Stolen business name?

That's right. There's nothing wrong with "affecting" other people, and I can only be responsible for moving other places down by 1 place. You find fault with that? You who optimises in your work, which, if you are successful, moves other websites down the rankings, each by 1 place. Tell me you find fault with it Sling - pleeeeze.

You are in error. That occured when I removed my traffic bots, which caused my ranking to plummet down the rankings. Slightly different from causing other places to move down by 1 position, wouldn't you say?

Sling. How many points do I have score against your arguments before you give up for now? I'm not actually winning any points - you are presenting them to me on silver platters.

Two posts in a row aimed at Sling, Phil?

Do you just keep hitting refresh hoping he will post something you can reply to?

It's the weekend. Go spend some time away from the computer. The bots will look after the store.

I will soon - live footy is on at 5:30ish

You try to evade the real point.
One Traffic botter on their own pushes all the lower ranking people 1 place down the rankings.
100 Traffic botters shove the honest people 100 places down on the rankings.

The question is not what effect *your* gaming has on the rankings of others.
The question is what effect the *gaming practices* used by a numbers of people have on the rankings of others.

What you were doing with your traffic bots, together with the traffic bots of others was to keep the positions of honest people in permanent "plummet " mode.

I haven't evaded anything but, apart from that bit, you are not wrong, Sling. The same is true of one optimiser who, by herself, can only push other people's webpages down by one position, but 100 optimisers can push other people's webpages down 100 positions. I agree with you. We both do exactly that.

In both cases, the owners of those other places and webpages can take steps themselves if they want to, and if they know how to, so it's perfectly fair. Either way, we both do it, and it's a perfectly good thing to do.

I challenge you to reproduce two transcripts of a Linden saying "Traffic bots are allowed".
Show us Linden Lab saying specifically that "Traffic bots are allowed".
I am aware of a report of a Live Chat exchange where a Linden didn't answer the question directly.
"Are Traffic bots allowed?" is such a simple direct question. All it needs is a Yes or a No. Show us that transcript.





The part that has you confusing "knowing the legal position" with coming to a firm belief and saying that it is based on Forum comments and the reading a UK website.



Could it have been along the lines of "STFU Couldbe. I already have all the professional advice that I need." ?




You should be the last person to lecture on "childish".

That presumes you are scoring any points; something that comes with more than its fair share of doubt. <.<

Not to any unbiased person, excep that I am not scoring points - they are being given to me.

It amazes me that here is a thread that names avatars and store names, has a copyright/trademark dispute and it rolls on undisturbed while one involving Vyrl Valkyrie is locked and deleted in a blink of an eye.

Can anyone say "random application of rules"?

We don't do the same thing.
The kind of optimisation that I do is more like the LL guidelines. I work with clients to come up with key phrases that can be worked into the content naturally. I look for IBLS to and from sites where the content is complementary and the linking adds to the value for people looking at the sites.

The gaming that you choose to include in your definition of optimising is dishonest.
I don't create or maintain keyword-stuffed websites.
I don't get involved in Link exchange scams designed purely to game IBL.
I don't create other sites or blogs to manufacture testimonials to a main site.
I don't flood people's blogs with comments just to get URLs out there.

We definitely and absolutely do not do the same thing.

My immediate reaction was " WOW - naming names!!"
But then the sheer fun of what I was reading took over.

It's strange all right.
Normally, a thread naming names in the OP gets a "can't name names in here.... TOS..." response almost immediately.

Maybe Phil should edit his OP?
I wouldn't be surprised if he would welcome a deletion of the entire thread at this stage.......

...... oooohhh!



ETA:

Perhaps the fact that the Named One came into the thread and said their piece has mitigated the thing.

There's no need to challenge me, Sling. You know the transcripts. If you want to see them, go and find them yourself - they are in this forum.

But I'll refresh your memory for you. When asked specifically if bots are allowed for the sole purpose of increasing the parcel's traffic score and thereby its ranking in the Places tab search, both Lindens said that it is not against the ToS, which exactly means that they were allowed at that time.

Stop splitting hairs, Sling. I am certain of the legal aspects, provided that "Prim Savers" is registerable as a trademark. Btw, it was the UK Government's website about trademarks - not just "a website".

Whatever STFU means, no it wasn't anything along those lines.

You're right. I'm not proud of myself for pointing out that childish part of your post, but I did.

I actually asked for it to be locked waaaay back - after it had served its purpose and it was being derailed for the sake it. If there's any bias involved, it's against me rather than the other way round.

As if you are anything but biased.

No, nothing is being given to you; you've given it all away.

You optimise pages, for the sole purpose of ranking them higher in the search engines. The methods are irrelevant - the optimisation, if you are successful, moves the page you worked on up the rankings, thereby pushing others down the rankings. Simple.

Remember that you tried to fault me because what I do moves others down the rankings - not the methods I use to do it. You suggested that me pushing others down the rankings "harms" them. We are both the same in that respect. We both try to move other people's pages down the rankings.

Your attempt to swing this bit onto the methods, and away from your allegation that I harm other people by moving them down the rankings, failed

You seem to have trouble with the english language

Not in the least. Just trouble with some people who only think that they know the score.

what law did he break ? it clear that they 2 different names . and from what i seeing from you i woundt want you stuff on how you acting in here.WHY DONT YOU DO THE RIGHT THING , SHUT UP ABOUT IT . LL seem to have see no wrong doing had they anything to primsaver ? mmmmm

Grief, now I can smell burning martyr.

You have had a lot of people show support for you, perhaps you'd do well to remember that.

As for this nit picking, I've got to say that you two have stopped being funny and are descending into tedious.

LL does not have robust policies and it does not enforce them consistently. In fact, to a jaundiced eye they appear to be designed to reward those who do sail close to the line.

If people take advantage of that then good luck to them. It is pointless expecting everyone to follow what "should" be the rules than work with the reality. Sadly, this is the main lesson LL/SL has taught me.

It was demonstrated years ago that to reach the top of search for a word all you had to do was stuff your sim with prims named with the term and just repeat the word in the text of the ad. LL did nothing about this. So, why should people play ethically when they're disadvantaged to such a degree?

There are lots of practices in here I don't like and if LL won't take steps to remove the most egregious transgressors then it encourages the rest. It's their platform and if they're happy with it then that's the way it is and the majority don't know or care whether it's right or wrong.

Phil makes his decisions on the way he wishes to advertise and promote. If LL don't growl at him then they are tacitly supporting him. Same with anyone else and their strategies.

If you don't like what you see then don't give it oxygen. In here an appeal to ethics is like asking a piranha not to savage you as you enter its water. It's laughable.

That's you in a nutshell.


You and 99 other gamers harm people by *cheating* in order to shove them 100 places down the rankings.

Your attempt to imply that ethical optimisation is the same as your cheating ---- epic fail.

Canada did not sign Madrid convention if I am not wrong...

Yeah, but it's something to do once in a while, in'nit?

I have no illusions about ever turning the minds of unprincipled people who abuse SL for their own gain. I see plenty of muppets like them in RL.

It's just a bit fascinating to have a few live specimens here in the Forums to poke at.

I really quite enjoy it when Phil goes into Baghdad Bob / Comical Ali mode.

I was mistaken; I was looking at the list of WIPO members, not signatories to the agreement. The USA did join, though, as did the UK, which might put you at some disadvantage if Phil moves swiftly.

sure, if he is the first of the two