Please help fight camping

I think it's quite clear that they do, and I provided reasoning as to why. What's your reasoning that they don't, apart from the fact that it would be hard to justify?

There have been a number of occasions where people have said that Lindens have removed camping pads/zombies on their land and had disciplinary action taken for doing so, so someone at Linden Lab clearly agrees with me and the others that think like I do.

Ignore it because you can't rebuke it with facts?

Colette. I wasn't around when Places came in, and I've no reason to disagree with you about the original intention - a good intention too. But since it was introduced, camping came along to make use of it, and LL not only agree that it's ok, but actually use it as a positive for SL. So, whatever the original intention was, it has changed.

But we've been through this before

I was speaking to when Classified came in. Ill go back and look at my post but I thought I was pretty clear.

Whether Linden Lab's greed made it so they agreed "its okay" doesn't mean a whole freaking lot.

Corporate greed is hardly something to espouse as justification.

Actually, it does. That's how Yahoo works. Humans determine what gets shown.

IMO a human-created index has the potential to be more useful as a tool for finding stuff in SL than a web spider. It won't be as comprehensive, or even fair, but it won't be trashed with noise, either.

The new SL search uses google tech for indexing, but it's LL who decides what goes on the pages that are indexed. It will work only as well as LL's decisions allow, and the old search is proof they don't care enough about search to make it work well.

Making search work is a social challenge, not a technical one. LL will discover this, if they haven't already, and will move on to the next cool project, leaving the new search in whatever gamed state it is when they get bored with it. This may have already happened.

Go take a look at how I manage to keep both Sky Dreams and the SL Botanical Gardens at the top of the rankings without use of bots or campers and you tell me

"Providing a good service or product, in a lag-free quality built environment?"

Alright, Broccoli. I'll answer you posts, since you seem to want me to.

1. Having avs high in the sky, out of everyone's way, just standing there and doing nothing, is in no way "disturbing the peace". In fact they are so peaceful, that nobody would know they were there without looking at the map.

2. They don't slow server perfomance, and they don't inhibit other resident's ability to enjoy Second Life. If you think they do, tell me how.

3. Nobody is prevented from getting into the region by them. Good grief! I WANT people to come into the region - into my shop, for goodness sakes.

1. All the information provided, to create the accounts was both true and accurate. What more can I say.

2. Your idea of misuse is just your idea of misuse. If camping is a misuse, LL wouldn't promote it as a positive, would they?

3. I've never had 20 of them, but it's good to know that at least you think that I'm allowed 5 of them - zombie alts in a skybox, that is

And your point is?

That's some guarantee. Would you like to put it to the test? What are you offering if I make more than $L46k in a month without using the alts?

The playing field is already perfectly even. I don't have any advantages that over other people. As for the balls - let's see how much your guarantee is worth, shall we? Let's see who's got balls. Somehow I think my first impression was the right one - stooped to insults. But you can prove me wrong if you like. Let's see who's the balls to stand up for what tney say.

"Corporate greed" are strong words. LL is in it for money. All businesses are in it for money. It's not greed.

It's LL's system, and their views of things DO mean an awful lot. I have to disagree with you about that.

OHH get over your "strong words" stuff

We WATCHED it happen.

Corporate greed exactly describes it.

I don't have anything to prove actually, because whatever you might choose to do with your store won't affect me because I don't intend to purchase anything there.

You, however, can't prove that you can stay up in the rankings and profit margins without your boxful of zombies - unless you actually do it.

I'd gladly bet my entire SL bank account on it but L$467 probably isn't of much use to you.

You are refering to the Yahoo! directory - that's not a search engine. I did say "search engines".

And I call it being in business for profit

You weren't here.

hehe.

You were the one who guaranteed something, but I don't blame you for not following it through. At least I had the balls to offer, even though I'd be putting my livelihood on the line to prove you wrong. I don't think you can fairly accuse me of not having the balls again.

I've no reason to prove anything either, but I didn't make false claims like you did. The onus is on you to prove your claims. But, just out of interest, I did have a couple of days largely without the avs - I already posted that twice. You should read more Takings were down by approximately a quarter to a third on those days, but they were in the Christmas period (26th and and 27th), so I've no way of knowing how much effect the lack of avs had.

Agreed.

Are they low prim as well?

Very. 1 prim each

Inbound Links are really votes for a place.

Store A Sells Furniture and uses 16 Alts, each with 10 pics to the store, and 1 notecard
13 votes for his on store for each alt as an inbound link. 208 total "votes".

Store B sells furniture but does not use alts. It means that 208 REAL PEOPLE would have to FREELY put a pic of his store in his profile and keep a notecard just to get it to a level playing field.

Then as soon as store B does catch up, Store A simply doubles the number of Alts.
That's what's wrong with it.

All of the exploits make the customers votes meaningless. The people that count are the customers and their votes are muted by this practice. That's what wrong with it.

The Jiras avalible are a way to get LL's attention. The old search was bad enough because of gaminng traffic directly. The new search has made everything worse because of the multiplyer effect of inbound links when it is gamed. It comes down to the same thing.
Alt Botting is a major problem.

It does not really matter if the jira heading is Camping or Traffic or something else. if you are against alt botting, you should vote--but leave a comment to that effect too.

This Jira link has links to others--they are at the top of the Jira page--just click on them.

https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-1052

I don't disagree with that, except for the numbers. So far, I haven't seen any of the newer alts show as links to the place, and the one old alt only shows as 1 link to the place, even though some of the new ones, and the old one, have 10 Picks each, as do I. I don't know about behind the scenes, but as far as I can tell, all but 2 of the votes aren't counting. Info: the old alt was paid for, and I am paid for too (Premium a/c).

I've said this before, but I'll say it again for those who don't read every post in every thread. I have no objections to hidden alts being banned, and I have no objections to camping being banned, so by all means vote for the proposal. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. It's just that, as long as they are not banned, I'll make use of them, just as anyone else can.

You've made that pretty clear Phil.

Vote people, But leave a comment too.

Lobbing LL is the only chance you've got to slow this down. Arguing about it here amounts to nothing more than venting.

https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-1052

How about allowing the searcher to have advanced search results? There could be boxes labled
traffic, content, owner, or whatever
then they could either check or uncheck the boxes according to how they want their search to be conducted.

You (as someone listed in search) only need the ability to specify what you match on so that you're part of the result set, nothing more. Having the ability to in addition control how high or low you rank encourages abuse and just ends up making search a whole lot less useful for everyone.

Whether a store is the first result or the 100th result shouldn't be something the owner has control over, they're actually the very last person who should have a say in that.

If you sort objectively then keyword spam isn't much of a problem. If you were to try and add clothing as a keyword for your furniture store and you ranked at the bottom of the last page because there isn't a single item of clothing in your store then the fact that you're listed at all for that keyword wouldn't really be much of a problem for anyone.

Bottom line: if I search for something, I want to know that the order is based on some kind of merit rather than how well the store owner can manipulate search. If anything I prefer the old search because it makes it quite obvious who manipulates and who doesn't just by looking at the traffic count.

There isn't a search engine in existance that can do what you would like, Kitty. Human-edited directories can to some extent, but not search engines. All that a search engine has to go on is text. It has no concept of what's at the other end of the link.

For some years now there have been a few small engines that use Latent Semantic Indexing (LSI) to 'understand' what's on a page, and produce better results because of that, but LSI can't yet scale well enough for large search engines, and even if it could, it still only has text to work with - no concept of what's at the other end of the link. So discussing what's at the other end (quality/merit, and even the existance of things) is a waste of time because no engine can handle it.

Your bottom line is desirable, but it's something that can't happen - not for a long time.

It's a good job most people have more ethics than you, otherwise the grid would fall apart* because of all the idle alts clogging up the system


* more than usual