How to help newbies financially?

If you put multiple cones on your land, then you get multiple traffic
If there's something in the system that would not deliver as many visitors for multiple cones, then just put the cones on separate 16m parcels.

See how ridiculous it can be when you don't consider what the gamers will make of anything that is presented to them?


Yup! I'm a card-carrying idealist.
BUT - I'm not blindly idealistic. I'm also a realist.



The environment in which we are discussing these schemes is one in which gamers are determined to find loopholes to game. LL are now responding with a broad statement of principles with regard to gaming.
A discussion of a scheme that does not take this into account is missing out on something vital.

The Cones system is a direct Pay-for-Traffic system.
It does have things going for it - chiefly that of getting avatars to travel around the place, but systematic traffic-buying will get it into trouble with the anti-gaming moves.

See how ridiculous it can be when you don't consider the big picture?

I think if it split whatever "Payment to Cone" made by a fixed percentage, that would do the trick. Split commission scripts work fine, but normally you have to specify the Sale price.....not sure it would work for variable "payments". He could introduce fix top-ups by 100 L increments each time, then it can deducts a small percentage for the Creator from that 100 L, leaving an available balance.

I think you have to be a cheat to think like a cheat.
Maybe Traffic gamers should employ you......as you seem to dream up all these scenarios of anything plausible being gamed. You ever consider joining a VW that doesn't operate an economy?

I like this cone system idea, but like Sling I wondered about scammers having a patch of 12 cones on their land too, I don't cheat, don't have land, don't have a shop either.

Actually, it's a pay for visitors system and not a pay for traffic system. It can be used as a pay for traffic system (I said that earlier) but that's not what it is.

In an email to someone, which was posted in the blog thread, Jack equated camping with guns by saying something like, guns aren't banned just because they can be used for griefing, and camping isn't banned just because it can be used for boosting traffic. It could be said that guns are griefing systems because they can be used for griefing, but they aren't griefing systems. The cones are just the same.

Sure, like you have to be a criminal in order to be a good detective.

"dream up all these scenarios"??
- Traffic gamed by bots, campers, whatever
- IBLs gamed by systematic Pick-buying systems
If something can be gamed, it will be gamed.
The Cone system would be gamed. Anything that delivers guaranteed traffic points per L$x spent *will* be gamed.

Of course it will. But that's no reason not to use it for bringing visitors in - for what it's designed to do.

Guns will be used for griefing, but that's no reason not to use guns for genuine purposes.

Well if each cone is on a network string....i.e location by location....how could you have 12 cones sharing that same position in the queue? The way i would see that....you might land at Cone no.4 at a specified time......next time the Cone appears in that network string, it might mean arriving at Cone. no. 7 and so on.
I suppose though, if there are loads of users.....you could have people arriving at different cones at the same time.....then yes, it's gamed.

Maybe the Creator can configure it that you can't have more than 1 Cone on that plot of land...but then you'd have to switch the "wandering around" feature off....and stay on that land. That would lose half it's appeal.

It's a pay for 11 minutes of unique visitor time system.
If it were purely a pay for visitors system, there wouldn't be a requirement to remain there for 11 minutes.

I *do* see the good side of a system that encourages people to move around and explore. I've said this a number of times. The system I proposed promotes this. The thing that some people don't like about what I propose is that it does not guarantee that the visitors will remain in the location. It gives the visitors the choice to move on if they wish.
The Cones systems makes them prisoners of a locality.

More hogwash.....if you are in a location with multiple shops with multiple lands on the same SIM, there's no guarantee they'll stay 1 minute at your cone location.....they might spend it at a nearby location in someone else' store....that's the risk you take. I would favour a 96m or less wandering rule...you have more chance of keeping them nearby.

Most shop owners don't own a Full sim!!

That's right. It isn't a pay for traffic system, although it would surely be used for that. What I'm saying is that, because it would be used by some people to boost traffic isn't a reason to not use it for what's designed to do - bring visitors who look around the places. In use, it tells the user that they can look around the place, and it tells them that every minute as it counts down the time.

That, and, if my memory is correct, your system requires LL's involvement, which isn't going to happen.

Don't forget that, if business owners are going to give money away, they want something in return. The something in this case is spending a small amount of time there, during which the visitor might like what's seen and become a customer at some stage. Your system wants business owners to give the money away and get nothing in return. It's unrealistic.

They put the cones on separate 16m parcels within the main parcel. Sorted!
I don't se that they would have to disable the "wandering around" as it seems that the individual cone is tracking the avatars who click on it. There would be no limit to the number of cones other than the number of 16s that were feasible.

That takes a parcel where sub-division is allowed of course.
You can't currently do that, but there will be pressures on your landlord to allow it.
Jack is saying to people - cut out sub parcels not flagged for traffic and put your visitor stuff on that. There will be pressure on landlords to permit subdivion.


Where we are failing to communicate is that you are seeing the system purely as it applies to you in a low-volume situation and I am seeing it in terms of a candidate for the replacement of gaming.

I suggest you save your objections for people who use the system in ways that you describe. The people who are discussing it here have no intention of doing what you describe. This is a genuine win-win discussion - avatars get free money (win) and place owners get the avatars to look around at what they have to offer (win). That's all it is.

Seriously though....why don't you consider an alternative VW platform without an Economy.....you wouldn't have to waste the time and energy dreaming up all these cheating scenarios. From what i can make out, you are neither SIM owner nor Shop Owner or a beneficiary (camper who wants to earn money). Should you be entitled to dictate how all of the above live out their "SL lives"......I can see LL's involvement...its their platform it's their business .....I don't see yours however. You make a song and dance about "Traffic"....it's just one small way of getting your business or place of interest or club in being noticed. If it were the only way.....you might make more sense!

I have run businesses succesfully for 2.5 years without the requirement of being ranked highly in "Places Search".....it's not the gospel!

It could be run by anybody. It doesn't have to be LL.

However
- LL would be in the best position to deal with abuse by bots/alts trying to milk the system.
- If this were a very widely used system, the amount of money involved would be *considerable* - even if split over a number of competing operators.




It's not quite true that they get nothing in return.
1. They get visitors - just as the Cone delivers visitors. The challenge is to retain the eyeballs once they arrive.
2. The visitors will *not* be in a rush to get to another place, as another payment would not be available for a time interval.
3. The visitors get a LM. They might leave for another place but come back to your place to wait out the interval because your place is more attractive.

Business owners could get as much, and even more, out of it as they would from an 11-minute system.
The better-presented, more attractive places would benefit more than the less attractive places. Overall, the traffic from the avatars would be the same. They have to be somewhere.

So, someone who says "I hate this!" is basically saying "I don't have confidence that I will be able to retain the visitors".

Yes. I know that.

Just try explaining it to the gamers. I'm already convinced of the truth of what you say.

It's just hopeless to try to use (or abuse) the current Cones at the current price-point to drive traffic. (And so I think the name of the system is misleading.) Think about it: L$3 for 11 minutes of traffic? Nobody spends that--not only because they don't have to, but because traffic just isn't that valuable.

It isn't.

Maybe it could have been, back in the days of Dwell payments, or maybe even when Traffic affected rank-order of every Search result (instead of just the fading "Places" search). But anybody who pays L$3 for 11 minutes of Traffic today is just throwing money away. I can't conceive of a way that this could pay for itself.

That said, however, I sure wish they'd got rid of Traffic as a search factor completely, so this objection just wouldn't come up. The objection itself is problematic because it would break what may be a desirable feature:

It seems perfectly fair to me that donors should want to make sure that recipients stick around the sim to "earn" their pay--and that would be just as true if Traffic didn't count for anything. Consider the following hypothetical scenarios, all predicated on the (improbable) premise that LL declares the Cones to be traffic-gaming devices:

1. Cones change to pay out whether or not the recipient is still in the sim at the end of the waiting interval, or
2. Traffic is changed so Cone-owners can exclude cone-generated visits from the traffic score.

Now, #1 is easy enough to do, and probably if I make an alternate system, that's what I would do. But that would definitely reduce the appeal of the system, even compared to #2--which wouldn't score any Traffic points, but would keep the recipients in the sim where they just might buy something.

Also, it's my opinion that anybody hoping to use this or any other system to boost Traffic scores now, at this late date, is really optimistic. If one is certain to get return on investment for such a thing really quickly, then maybe, but I sure wouldn't advise building any longer-term business that relied on Traffic-ranked search, for any recognizable definition of "Traffic."

Read My Lips.

I D-O N-O-T C-A-R-E !!!

I said something similar earlier in the thread. I asked if the cone-type system would be used if traffic rankings didn't exist. I also gave my answer - that it would be used. It would be used for the purpose that we are discussing here, and that the people discussing it actually want to use it for.

The traffic gaming talk is just sidetracking some serious, and very interesting, discussion.

I'm sensing "do-not-caring" here


Read the Blog.

Other people D-O C-A-R-E.

Stop it, Sling. Nobody in the blog cares about what we're discussing here because we're not discussing paying for traffic, or camping.

I completely agree with you that such a system would be used even if traffic were not a search ranking factor. For some people, it would make sense.
So would camping.
Both would be useful way of getting L$ to the impecunious and could have benefits for the land owners.



And again, I repeat my reminder:

The reason that I floated this thread and the proposal was triggered *entirely* as a way of calling out those who were screaming to keep their camping because newbies had to be given money. The economy would collapse if newbies could not be given L$! - they said.
Jack has called some of that in a follow-up that advise people to cut their camping into parcels not flagged for search if they don't want to be slapped.

Remove traffic as a search ranking - what happens to the newbie L$?
What percentage of landowners will continue to pay people to sit on their land?

I've been thinking about what happens when a person starts at my place, and clicks the cone. As it is now, they are immediately asked to TP to another place, which I don't think is good. On the other hand, if the same people use my place to start a session, they are not new people to look around the store. I don't think there's an ideal solution, and I prefer the second one of the two. But how about this for a rough draft...

A person comes to my place, sees the cone and clicks on it. It doesn't matter if they've been before or not. They are asked if they want to stay here for the money or go to another place for it. Anyone who's seen enough of the place already, will go to another place. Anyone who hasn't seen enough of the place, and who thinks it's worth looking round, will stay for the money.

When the money is paid at a place (any place - here or there), a menu pops up asking if another place is wanted, yes or no. If not yes, then the person is finished with the session.

I'm floating and discussing ways of helping newbies financially within the context of traffic remaining as a search ranking factor.

While traffic remains a ranking factor, any automated systems related to paying avatars for their time on a parcel has to be examined in the light of determined efforts to abuse it.

Does the Cone system pay avatars *only* on condition that they remain in the vicinity - which in many cases is the place? It does.


Stop it Phil.
You are ignoring my posts in which I say that I like the Cone system and systems like it.

I think it might balance out over the whole system.
For every avatar that starts out at your place, another would start somewhere else and be sent immediately to your place.

Add:
The system could prioritise cones that had given out an immediate payment. THey would be first on the list to be sent an avatar looking for a cone.