Please help fight camping

There were a lot of responses to that paragraph, so I'll just make one generic reply - to this one.

No it isn't making SL into what I want, Dinalya. It's making one tiny bit of SL into what I want. The naysayers are trying to make the whole of SL into what they want. There's an enormous difference. I don't object to people causing huge lag by opening clubs and having events in them, which, if you listen to the naysayers, causes gridwide problems. I don't object to people using SL to explore, shop, sing, dance, ski, create, run businesses, and whatever else they want to do. We all do our own things in SL, and I don't object to any of it - except griefing and illegal things, so why should anyone object to the tiny little bit that I do?

I don't cause the system problems that a few people like to think I do. I don't interfere with anyone else's use of the sim that I'm in. I don't cause lag in the sim. So why would anyone object? It's all just a few people wanting the whole of SL to be moulded into their own personal ideas of how how it should be. Damned selfish, huh?

Let me show how silly it is. There are naysayers here who:-

Think camping is ok, but bots should be got rid of.

Think camping and bots are ok but alts that are hidden should be got rid of.

Think all of them are ok but they shouldn't affect the Places rankings.

There isn't even a concensus amongst the few people who are objecting. The only common thing is that they all want to shape the whole of SL into their own personal view of how they would like it. How silly is that?

And it gets even sillier...

There are various camping methods - manequins, window cleaners, dance, sit, stand, campbots, and hidden alts. Of those, the least intrsusive are the hidden alts, because they are a usually a long way away from where people are, out of sight, and out of visual lagging range. But which is the method that people dislike the most? The hidden alts - the ones that cause the least lag. How silly is that? And why? Could it be that the naysayers want the whole of SL to be such that every logged in avatar is manned by a real person - SL shaped according to their own personal preferences?

Let me ask...

If I have 1 camping window cleaner that can only be used by a real person, would that be objectionable?

If I have 1 camping chair that can only be used by a real person, would that be objectionable?

If I have 3 camping chairs that can only be used by real people, would that be objectionable?

If I have 20 camping chairs that can only be used by real people, would that be objectionable?

If I have 1 camping pad that campbots can use, would that be objectionable?

If I have 3 camping pads that campbots can use, would that be objectionable?

If I have 15 camping pads that campbots can use, would that be objectionable?

If I have 30 camping pads that campbots can use, would that be objectionable?

Different naysayers will object to some but not to other. The point being that some object to the quantity, some object to the type, and some object to all - they are just objectionable There is no concensus even among the naysayers.

And finally, let me make something clear...

SL is not a fun place. SL is not a place to do serious or hobby business. SL is not a place to hold meetings; it is not a place to do research, or to dance, or to listen to music, or to play music. It is a place to do ALL of those things, and much much more. SL is not a place that is to be shaped for anyone's personal preferences, or even for the preferences of the majority (and 40 votes isn't exactly a majority, is it? I wonder if any of those are alts ). It is a place for all.

I'm quoting that as supporting what I just wrote in my previous post.

Notice this bit - "... to stop rewarding what we don't want".

what *WE* don't want.

I think that makes my points very well indeed. Thank you Lear.

There is a flaw in that. It asumes that there is only one "right" store, which of course is nonsense. It assumes that the store that does things to rank higher is not a right store - nonsense.

The "right" store would generally be "yours", whoever you may be, trying to get people to visit it.

Some provide good quality products to attract people, others just inflate their traffic with alts hidden in skyboxes protected by security orbs to stop people finding out the truth...

Putting them into holes don`t cut it anymore. They are all in the air..............Traffic is like much like chinese products. You never which is real and which are fake. Traffic is nothing these days.

I give up. My analogy is not so subtle that a middle schooler couldn't understand it. This just has to be disingenuous, in hopes the reader isn't paying much attention.

Link from anywhere, Lear, not just from other sites, so your premise is wrong Also, having too many reciprocal links is harmful to rankings in Google these days, so your example isn't good.

Lear. Everything uses resources. It's nonsense to single out one thing. Would having just one hidden alt satisfy you? It uses far less resources than a person in the sim. I don't think just one would be satisfactory for you, and I do think that you object on principle, rather than reality.

In what way? As an example, let's use just 1 hidden alt, which iss high in the sky, and way out of sight range of anyone on the ground where the business is. In what way does it harm you?

Hmm.. it shows you that their interest is in a good thing - no argument from me about that

Its the fact that the Traffic Metric is exploitable that is objectionable.

All the variations in objections are all simply related to that.


Despite what you have stated, there are only 3 categories really.

-Those who just want Traffic removed because it is and will be exploited no matter what.

-Those who want to "fix" traffic in some way so it is Exploited a lot less.

-Those who want to leave Traffic as is.

Again that makes the false assumption that doing things to improve rankings automatically means that the goods are no good, which of course is nonsense.

Perhaps, Colette, but I honestly think that some people are objecting on principle. Someone actually said that of themselves in another thread. But let's ask the question...

If traffic is removed completely from search (no Places search, and no effect on the All search), who would still object to hidden alts?

That was me.

I object to the exploitation of the traffic numbers on principle. However I see the problem as systematic and not one of individual transgressions.

To answer your question -

The reasons many people object to Trafficbots have to do with the Traffic Metric. Both Trafficbots and Camperbots would largely disappear if it were to be removed.

However, many people also object to other sorts of bots. Thus even if you eliminate Traffic there will still exist objections to "hidden alts" .

No more 'nonsense' than filling a high altitude skybox full of zombies, protected by a security orb to stop people getting too close to see the truth for themselves (although of course we can still cam in).

You're the one that made the automatic assumption - you're wrong. There are legitimate means of improving ranking - and foul means. Guess which one the "skybox full of zombies" is?

Wrong... it's "foul". It is an exploit because it is not the way that traffic was intended to work. Spin it as much as you want, but you will not win this one, ever.

Here's a question for the people who run a camp farm: are you confident enough to claim that if every business owner kept 50 campbots on their parcel and if every human leaves their avie (and alts) logged on 24/7 that that wouldn't cause any problem whatsoever?

If the answer is "no, that would cause problems" then there you go, you just admitted that you're selfishly hogging limited resources for no real reason other than the fact that you decided you're entitled to a disproportionate share of resources.
If the answer is "yes, the grid can easily handle 1 million concurrency" then you're beyond help .

What I said was nonsense really was nonsense - it's a nonsense to assume that anyone who does things to improve their rankings must have poor goods to sell - including most websites, most brand names, most smaller businesses that have websites, and most indiviudals that have websites

Oh, and didn't anyone tell you that hidden alts are perfectly "legitimate"? Or are there some laws/rules that I'm unaware of?

Why don't you answer the question, Kitty? It's a simple one, after all. I really would like to know - "If traffic is removed completely from search (no Places search, and no effect on the All search), who would still object to hidden alts?"

I'd answer your question if it made any sense, but it isn't possible for every business owner to leave 50 campbots on their parcels. Even so, we are not talking about every business owner doing it. We are talking about very few business owners. And we are not talking about 50 bots either. We are trying to talk about the reality - at least I am.

I'm interested. Please tell me some other ways to improve the Places rankings.

I just see two really:
* search shouldn't be objective, parcel owners should be able to directly influence their ranking
* search should be objective and sorted on parameters that are beyond the parcel owner's control

There's a lot of debate on both sides about how that should work in practice and disagreement about certain practice on the "pro-search 'exploitation'" side, but I just see those two standpoints as the core.

Community Standards 6 - Disturbing the Peace
Every Resident has a right to live their Second Life. Disrupting scheduled events, repeated transmission of undesired advertising content, the use of repetitive sounds, following or self-spawning items, or other objects that intentionally slow server performance or inhibit another Resident's ability to enjoy Second Life are examples of Disturbing the Peace.

If you are running 20 zombies in a skybox, that clearly have no purpose for existance or being logged-in than to artificially inflate your fake traffic figure - then isn't that "intentionally slowing server performance"? Not only that, it is also "inhibiting another resident's ability to enjoy Second Life" if people can't get into the region because of your 20 zombies.

Also, "misuse of alternate accounts can and will result in disciplinary action on the principal account. " 20 zombie alts in a skybox - when you are only allowed 5 - is clearly 'misuse of alternate accounts". Presumably, to end up with more than 5 alts you have broken Community Standards 2.1 "You must establish an account to use Second Life, using true and accurate registration information."

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

I've visited your store. There were 2 people shopping, and your zombie horde in a skybox.

I can guarantee you that if you removed your zombie skybox and relied on genuine traffic alone for your ranking, you would not be making L$46k a month, let alone a day.

But you don't have the balls to do that, or the faith in your own products, to even risk it on an even playing field.

But traffic was originally intended to be influenced by a parcel's popularity. Which isn't entirely out of the parcel owner's hands.

It was supposed to be the content that brought the visitors, not camp pads.

You are not the only one who objects on principle, Colette. How many posts have been written that say something along the lines of, if I see camping in a place, I leave immediately. It's a matter of principle with them. One person even wrote that, when she sees camping, she will look for the businesses main store and buy there if there is no camping. She will happily buy from the person who has camping, but not at the place where the camping is. wow! Others write that they won't pass their money to anyone who uses camping. It's all principles.

Those whose objections are to do with system resources make much more sense, because they are looking at the realities. In some cases, they may be right, but definitely not in all cases.

Those who, for some reason, find that hidden avs are worse than other forms of camping don't make any sense at all, simply because hidden avs are the least intrusive forms of camping - less than a few people in the sim. That's just a matter of principle as well.

I would much rather people talked about realities, such as using extras to improve rankings, like you do, and system resources. At least there would be some sensible discusion. But too many objectors only talk about things to do with their principles, which are nothing more than their personal preferences for SL.

Sorry, Broccoli, but hidden alts don't infringe either of those 2 rules. I know you would like to think they do, but they don't. Sorry.

That doesn't exist in the search engine world, and everyone would be worse off if it did. Search engines (and SL search is no exception) *needs* people to tailor their pages so that the engine can rank them properly. Search engines rely on it.

But I think you mean the Places search rather than SL search in general. But even without the ability to alter the traffic numbers, we still have control over the name and description, which directly affects whether or not a place is listed at all in search results.

So I don't think your two groups of objections are correct

I am pretty sure she meant places.

Believe it or not When Classifieds came out they were one price only. They were quickly changed to the current system.

There was a LOT of objection because it turned them into a system where you could just buy your ranking.

Much of the support however was due to the fact that at the time the Linden Dollar fluctuated a lot more, and this was adding a big sink into the economy.

Is that it? That's you other ways of improving rankings? Your 'other ways' statement was just hot air?

I already provide good products - people not only tell me that, but they also buy them.

The environment is as lag free as it can be already. The alts don't affect lag there.

The rest of your post is just resorting to insults, so I'll ignore it.