Feedback on Ad Farm Post - Part 2

Lindens clearly don't dislike ad farms THAT much or they'd be banned outright...

so heres another suggestion.

Why not open one region PURELY for ads. Take the advertisers small plots and give them an equal amount of small plots in said region (call it Adopolis)

Then ban ads anywhere else.

Personally I think Lindens love convoluted rules too much. I sense a desire to emulate 'real life' government with all its exceptions and loopholes and bureaucracy.


By the way I hope if anyone does complain about ads they're more successful than a group of us were in my first region around 12 months ago when an idiot there surrounded his property with a black 100 metre high mega wall. A group of his neighbours filed reports endlessly... before anything was done a pleasant commnuity was broken apart. If sl occupants can't get something like that cleared in a hurry - and because of the nature of abuse reporting did not know what was being done to sort those complaints - how are people hoping to get a few much smaller rotating advertising cuboids shifted - especially (as has been oft pointed out) because of the list of allowances that have been made??

Jack:

One of the rules states that ads must be grounded, which is good, but there is no mention of the gound level, which isn't good. Example: there's a 32m ad plot cutting into some of my land, where the ad plot's ground is raised as high as it can be, and is much higher than the surrounding land. When the ad is gounded onto its own land, it will be the 8m x 3 or 4 higher than the land around it.

According to the rules, ad people can raise their little parcels to get around the 8m limit. Can the rules be changed to say that the level of ad land must be in keeping with the land around it?

The problem with that is that ads are no good if they aren't placed where people pass by. I don't think there's anything wrong with ads if they are done nicely. We see them every day we are out in RL, and think nothing negative about them. In fact, they often provide interesting information.

What is that that is going to resolve something, I hope. But seen the form which that takes I have more the impression that nothing is going to change, that the ADS limit script which flashes beyond the contacts of 16sqm.

As gambling machines in spite of it is forbidden ROBO MARX to quote only installs it to him on the contacts of 16sqm they are equipped with brilliant script which gene grounds near.

When what is that you and Linden Labs will note all these abuses fact by this individual's kind which respects nobody and which covers itself behind the free market.

I would admit that if that continuous I am going to leave the Second Life certe that will not make much but in view of the other person than I know and of what they say it would risk to follow.

I am for a ban of pub definitively and a progressive opening of the market, because at present it is the jungle.

I thank you for your efforts.

I agree Phil but people dont like em so Im suggesting a quick way of dealing with it rather than the copious amount of legislation sl are proferring.

I might actually visit an ad region...it could be done in the style of the city in blade runner which might even actually attract people to look.

To be totally honest I think there are far more irritating problems in sl which need to be looked at than ad farms.

JubJub is right to bring up the "ad blocking" issue again. This is of crucial importance to both advertisers and their neighbours, and it seems unclear whether there is to be any change here.

JubJub expounds the point of view of the advertiser - that blocking should be disallowed. From my point of view, this says that the advertiser should be able to control what the neighbour sees from his land while the neighbour cannot control what he sees from his own land. Stated that way, it seems obviously perverse.

But it can be described in terms of a "right to visibility", whereby the advertiser has the right to insist that his build be viewable from all sides. At first sight this seems much more reasonable and non-discriminatory. However, the effect is that the owner of a 16m adplot, for which he pays less than US$0.16 per month in tier, can dictate the build of the owner of the adjacent plot which is paying maybe a hundred time as much tier. So for me, this interpretation is at least equally perverse.

Nevertheless, anecdotal reports clearly indicate that LL has vigorously supported the "right to visibility" interpretation. Thus, at least in the recent past, they have supported a powerful asymmetry of rights specifically in favour of advertisers. It is therefore quite reasonable to ask for further clarification of this issue, as many of us, including JubJub have requested.

My own view is that there should be no special build restrictions imposed on the land owner who happens to be next to an ad plot (irrespective of which was there first). The issue of visibility should be arranged by agreement between neighbours.

Unfortunately, there is opportunity for harassment and extortion from both sides over this issue. The advertisers are certainly relatively disadvantaged, compared to their previous position, with the introduction proposed regulations. I see this as a redress of imbalance, but others will reasonably disagree.

The individual circumstances are very variable. Perhaps the best course is for a set of conventions to be developed through LL's dealings with the issue in the new circumstances, from which they will have the opportunity to arrive at a more satisfactorily balanced view.

Why Linden would not propose on his lands a specific places for the advertising on panels specially studied so that they would rent to the advertising agents ?

Advertising really isn't the problem. Any sensible advertising provider doesn't place their adverts where they will cause such offence. Couple that with the extortionate prices ad farmers charge for people who want to buy back the view and it's as clear as day that this isn't an advertising issue.

NCI for example advertise within their parcel. Their neighbours view isn't blighted by adverts. They aren't using advertising on their land as a ploy to maximise revenue from selling the parcel.

There are very few areas in Second Life where stand alone advertising parcels have a comfortable place. Certainly in the middle of a sim is not the place. Who places an advert next to a home? What sort of pass through traffic are they looking for there?

Working with parcel owners is the key to advertising, those causing the problems work against parcel owners and their interest really isn't advertising.

I like the Adopolis idea. Sort of a cornfield for adfarmers and land extortionists. Relocate all the current ad farmers and advertisers there on Oct 1st and be done with it. After that hammer out something that permits tightly regulated advertising on the rest of the grid.

I am not an extortionist - if all ad-farmers were extortionists then the practice of advertising would be banned. I was referring to the comment "YAY Ad farmers DIE!!!!" made by a previous poster quoting my question... and referring to the generally aggressive, abusive, and rude nature of the posts made by the anti-ad brigade... much like your comment as a matter of fact. I have not asked for pity..i have asked for answers and got abuse from posters as a reply. If you actually bothered to read the whole thread instead of just jumping in to suggest i be banned you would have seen the comment i referred to.

To be clear Drongle... i refer to the practice of blocking on multiple sides by one person (or group), and enclosing - when the person has bought surrounding land after the ad was placed. An advertisement is not just a single block..it refers to a place of business and generally paying more tier and contributing to the economy - as is the homeowner too.
I have no issue with a homeowner blocking his view... i do have issue when its a deliberate attempt to bully out, or the person unilaterally decides whats best for everyone else.
There is not a homeowner here who would like it if someone blocked in their land to the height of their build. And not one would enjoy being bullied off their land with harassment.
Personally, in response to the general drift of feeling in these forums... i have some days ago, put all my plots in general areas for sale (except where an owner has attempted bullying) and only kept roadside (still without ads placed). Would be nice to be clear on some aspects tho...
Thanks for your thoughtful input tho - it makes a pleasant change here from the extremists (on both sides)

Jubjub, no one likes to be criticised, though i think you make too much of certain comments. Not sure why, but you seem oblivious to the BIG picture here?

The cause of any perceived hostility is that nobody in SL......and I mean NOBODY ....wants ad farming. Except ad farmers and anyone else tangentially profiting from it.

I've yet to see a single post or comment from anyone favouring ad farm freedom - the whole concept is a blight on an already chaotic mainland melee.....

Why can you not accept this?

I wonder how many 'ordinary' sl users who dont bother with blogs or forums are suddenly going to find themselves in trouble for putting a revolving glowing 50 metre high 'for sale' sign up....

if these users do find themselves the subject of the anonymous abuse report is SL simply going to just remove the sign, give a warning or what ??

...and though it has been said many times and far more eloquently than my attempt here, I'll say it again.

Well done Jack & co-Lindens for your excellent communication on this project. For me, the balance between consultation and progress update from you is a model for all other LL project teams.

And sure, it wont resolve EVERY land blight issue, but it was never intended for that. I do feel though, that you are bang on target so far....a thoughtful approach to a complex and emotive challenge.

Well done again and HUGE respect to all.

Hers hoping the pending execution is as good as the preparation.....(oop - was execution a Freudian slip?)

I am not sure what is your native tongue, however 'such-and-such die' is a common way of phrasing something in English. It means the 'profession' (ad farmers) is reviled and the person saying it wants it to go away. It is not a death threat, and saying so is pure histrionics.

You cannot have it both ways. Various ad farmers (not sure if you said this too) like the mantra 'you don't buy the view'. Well, if other people don't, why should you? if a person owns land on all sides of you do they have to adjust their build to not use all of their land?

NOBODY? So you interviewed EVERYBODY? Wow..but sadly it seems you forgot me so your exaggeration is wrong. AND i know personally through my stats/clicks that many people do use em -indeed the right ad gets exceptional response rates.
I had pulled all my ads (still have) BUT the Lindens intend to allow ads on small plots - why can you not accept that?
It seems to me most of the anti-ad brigade here don't get much past abuse as a form of suggestion or rational argument. Indeed how rational is ignoring every other ad in their real and gaming lives...but picking on ads here? There's ads on almost every website they visit but i see no-one raging on them.
FYI the BIG picture is without advertising most businesses would die... and ads on plots have been around for years now...and yet seemingly SL seems to thrive and indeed grow.
I thought blight kills?

The actual problem the Lindens are trying to sort is extortion and harassment - and seems to me they are trying to achieve a balance for the views of all residents.
I do agree some aspects could be improved - however since when has asking simple questions for clarity been an invitation for abuse?

Moving on....
This particular piece is going to affect many many re-sellers.... specially since only one ad per sim
Q. Does this policy include signs advertising Parcels for sale?
A. Yes it does.
I read that as no more rotating, red for sale signs littered right across landscapes? And all the other For Sale signs of various shapes and sizes which are used primarily by land re-sellers to be gone now too? That's gonna be a huge impact in some areas.

Agreed, and I certainly hope that Linden Lab will forcefully act against anyone that intentionally cuts holes in larger plots for the specific purpose of creating the "surrounding" that JubJub refers to.

The issue of the advertising on Mainland is finally handled which has my applause.
I do hope that LL will have the resources to police all those rules since a license does not seem to be a working solution. However, this is at least a start

tie ads to tier?


1024=10 ads total
2048=20 ads total
4096=30 ads total
ect....
max of 50 ads total

The only thing I see this policy changing is that we won't have 60 meter, particle spewing, neon bright towers in our view unless someone happens to build their home or club that way.

Otherwise, we will still have the high priced, checkerboard, 16m2 parcels all over the map and in the middle of our builds and I only see this situation getting worse with this policy.

The issue of visual blocking is considerably more subtle than it seems. In fact, pretty much every parcel is completely visually blocked at some depth away from its borders, by prims or terrain, somewhere out there. So, the idea of preventing such visual blocking seems to be related to how far away that blocking occurs.

Take a simple example: A owns a whole sim, save one 16 right in the middle that belongs to B. Now, is it wrong for A to put up a wall around the outer perimeter of that sim? Presumably not. But we are given to understand that it is wrong for such a wall to be erected around the inner perimeter. But both completely obscure B's parcel. So, accepting for the sake of argument that "visual access" from a neighbor's parcel is a legitimate landowner right, how far away does that wall have to be?

That sounds like a hypothetical question, but there's actually a common-sense answer: A's building set-back from the border should be equal to B's set-back from the same border. So, if B were to build an infinitely thin sign located infinitely near one of the borders, that would leave a 4m set-back on one side, so A should keep walls 4m away from that border furthest from B's sign.

But the common-sense approach is instructive because of the symmetrical consequences to B: if A had no prims within 2m of B's parcel, B would have to maintain the same set-back, and couldn't build anywhere on the microparcel.

"Instructive" because that's exactly the problem with Mainland advertising as currently practiced: it depends on a preferential asymmetry, namely the ability to be seen (and clicked) from parcels for which the advertiser pays no tier, whereas surrounding landowners make no such claim on ad parcels. As has been mentioned before, it is exactly analogous to a banner ad that somehow foists itself onto somebody else's website without permission or compensation. It is inherently parasitic.

Ive said it before and I'll say it again...ban lines are a far worse eyesore and impediment to the sl explorer than ads are or ever will be...and so are security orbs and all the other rubbish people employ to keep others out of what are already indestructible properties anyway.

An ad sign doesnt 'boot' me home while Im looking round nor does it cause my system to freeze or me to crash out of sl if I hit it.

I can fly round an ad sign... I see it coming. Okay nobody can come an put an obstrusive sign near my property but they can still erect a barrier which becomes an ominpresent barrier of glowing text if I go near it.

But I bet you if Lindens try to get rid of ban lines or these other griefing weapons legitimised in this ludicrous name of home security you'll have some of the people who have been baying for the end of ad farms up in arms about it....

I just had another thought..... what would prevent anyone from selling their ad amts like some now sell picks? I think it would be sleazy so wouldnt even consider it with ads or picks but what will prevent others from doing so?

So, fly 55 meters above ground level, set your camera to 64 or higher and explore all you want without ever hitting a ban line.