complex I pay it extra. If you disagree with my definition of a word then that's your problem not mine.

Language isn't pinned down in dictionaries, ever unchanging and frozen in time. It adapts and changes as it is passed from person to person and situation to situation. It's silly to say that a word was used in the wrong way. Who is the master? Do you use words or do words use you?

That's all convenient self-justification, based on knowing LL has no rules against gaming their system.

IMO spam isn't relative. It's not unethical and annoying because it's against the rules. You have that backwards. It's against the rules (in sensible places) because it's unethical and annoying. That LL is too short-sighted or libertarian to take a stand against it doesn't make it less annoying or less unethical.

Edit: I'd disagree that keyword stuffing should be called "spam", but that doesn't mean I think it's less annoying or unethical.

Phil, you did a great job manipulating your object names and descriptions to get your store listing far neater than most. I don't see a problem with that at all, provided your text still describes what's actually there. The html was probably stripped to prevent maliciousness or serious assaults on the senses.

I have no issue with "keyword stuffing" as long as the keywords being used have directly to do with the product or parcel being promoted.

If I sold widgets, I shouldn't be ostracized for putting in keywords like gadget, doohicky, gizmo, thingamajig and so forth. If I added keywords like neko, gor, Linden, freebie and sex, however, that would be spamming the index.

I see this done all the time. Combined with the ridiculous notion of paying more for a classified ad to make it appear higher in the listings, it's caused search to be almost worthless at times.

i agree ghost...that is one reason i love all search because i can drill down to the actual coordinates of an item i am looking for. if there is none listed then i move on to the next search result. I will say that at times i have removed items from my store and forgotten to take out the key word from my land description etc. it wasnt intentional, just an oversight.

I disagree. Language is flexible, but definitions are not. If words could mean whatever each of us chooses to make them mean, communication would break down because no one would really know what anyone else was actually saying. We have to agree on definition to be able to communicate effectively.

oh look at the philosophy going on here..lol
there is no spoon hahahaha
there is a time and a place for slang..when it comes to defining a subject like say.mmm bacon would i use beef or am i letting the word use me by saying ham? lol

too, too true... for example (and i will only be using the original, long accepted spellings and pronunciations to make this point). in a single block area, the following phrase will earn one anything from an angry slap to a blushing "thank you":


you are one sick, fat bitch.

I don't actually do very much with my page, buit there are plenty who do. You may see a problem with those pages - I don't know.

Actually, it's not. The fact that only each search engine can say what is spam for itself is known, accepted and agreed with throughout the entire search engine industry, of which I was a part for many years.

key word stuffing:
clothes, clothing, goth, dark, shoe, shoes, attachment, attachments, ...
analysis: acceptable (even if it's ugly and I'll probably avoid listings that display this)

key word spamming:
clothes, clothes, clothes, shoes, shoes, shoes, ...
analysis: unacceptable (and possibly useless to boot, definitely a place I avoid if I see this)

neither to be confused with spam (unsolicited communications)

and I'll disagree with you on the point of spam being defined by the search engine in question, as it is the user definition that matters, and the reason why most search engines are continually modified to eliminate that same perception, and provide listings that are relevant and not overly repetitive.

abusing a known flaw to provide repetitive or even irrelevant content is still spamming, now matter how you slice it.

I'm confused...Xstreet does not permit using keywords?

my point was they don't allow you to false advertise..
if LL brought that to the in world search there would be a lot less running around to places saying they had something when they didn't..

Ah, ok, thanks Ceka. I agree that is lying.

I may be wrong (I'm sure Phil can tell me!) but I think the page returned from All Search only shows the first X number of items, although X is a fairly high number.

So the "red high heeled sandals" (or whatever) may actually be in the shop, just not listed, if it's a big shop with lots of shoes.

I usually go on the context - if they are indeed a shoe shop (and I'm looking for red sandals) then I'll probably TP and have a look anyway.

If they don't appear to sell shoes at all, or just a few, I'll give it a miss.

actually language is based on consensus of shared concepts... so while you may use a word to mean whatever you want, it's still improper if it doesn't communicate what you wanted to get across. ie language is a tool, built and maintained by it's users, neither patron nor servant.

When the All search was introduced I got the impression that that was true, but my impression was wrong.

Dancing around the meaning of certain words and phrases is a distraction from the underlying behaviour.

'Spam' and 'Search engines' wtf?
Yup. There is a concept of search engine spamming recognised in the industry.
See http://searchenginewatch.com/3483601


Saying that something perfectly acceptable purely because it is not against the rules is to play with the meaning of the word 'acceptable'.

Look at it this way:
Ad-farming - is there anything god to be said for the practice. Are there any here apart from ad-farmers who long for the days when the practice was in full swing?
And yet ...
Ad-farming was "perfectly acceptable". There wasn't an explicit rule against it.

There isn't a rule in the TOS that explicitly forbids search engine gaming. Gaming Search is the same sort of "perfectly acceptable" as was ad-farming.

LL are due to blog soon on measures to deal with traffic-bots.
Now why on earth would they expend any energy on such a thing if they thought that traffic bots were actually "perfectly acceptable" in the meaning that most reasonable people would put on the phrase in the circumstances.

Why is there not a simple rule against traffic bots right now? Easy. The purpose of the rules would be to prevent an underlying behaviour. If a rule is made that explicitly prevents bot-in-a skybox/cave, then all the bots gather in the main parcel and in the operators would claim that they are "perfectly acceptable" because they don't break the rules.



Look at it this way, the low-life bankers and brokers that spewed out sub-prime loans, repackaged them with other debts and sold the packages on were "perfectly acceptable". They didn't break explicit laws.
They totally screwed economies and peoples' lives for the sake of a fast buck for themselves.
-----And hey! It was all "perfectly acceptable".