The new search system

QFlulz

Actually, I think he _does_ have a point..

But some degree of gaming/optimization IS necessary for search to work. How many people complain every day that they can't find [whatever]? That a search for whatever it is turns up irrelevant results? We are now past the point where keyword spam alone will get you eyes on your parcel. I don't care how good a creator you are of whatever it is, if you don't do something to make yourself found in the new system, you deserve what you get in terms of sales, especially if you don't do much other stuff in the way of marketing.

And that leads us back to Suzanne's question ...


If everyone becomes equally adept at "optimization" then there will be no rankings. Because everyone would have the same "score"

Which by the way is the answer to Yumi's question of why LL doesn't provide all the necessary "optimization" information to residents, much like they wouldn't supply the exact traffic formula.

In the big scheme of things the "new search" isn't any better than the "old search", it is just harder to figure out how to game for rankings.

Once the gaming is perfected, LL will have to come up with a "Newer Search" that is again more difficult to figure out.

But we are not equal, and it will show. Someone will be more efficient at something and have more prims for objects....Someone will have a better reputation and therefore more picks... even identically worded parcels won't be 100% equal unless they both are completely unknown and empty.

There is nothing fundamentally different between gaming the new search and gaming the old search.

Only the Methods have changed.

There is nothing that is inherently more fair in the new system than the old one.

In the long run the simple shopkeeper and the club owner who wants to run a fun venue are not better served by either.

Its just that now ..

instead of campers/trafficbots cranking up the traffic results

you instead have to do x,y,z to up rankings.


In the short term it will seem more fair because people aren't as good at gaming x,y,z as they were at gaming traffic. Thats all.

Yes, but whereas camping/traffic bots are unnatural and irrelevant to what you actually sell, and lagging everyone else out to boot, what is wrong with doing x, y and z? What is wrong with listing the objects you have for sale in search? What is wrong with putting the keywords of what you sell in the title and description? Even the dreaded keyword spamming is going to take a hit - there is discussion of reducing the size of the description field precisely for this purpose. What is unethical about putting out a full and accurate description of what you sell?

There was nothing inherently wrong with traffic.

It was a measure of avatars who visited your location.

It was the excessive gaming that made the metric useless.

---------------------------

The problem will come in when people who are really good at "optimizing" the search will be able to walk in and give a brand new store with inferior quality products a top ranking, while a store with a proven track record is bumped down to page 3 or 4.

As was the OP's question.

Basically all the new search does is akin to reseting where the old search was at with Traffic in 2004.

--------------------

The are some variables that will make the system Unfair no matter what.

First - people can have as many accounts as they want.

Thus whether its Traffic or Picks or voting or Teleports or money spent or times mentioned in chat by unique avatars *any* system will be vulnerable to influence based on this.

Second - People make money based on how high they are up in the rankings

Thus they will spend money to influence where they stand in the rankings. This system inherently favors those with more money to spend to get and keep the ball rolling.

You are being overly simplistic. You're essentially saying that anytime anyone has to do anything, the system is unfair and broken. By referring abstractly to "x,y,z" you equate all behaviors. Clearly not all behaviors are morally/ethically identical. I mean this is so incredibly obvious that a specific example shouldn't be needed, but since apparently you need an example let me give you one: compare/contrast saying hello to someone, and stealing their wallet. Are these behaviors the same?

Again, forgive the obviousness of the example, but your statement really was that ridiculous. Getting more specific, note that the "x,y,z" in this situation includes things like, say, the name of the parcel. Are you really suggesting that a search that ranks parcels for having a name matching the search terms is equivalent to a search that ranks parcels based on a number with no direct connection to the content of the store? If I search for, say, "medieval clothing," I WANT stores with names like "Unfir's Fine Medieval Clothing," so what's wrong with expecting people to give their stores names like that?

I used x,y,z because the details are not really relevant in the long run.

You don't have to believe me, in a couple years time it will be obvious to everyone.

The details ARE relevant. Why should a store that doesn't even put what it sells in the parcel name rank above one that doesn't?

The truth is that there is no perfect system and grousing about them all is a pointless exercise. Someone is always going to abuse the system somehow.

I think Colette wants search to operate as a sort of Consumer Reports style system. That's a good idea, you should get on that.

Even that can be gamed, if you put the right people with no integrity in place.

So long as humans are involved, any system will be abused.

crap, you're right, I didn't even think about bribery.

I think because I do not laud the new system everyone assumes I think it should be removed.

Evidently you can only be for or against something these days, you cant see the flaws in something without wanting it immediately stuck down anymore.

Sorry, but I do not subscribe to the binary opinion mindset.

Ah well forgive me for making that assumption. I guess when the comments you make are all negative/disagreeing, especially despite your debating opponent commenting that their own opinion is not completely for or against, I unconsciously make the conclusion that your opinion is completely negative.

Snark and Colette:

"Gaming" a search engine is spamming a search engine - cheating. It's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of how the word is globally used in the search engine world, and nobody here has more experience of the search engine world than me. You can take it or leave it, but that's what "gaming" means when it concerns engines, and your personal opinions and preferences won't change anything.

Optimising for a search engine is not gaming the engine. It is not cheating, or even attempting to cheat. Again, it's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of understanding what the word means in the context and the world of search engines, which some people here plainly don't.

Too true - nobody should believe you.

Let's get it straight. The discussion in this thread is about optimising for the search engine, and not about gaming it. You choose to think of optimising and gaming as the same thing, but you are wrong. You offer nothing to support your idea - it's merely the way you see it personally, which is fine for you, but don't try to foist it on other people.

It is no more gaming in SL to use the tools given to bring attention to your biz than it is to use things in RL for the same purpose. In my town folks are not allowed to out up open house signs for real estate on the side of the road for homes for sale which is crazy and is a relatively new law. So, large subdivisions hire folks to stand on major street corners with very large directional signs. There is a law against posting signs, but no law against someone standing in the same spot holding one. And, the local authorities do not object. Is that gaming...i say they got creative and did what they needed to do. Same principle applies in SL.

It is not illegal to use key words, make sure everything in your store is "show in search", ask folks to add you to their picks, keep parcels separate, add more to your own picks etc. And frankly, even using bots or campers is not illegal. i see this the same way as the guys on the corners with the big signs, buying the largest add in the yellow pages, dropping flyers to homes, sending out advertising flyers in the mail, going door to door for sales, etc in RL. Does everyone like all those things? Prob not...are they illegal...NO.

I am seeing lots of witch hunting for a variety of things in SL right now and it really bothers me. Just my two cents...

That's right. The Google system expects certain things. (1) It expects the html page Title tag to contain what the page is about. (2) It expects the clickable words in links to the page to describe something about the page, and to be unbiased. (3) It expects the page content to be genuine. Optimizing a parcel for the new search is simply fitting in with the new search. When parcel owners don't fit in with it, the new search is the lesser for it.

I don't think that "power users" was meant in that way. I think it just meant knowledgable. But what you said about it true. More knowledgable people are likely to do better in the rankings than less knowledgable people. It's just like web search engines in that respect, and it's why RL companies pay huge amounts of money to search engine optimisers - the experts - to get their company's website high in the rankings. It's just the way things are. In RL, search engine optimisation is much more complex than in SL. In SL, it doesn't need much knowledge, and it doesn't take much time.

Just to make my own position clearer, I am opposed to camping. Not so much because it games the system (well a little of that, but that's not my main concern) as because it adversely affects the entire sim. If you happen to own the entire sim then whatever (actually, even in this case you are harming other sims that happen to share the same server,) but if not then you are harming your neighbors.

I want to emphasise a part of my previous post...

The Google system that LL uses *expects* certain things:-

1. It expects the html page's Title tag to contain what the page is about.

2. It expects the clickable link text to the page to contain words that describe the page, and in an unbiased way.

3. It expects the page content to be normal and genuine.

By "expects", I mean that it is designed with the assumption that those things are true. The new search ranks pages, assuming those things to be true. If they are not true for your parcel's page, not only is it bad for searchers because they won't find your place, but it's also bad for you for the same reason.

In normal (web) circumstances, they would be true, because website owners make the webpages, but LL makes the pages for the parcels - not the parcel owners, and LL has no way of making those things true. It is up to parcel owners to make them true, so that their parcels are ranked according to the way that the search system is designed.

I strongly advise ignoring the arguments of anyone who says that making a parcel fit the new search system is gaming it. They have no understanding of search systems, and it is you who will lose out if you give any credence to their arguments. By all means, don't spam (game) the new search system, but ignore anyone who says that fitting what the new system is designed to expect is gaming it. Just ignore them.

Where in this thread has anyone who called this stuff regarding the new search "gaming" said no one should do it?

I think thats just assumptions made by you and a couple others.

Some of us just don't have issues calling something what it is.

You should consider working for a politician.

First, nobody has been talking about gaming in this thread, except you. Everyone else has been talking about optimising. Most people who mean the same thing would accept the generally used word without insisting on a different one, but you don't mean the same thing.

Some of you just don't know what it is you're talking about. Your first post in this thread shows that you think of it as cheating. That cynical reply to the OP virtually told her not to bother because people are cheating the system. Are you now trying to say that gaming the system isn't cheating, or that even though it's cheating, it's good for people to do it? Or are you just pedantically pointing out that you didn't actually say not to do it, even though you think it.