The new search system

I'm certainly not the only person who called it gaming in this thread. You should perhaps read it again.





I said gaming.

I never said "cheating". Is it cheating? Some aspects like Profile picks on Alts would be. The remnant of the traffic certainly would be if that portion was due to bots.

Other aspects like the names/descriptions on prims are just silly. The Lindens know 99%+ of all prims are named "Object" Anyone who was here for the "Object" removal DNS attack would know that.

You have gone on record saying you don't consider "gaming" and "cheating" the same thing. So why the hang up? You are uptight because you think *I* consider them the same thing?

And you call *me* pedantic?




What happened in this thread is the OP wanted to know why they dropped down the search.

I said because other people gamed the system leading to her drop.

This is true.


Even if I use your terminology:

Why did the OP's shop drop in the list? Because other people "optimized" their search.

Is that not most likely what happened?

-----------

I didnt tell the OP to do or not do anything. I never said "Because other people gamed the system but you should never game the system" You just assumed it.

I never called gaming the new search "unethical" someone else assumed it.

In all your concern over appearances you miss my actual stances on anything. You are so concerned with proving me wrong you don't bother to actually read what it is I post.

The OP described her search situation, and asked, "Does anybody find out how the new search is working ?", to which you simply said the search is gamed. You didn't make any attempt to answer the question, or to help the OP. It was obvious that she wanted to know if therre is anything she can to recover the situation, but you simply told her that her ranking dropped because people cheated, which was not only unhelpfulful, but has a huge probability of being totally wrong.

I've never said that gaming the search isn't cheating the search. Don't you even read what I write? I know you choose to ignore much of what I write, because you have no answers for it, but don't you even read the stuff?

You think that gaming in this context is cheating (you said it in your post), and I know of nobody who disagrees with that. Everybody here knows that you are dead against cheating the search system, and have argued that position many times - your first post in this thread cynically indicated it too. Now you want us to believe that, although you are against cheating/gaming the search system, you are not against optimising for it, even though you consider it to be cheating. Either that, or you are just being pedantic by pointing out that you didn't actually write that it shouldn't be done in this thread, in which case, you should stop playing silly games.

You've been arguing that optimising for the search is cheating. In the whole world of search engines, including the world of the SL search engine, you are out on limb about that. You can't change the world on your own.

In your post you said things like, using alts for Picks would be cheating. Nobody mentioned anything about that, so what were you arguing about? You also said:-

I've no idea what you mean by that, because it doesn't make any sense, but even so, you still argued that it is all cheating, by arguing that optimising is cheating, and names on objects were mentioned. Incidetally, it wasn't specifically prims that were mentioned - it was objects. The word prims was used when talking about 1 prim objects. So why you mentioned the 99%+ prims is beyone me - an attempted (failed) sidetrack?

It is most likely what happened, as I posted myself soon after your cynical post. The difference is that you wrote that other people cheated. It's not a matter of terminology. You said they cheated, and optimising isn't cheating, as everyone except you knows.

Wrong. You have argued many times that gaming the system is cheating and unethical from the standpoint that they shouldn't be done. No assumption is necessary.

Wrong. See my previous comment.

I don't need to prove you wrong - you do that very well yourself. In this case, you've argued that optimising a parcel for the new search is cheating, and you've stubbornly argued it in the face of the contrary evidence - yes, evidence. You may not have seen it with your own eyes, but you've seen several people in this thread alone say that they've seen LL suggest optimising parcels for the new search.

My suggestion to you Colette is, since you believe that doing anything in the way of optimising your land for the new search is cheating, don't change anything on your land for the new search. If you have land with a business on it, leave it to LL to make the search work 'properly' for your business, and blindly ignore their suggestions about optimising.

Phil,

You cant have it both ways. I cant be telling the OP all these things unless she read a long slew of threads about Trafficbots and drew all the same conclusions you did.

Again, I think you must assume she has ESP.

please take this to PMs.

Nonsense. If you read what I actually wrote, you'll see I said that your stance that gaming the search shouldn't be done was based on your many discussions, and not based on this thread. And I didn't say that you told the OP not to do it. I won't bother explaining it to you with quotes if you can't be bothered reading it for yourself.


Let's leave it as this:-

You think that gaming the search system is cheating. You think that doing anything at all to improve rankings is gaming the system, and therefore cheating. In various threads, you've let it be known that gaming/cheating the search system is wrong and shouldn't be done.

Other people agree with you that gaming the system is cheating, and shouldn't be done. Other people think that optimising parcels for the new search, as LL suggested they do, is not cheating/gaming the system, but is making their parcels suitable for being ranked normally in the new search.

Let's leave it at that shall we.

I read it, I just didn't see the value in escalating things any further by responding point for point.




Why? Since that isn't what I said.

I don't tell people what do with the new search system or the old search system.

For example;

I do not say "Trafficbots are cheating so no one should use them"

I say "Trafficbots are cheating so stop claiming they aren't"

Its up to people who wish to use Trafficbots to decide if they want to use them. Its all the justifying and the rationalizing thats a bunch of nonsense.

I have made this distinction clear on more threads than I can remember off hand, evidently you missed every single one.

Phil Deakins shakes his head in near disbelief at Colette's clutching at straws, and lack of understanding.

I'll leave it at that.

I understand a lot more than you think. It just bothers you that I stand my ground when you come after me.

LMAO. You *really* flatter yourself (or maybe paranoid) if you think that I come after you, Colette LMAO! But thank you for the laugh - I'm still enjoying it LOL

for crying out loud, cut it out. Be the bigger person and just let it die!!

Maybe I should start keeping count of all the threads?

And should I count the ones you admit to flaming out on purpose double?

Now I may step on some toes with these words, but so be it.

@Collette: You may have 13 million posts on my account, but what you are doing since the first traffic bot thread came up is trying to provoke Phil any way you can. If any serious moderation would take place, you would have been put on moderation for sure. Anyone reading this thread, or one of the others you and Phil posted in, cannot conclude anything else.

Well, I have news for you: I bet there are not many forum readers interested in your feelings for Phil. So do yourself and the forum a favour and call it a day.

@Phil: You keep on saying you are no longer going to react on Collette, but you keep on reacting on her provocations. Which will feed her to do it again and again. So be the smartest, and stop. Put her on your ignore list and be happy.

This thread is about Search, and it would be so nice to see postings about Search, instead of endless quarrels between two people who both don't seem able to stop.

Marcel

I already stopped in this thread - with my "Let's leave it at that" post. The post after it didn't continue the 'discussion'.

If someone argues that white is black, and I know about the topic, I feel that I have to post that white is actually white. If the 'white is black' person happens to be Colette, what she makes of it is what she makes of it. I know what she does

I certainly have not attempted to provoke Phil "in anyway I can". Disagreeing with him is enough. He simply wont allow a view he feels is "wrong" stand.

If I were really trying to simply provoke him I'd be a lot more successful,

Instead on these issues I have had a consistant opinion which I have stuck by.

Long before either Phil, or you for that matter ever came onto the scene.

Now that the 'diversion' has finished, I'll repost this because I think it should sink deeply into our understanding of the new search, and of our part in it.

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.