Anatomy of a Fail

"People" = You and Marcel
This is just a game you are playing.

But...
Let's assume that it's not.
Let's assume that the point of any questions is to arrive at an understanding of what would or would not be considered gaming.

So..
You outline techniques for increasing search ranking, and I'll tell you if I consider those to be gaming or not.

Simple.
We get to it far more quickly - which should be the whole point of the discussion.

Have you all ever considered starting your own undying thread.....particularly for your debate.....so that you could hash it out daily for the next couple of years?

Title it The Great On/Off Topic Debate perhaps.

You think?

I don't post to "Undying" threads. After a few hundred posts, they become too boring to bother with.

That's quite a Profound Statement there, Talarus.

It is, just like someone using search terms for placement, but not having any products or services related to those terms.

They aren't going to attack the problem from a ToS violation front, because there's simply no effective way to adequately police it. Picks are even worse; how can you tell the difference between a "bought" pick, and a "real" pick?

While LL is trying to stop the cheating, the more important aspect of it is that they are trying to level the playing field __AND__ prevent abuse of their platform. That's what makes bots such a high priority target, since it is a problem over so many areas.



I don't think so. Even still, if one could consider that it is, the more appropriate tact is to tweak the Search system parameters to change the weighting such that they give less weight for metrics that are gamed, and more weight to metrics that aren't. That's the Google Way(tm), and it works pretty well.



To be honest, I think any judgment of the implementation of the bot-ban is premature. Given the experience with the way Jack implements these policies, it normally takes LL at least a month to go out of the "talking to people to get them to toe the line" mode, and into the "ok, you've had enough time now, it's time for the banstick" mode. It annoyed me to no end during the Adfarm and cutting policies, but in the end he DID get them done. It just took longer than I expected it to. Jack said at his last OH that they are shifting into "enforcement mode" now, so we'll see what happens this week. I would expect a lot of the bot farms to start disappearing for good, and soon.

If they don't, Jack's OH are Thursdays at 11AM in the Linden Estate Services region. Show up and pitch your fork at him, and put your torch to his feet. I do. It's great fun.



I dunno. I don't see a need for that kind of automation. Just simply offer a "reward" to have someone add your store to their picks, telling them that you spot-check. If they fail to leave it there for a reasonable period of time, then put them on your "no more pick money for j00!" list and don't pay them anymore. Tell them that's the deal. The vast majority of people will leave you in their picks long enough to make it worthwhile. The few who try to game you won't get much more than 1 unserviced payment out of you before they are canned.



Well, Jack's highlight was nothing more than how bad the problem was getting; had nothing to do with the systematic nature of rent-a-bot-army.



Not likely to happen. Just like LL isn't going to ban bots over traffic gaming, they aren't going to ban other technologies/systems that otherwise do not cause harm to the grid infrastructure. They certainly don't have any reasonably effective way to detect them.



That's right. It's an exponentially-diminishing-returns problem. They can only really attack certain problems with certain solutions. No solution or type of solution is going to cover much more than one category of problem.



Yeah, they could do something like that, but leaving that open really depends on having a governance team par excellence, and LL just doesn't have that yet. What you are basically asking for is something akin to the UK's Advertising Standards Authority (which is quite a bit more strict than the FTC here in the US). I think that's probably a bit overboard for a virtual world just yet. Maybe when we have millions of people online concurrently, it might be justified, but I dunno.

I've operated a MMOG before that had a strict no-exploiting policy; it's a pain.

It is? Sounds like a fairly basic declarative assertion to me.

Geez, I spend 3 days at a seminar and come back to my own undead thread






I doubt that. For one thing, I know a great many people who wouldn't engage in traffic bot fraud under any circumstances but are perfectly fine with Picks trading. Picks trading just doesn't have that waft of unsavory business tactics to it. Plus, paying for Picks is not a whole lot different than paying for a classified.

Nooooooooooooooooooooo Isablan !!

You can't express chagrin about raising an undead, and then inject existence fluid into it!!
Now look what you've gone and done

Talarus,

Read posting #104.

Then read posting #106, a supposed answer to #104.

You know, I couldn't care less whether you agree with my views or not. In a good discussion, it helps that the parties do have different views. But as soon as you start posting statements like the above, without checking if they are true, the discussion of over pretty soon.

This is not the first time this happens. Actually it happened in every thread. Each time I try to discuss based on arguments with Sling, she comes with a posting that does not even come close to an answer, and declares she answered my questions. That is why I stated that as soon as it gets too difficult, Sling bails out and hopes no one notices. Well you can twist it any way you want but #106 does not even come close to a serious reply/answer to posting #104.

If you actually bother to read #104, it starts with "fair enough", thereby recognizing that the arguments in Slings earlier posting did make sense to me. So no one can tell me that I do not recognize an answer Talarus, I answered more posts of Sling in a serious way then you think. We do have quite a history, and again: I do not mind anyone having a different opinion, but I do mind people using discussion techniques that are an insult to anyone trying to come with sensible arguments.

I really am curious about your reply if you actually read back those posts.

Actually, it's not a game at all - not to me, anyway. You made a comment and you were asked a perfectly simple question about it. You quoted the question in your reply but you didn't make any attempt to answer it. So I've got an even simpler and quicker way than your suggestion. Go back and read the question again, and then answer it like you ought to have done in the first place, considering that it arose from something you said.

Now I know you won't do that because you can't answer it. You're only any good for making bold statements, including a good sprinkling of bare-faced lies, but you're no good at all at rationally discussing your bold statements and lies. It's often called shit stirring.

ETA:
If anyone doesn't like me calling Sling a liar, you only need to read this thread. Twice he's lied about the reason why I'm against traffic bots - with total inventions - and several times he's claimed to have answered a question that he hasn't answered (see Marcel's post for the post numbers). Sling is a known liar and, as such, is completely unreliable, and it's quite remarkable that this person, who rails so much against dishonesty, practises it at the drop of a hat.

Phil I dont actually KNOW why you personally are against traffic bots. I know why I would be were I in your position the last few years. They are are a right pain in the patout. Both to script, to run, to keep logged in, to pay for machines, connections, electricity. Were I in your shoes I'd love to see the end of a need for the darn things

and yes I am being a semi smartass and trying to lighten up things a bit

Sometimes semi-smartasses can shine a nice light on things, even when names Darkness

Probably anyone with a right mind would be against traffic bots. Both people running them, and people not running them. They indeed are not fun at all to run, and I can hardly imagine someone actually running 80, while it still happens.

What I can imagine though, is that people do see the need to run them. It became the only way to rank visible in places search, and before search all was implemented that was the major search to focus on. Even now, many people still use places search, so artificial traffic will remain. Which makes me wonder about the real agenda of LL, because they must know this.

I think LL will eventually enforce their Bot ban, but it will be at such a snail pace....so that the actual login figures don't drop like a stone. I'm guessing they are hoping that natural growth in new accounts will smooth the login curve...and manipulating it by killing off say a 1000 or 2k over the same period of time.

So instead of a large dip in the graph (if they got rid of them all in a hurry)....we'll see a smooth gradual fall in logins over the next few months. M.Linden can then explain in his next quarterly blog....or more importantly the Q3 Blog that the reduced logins were a result of the European summer holiday months (would be another bareface lie)

The only thing that might put a spanner in the works, is a miscalculation of the amount of leavers due to up and coming Adult verification policies.....that's anyone guess. If you took some of sample polls at their face value...it could be as much as 20%.
Personally, i think it will be somewhere between 5 -10 %

I think 3-5% might be more accurate long run. Given that putting a payment info on file is good enough for verification most users of Adult content will just quietly do that and get on with their SL. Initially there will be a contraction in the providers of adult content but no doubt that void will be filled quickly and many of the former adult content providers will reinvent themselves and go on.

That's the only plus part of this Adult content policy, the PIOF & PIU percentages will go up for sure as many opt that method for verification. Currently PIOF's & PIU's are less than 10% of total user registrations. If you place your CC on file, its all to easy to buy Lindens....which ultimately means purchases, which is good for the economy in general. i.e fresh money supply

So, would it be correct to say that you don't like traffic bots because of the difficulties of running them?
It's hard to compete with people who successfully run 80 and 24/7, which is *still* common when you look at Places search.


Add:

A question for Phil actually, and not applicable to Marcel

Why is/was Phil against traffic bots, despite using them to the maximum possible extent for his mainland part-sim?

hehe. Actually, you're not far off the mark. They weren't a pain to run, but I prefered not to run an extra computer 24/7 (I was running 2 extra computers 24/7 for a while). That's the same reason that I posted in the forum when asked previously, and it's the only reason there has ever been why I wanted to see the end of traffic bots.

I've just posted the answer to that. It's nothing new - I've posted it here in the past. But here's a question for you. I wonder if you'll bail out again because the answer would be embarrassing for you....

Why did you twice post lies in this thread as to my reason for being against traffic bots? And don't try to suggest that they were just your opinions or even guesses - you posted your lies as facts so that they could be accepted and believed.

OK, for your sake, I did go back and re-read them.



The problem is that your post was nothing more than the same type of jab you are accusing me of. You infer that, since Sling hasn't answered YOUR questions to YOUR satisfaction, she 1) has been incapable of doing so, and 2) "never" (your word) will be able to do so.

I don't see any reason to say something like that, except as an insult to Sling.

That's fine, if that's what you intended to do; that makes my response to it just as valid and appropriate as what you said to/about her.

As for the question/answer in those posts, I think she DID answer the question you asked. You asked for a contrast, she gave you one. That you don't agree with it, or didn't like it, doesn't change the fact that she GAVE you an answer.



I must strenuously disagree with that. I find that the answer she gave is appropriate and relevant to the question you asked of her (if worded a little strangely). Again, the fact that you don't like or don't agree with it doesn't make it a non-answer. It may even be wrong or misguided, in fact or in belief; however, that doesn't change the fact that it is a prima facie answer to the question you asked.

From what you say here, it appears you have a personal issue with Sling that colors your views concerning her responses. There's nothing wrong with that, but it also means that your judgment of her communications is subjective and suspected of being biased. When you use words like "never", "every time", et cetera, you're not being objective.



Then, if you agree that she HAS answered your questions, "never" is quite an unfair word to use to describe the situation; wouldn't you agree?

If you don't like being insulted, I would suggest avoiding offering them. Your criticism of Sling in the verbiage you used is both nonsensical and insulting, which is the point I was making in my response to it.

I've read it, and plenty of other threads where you post. You call people "liar" a lot; it's your pathetic attempt at an argument against what they say. You don't like it and either can't or don't want to defend it or argue the point, so you opt for the "kindergartner rebuttal": "Liar liar pants on fire!!!".

As much as you accuse Sling of not answering questions and debating the point when it gets tough, you demonstrate that you aren't any more capable of doing so.

If the best you can come up with is the grade-school reversal rebuttal, maybe you should stay out of the grown-up section, lest you get stepped on.

Wonderful!

"I prefered not to run an extra computer 24/7 (I was running 2 extra computers 24/7 for a while). That's the reason I've posted in the forum when asked, and it's the only reason."

You confirm what I wrote. You were against bots because you couldn't compete in Places search against those who were able and prepared to run more bots than you.

What I wrote was not a "lie" by any normal understanding of the word.
A worst, what I wrote could have been described as mistaken.

However, you have confirmed that what I wrote was accurate.
You tried to compete. You couldn't compete, so you were 'against traffic bots'
It was, as you have said above, "the only reason".

You couldn't compete against the bots of a PI.
You couldn't compete against the bots of a full mainland sim.

".....the answer would be emarrassing for you...."
So there you are, no embarrassment for me whatsoever.
I posted my opinion.
You confirmed that my opinion was fact.
Thank you.




Your definition of a "lie" is exotic.
For example, someone described you bot-maximisation system as making slots available for human avatars.
You launched into a tirade about what a lie that was, and how low a thing it was to say.
That was high comedy.
The only thing wrong with what the poster wrote was that of course, your system made room for any type of avatar and not just the the human ones. However, this is in your view is a lie and a low thing to say.
Silly!

I'm not going to read your whole post. I read enough to write this....

Sling was asked where the dividing line is between optimising for search rankings and gaming for search rankings, since both are done with sole the intention of moving up the rankings. It's a simple question. He quoted the question in post #106 but made no attempt to answer it. And since then, he has lied about answering it several times That's all there is.

Can I help it if Sling lies so often that I call him out on it so much. He's totally dishonest - a cheat - a liar.

Anyone who has discussed things with me in a rational way, knows very well that I discuss in a rational way, and I don't resort to lies and name-calling, or anything similar. However, Sling is fair game to me these days because he's such a liar and a cheat. I don't expect anything rational from him.

People see a need to use a lot of shortcuts and corner-cutting in their daily lives.

People walk on the grass instead of using the sidewalk, because it is quicker.
People cut in queue so they don't have to wait as long.
People cheat on their taxes so they can keep more of their money.
People cheat on their spouses to have more/better/different sexual encounters, then lie to said spouses about it to avoid consequences.
People find a dropped wallet with cash in it, take the cash, and turn the wallet over to Lost & Found.
..et cetera ad nauseum..

When there were only businesses with 100% legitimate traffic listed at the top of search, who had EARNED their rankings, and the first traffic gamer came along, what entitled him to a search position higher than others who had EARNED it? What entitled him to TAKE it away from those who EARNED it for himself?

I don't buy "It was the only way to rank visible in Places Search" as an excuse. For one, it wasn't true. Plenty of businesses busted their tails to get their traffic legitimately, and THEY did it without gaming; why, all of a sudden, did gaming become the ONLY WAY to rank?

Well, yeah, it goes back to that shortcut thing again. People feel justified to cheat the system, to bypass all that "hard work" to EARN their ranking and reputation, and simply cut to the head of the queue. They weren't entitled to it; they didn't earn it; they just TOOK it, because they could. What's worse, they felt JUSTIFIED in doing so, and anyone decrying it were just lamers and whiners. "Go get your own bots and you can be a cheat, too". Pretty soon, now everyone feels they have to cheat to get ahead, and the WHOLE EFFIN' POINT of the search metric falls and shatters on the floor. Not only that, but NOW we can't TP into our home sims because X business fills the sim with bots, and if we can, the sim is lagged out for the same reason. NOW we can't even log in, because there's 10,000+ bots logged in at peak concurrency.

All because some shitheads have to cut corners with an unjustified, unearned shortcut, all in the name of "making money" with as minimal effort as possible.

Thanks, like I said, I read both posts AGAIN, and my response is still the same.

It *IS* an ANSWER to the question asked. Is it necessarily the best answer possible? No, but no one should expect it to be. Is it relevant to the question? Yes; the question asked for a contrast on a specific point. A contrast related to that point was given. Was it a good contrast? I dunno. I think it was worded a little strangely ("stalls" and "peers" weren't words used in the question post, but some people use synonyms they understand better for their arguments; it's simply a matter of translating the terms), but it was a workable answer. Was it a correct answer? I don't think the question was one about fact, but more one about belief, so I think that litmus is irrelevant.

That pretty much leaves "Did you like that answer?". Apparently, you and Marcel didn't. I am ambivalent about it. I think it probably painted Sling further into a corner that she really doesn't want to be in, but that's her choice. If you guys want to move up, box her in, and squash her in that corner, that's your call; it's your point to debate with her, not mine.

As a result, there is no cause to claim that "she didn't answer the question", and further, "she NEVER answers questions".