Feedback on Ad Farm Post - Part 2

If you put an advert somewhere where people can surround it then it obviously isn't in a suitable place for an advert is it.
Its common sense really.
The Lindens want pleasant looking hoardings in sensible locations.
If positions are sought out in logical areas then they will not be surrounded.
They would be effective for the purpose they are intended for, which should be advertising.

You stated in the last forum that you have a gallery and shop you advertise.

If that it true, then you have retained the ability to advertise it

Now all you need to do is choose reasonable locations to place your adverts.

Jack

Can I suggest that small walls are to be allowed by residents when adverts are placed facing someones back yard, as common sense says this is exactly what would happen in real life.

Sensible advert placement is a must, otherwise the adverts cease to have a use other than for applying pressure to residents, in these instances a resident must retain the right to defend themselves.

No, you forgot...

D) The resident AR's the extortion plot and the extortioner complains to the G-team that they didn't do anything wrong, therefore the resident gets a warning from LL.

Nobody should need to put flyer's like adverts up, the search engine is adequate

YES, exactly! If the ads end up surrounded by neighbors' walls or trees or fences, because the neighbors don't want to view them, that's a very good hint that the advertiser needs to choose a more appropriate placement area for the ads.

Esther leave the walls alone LOL I hate people writing on the toilet doors. Esther it's not really about what Lindens want it is what I want and people like me. The Lindens are listening and I am grateful for that.

I really cannot see how Linden labs or anyone else could possibly keep track of how many adverts each advertiser has. How will we (us, the residents) know, when we are, or are not looking at advert #51+?

Even though advertisers no longer need to have a license, I still think they should be registered.

Linden labs should provide a simple web based system which all advertisers should use to record the locations of their advert installations.

Just a name and a list of locations of all of their adverts. The advertisers themselves should keep their records up to date. Perhaps the system should give a unique code for each installation which the advertisers should place in the parcel description.

This would make it far quicker/easier for everyone (especially the residents) to check if the adverts are legitimate, and AR illegal/excess adverts.

Please...

Yes you are right in the forum we should make every effort to help LL, make decisions that will be workable and result in a better mainland experience for all.

But please see that LL are making some great movements in the right directions and do have the power and wish to follow this through.
Jack's statement of intent shows real drive to improve the issues of advertising and antisocial behavior, as LL strive to make a better mainland experience for all.


Maybe the license should be issued to allow only responsible businesses the ability to use their 50 advertising locations, they could explain on application why they wish to advertise and show their advertising designs possibly?


I know you said your home opens onto a roadside Drongle but where can adverts be placed if not on roadsides where people will actually look at them?
If Adverts are limited to a set area then they are less likely to be placed in areas where they become completely pointless and are sure to annoy residents.


Another option is to only allow ownership of 50 small parcels below 256sqm to any single user without specific written permission not just limiting the proposal to advertising.

This might help by forcing many adfarmers to sell the cuts they already hold.
Lower a cutters ability to cut more than a 512 plot up.

Yet still allow people like Weedy to gain permission and carry on with their legitimate businesses.

Excellent. What a liclensing system would have provided to LL, but better public because everyone would be able to help effectively with enforcement as well as avoiding unjustified ARs. Some might object on some sort of commercial secrecy grounds, but that's tough. The information is all there on the ground anyway. It's just being made more readily accessible.

In the spirit of the policy, I would much rather that the ads around me were specific to the clubs or stores that were in that actual region. It acts much more like a stop and explore this region type of atmosphere than random signs for who knows where.

In that spirit, I would much rather work with those neighbors, or with advertisers such as Shimada Yoshikawa who do have a track record of working with neighbors.

An 8m high sign pretty much negates the need for panels, particularly if there won't be floating body parts on ads anymore. But I wonder about those advertisers who are still focused on whether or not their ads will be blocked, it doesn't sound like the type that will work with neighbors.

What will be done about making sure that the sites advertisers have are not connected to malware?

Possibly Only 35 Small plot locations should be allowed for any one individual or group, the number that can be held on 512sqm tier set to group ownership without permission from Linden Labs.

Would this make the practice of small plot extortion uneconomic to carry out as a practice?
as with only 35 plots and tier of 9$ per month they would have to sell at least one to break even on the tier.

Also if it were down to 35 small plots total it would be easier for LL to check up on and for residents to check up on, rather than which plots held adverts.
Negating the need for complex registration plans etc.
Yes a website with listing of all advert locations on would be lovely but lets face it is it really likely to ever appear? I don't think so.

What is the point in holding many small plots for most users?

It is just an idea, what do you think?

While the September 12th, 2008 follow-up blogpost regarding Ad Farms states:

* No unsolicited dispensing of IMs, notecards, landmarks or content

this is already covered under the Community Standards, specifically:

* Section 3: Assault "...creating or using scripted objects which singularly or persistently target another Resident in a manner which prevents their enjoyment of Second Life..."

and

* Section 6: Disturbing the Peace "...repeated transmission of undesired advertising content..."

As there were already TWO prior rules in place to cover Ad Farms which spam (see: persistently, repeatedly, undesired) all passersby within a range of 96-meters, whether they were within the boundaries of the Ad Farm parcel or not (typically not) it seems unlikely that a THIRD rule addressing this type of infraction will be enforced.

Sorry, but it's merely another paper tiger.

Money is the main concern for these people it would work if enforced.
This could Work on another level to, as the threat of loosing the majority of these small parcels would presumably force the scumbags to sell at normal market value most of their thousands of small plots, or link them back together to increase the sizes above 256sqm.
Either way hopefully this should aid cleanup to.

Great job Jack, I think you described very well the two main problems facing residents. And like you said, policies will need to be adjusted a bit to make sure it works well and also to close up little loopholes people will try to exploit. This is going to make SL a much more positive experience for new residents when they first try to buy some land.

This is really weak, this is giving in. For a brief period, I really though Linden Labs was going to prevent mainland from going to the toilet at the hands of a few ad farmers.

Now the opposite will occur: ad farmers are now formally recognized and protected.

These people trash entire sims in a very efficient and low cost manner. I remember reading about a theft of copper from a house nearby: $8,000 worth of damage, which netted the thieves about $50 of copper. The thieves didn't care that the damage is way out of proportion to their meagre profit. I'm not saying ad farmers are thieves, but they share a trait in common with the copper thieves: they are willing to do damage way out of proportion to their meagre profits, and they don't care.

And now, so it seems, Linden Labs doesn't really care either.

I think these are great rules. But I want to add to my first reaction earlier, that I'm also very glad there is no plan for licensing.

Better to have rules for all, that all can follow. That way, anyone who wants to advertise can (rather than having to be one of a special group). I didn't like the idea that some residents would have rights to advertise, but others wouldn't.

But more importantly, no one will be able to hide behind the idea of, "Well, we're licensed, so we can do whatever we want," or lord that over other residents. And I know some who would.

It would more difficult, too, for Lindens to take to task people who have already been "officially" approved (by other Lindens).

This way, you either follow the rules or you don't, I don't care who ya are (to paraphrase Larry the Cable Guy).

coco

Just to redress the balance a little. Whatever the problems with the licenseing/no licensing and with enforcement of allowances, the physical limitation rules proposed will have a substantial beneficial effect, especially with a couple of additions that have been suggested by multiple respondents here. While it is quite right to press hard on the serious problem issues, we should not condemn the whole proposal.

A guy from NCI told me inworld earlier, he see new users coming in still and that LL isn't desperate to get more in, so they possibly do care and are perhaps doing this for the residents.

As far as Adfarmers are concerned, Yes you can call them thieves, thats exactly what they are. Allowed until now by LL to carry on regardless of residents complaints, this is an enforcement issue LL as someone stated above the rules are good going in the right direction, but they are useless without enforcement.

Now if you want my advice set the limit to how many small parcels are allowed, 35 seems a good figure.
The deadline for compliance should be 1st of October and advertising as stated in your post could be allowed upto 35 per user there is no point in allowing 50 set the figure to the number allowed in tier for a premium account. then all users have the same rights so it is perfectly fair and every one is on a level playing field.

Come 1st of October any user with more than 35 small plots unless granted express permission gets the boot and looses everything.
See the way these wan**rs move to sort out everyones problems then, yours included.
When they see the real chance of loosing some of their ill gotten gains.

Yet this is the very situation Coco, with all due respect the written permission does exactly that, some who are in the favour with the Lindens will be able to have more plots than those who are not in favour with the Lindens.

There is no "One rule", it's "One rule for you" and "Another rule for him/her".

There's also the issue that the ad farmers were looking at ways to get out of Dodge and have now been handed a lifeline.

However we'll see how it goes, but this really is a retreat and it's a big retreat.

1. What if a group I belong to puts up too many ads and I have nothing to do with it and don't know about it?

2. Advertising networks will just become informal groups. With no actual group set up, each person can have 50 ads and we've accomplished nothing.

This is already covered under Section 5.4 of the Terms of Service which we agree to upon joining Second Life (whether we read the Terms of Service or not):

"...Linden Lab does not ensure continuous, error-free, secure or virus-free operation of the Service..."

You're asking for protection from something you already decided to forego protection from. (You can't have your cake and eat it, too)

Note that under the Terms of Service other residents aren't supposed to be doing such things anyway as Section 4.1(v) states:

"[You shall not] take any actions or upload, post, e-mail or otherwise transmit Content that contains any viruses, Trojan horses, worms, spyware, time bombs, cancelbots or other computer programming routines that are intended to damage, detrimentally interfere with, surreptitiously intercept or expropriate any system, data or personal information... ...Any violation by you of the terms of the foregoing sentence may result in immediate and permanent suspension or cancellation of your Account."

The license idea as stated initially created a one rule for one and another rule for another feeling.
The new rules do give the sense of a level playing field, but they need more tightening to target the real problem of adfarming/land cutting.
LL should limit more than advertising, they should limit small plot ownership aswell at the same time, then allow with permission exceptions to the rule for specific cases, who prove compliance with the overall Linden strategy for mainland cleanup.
Yes at that point you are allowing some to buck the rules, but only after agreement to follow strict rules set by LL.
Then LL must enforce these rules properly and be prepared to pull the plug if needed.

All I read is distrust in LL, its time to show us your true intentions and do it with strength of conviction, no climb downs, just strict implementation of your plans when finalized.

In that case someone mentioned in the previous forum, an advertiser who was connecting to malware.
They should be immediately given the boot now, if this is proven.
Lindens you should be investigating that and treating it as a priority, make an example and the masses see the good intent.
This sort of action says far more than words.

OK Carl, I know, but that's still advertisement which theorically we could say you pay me for placing. I am thinking of a set of 4 ads in Ambat which could be seen by others as violating such a "1 placement" limit even they support sandboxes and that is why i ask. I think you should actually be allowed to run the InfoNode system in Bear for example, because of the nature of your operations is well intended, reasonable and would serve both NCI as well as commerce. The rule in place would seem to prohibit it however and this is why the one placement per sim limit troubles me.

Also there is a blurry line between non-profit and for profit here in SL, when everyone has tier to pay and a land purchase investment with possible interest rates to recover.

With this assumption and the time factor that people invest in, I think it would be fair to say that the majority of SL businesses or entities operate with possible expectations of profit but mostly are non-profit nevertheless...

And if I may, I think LL investors shouldn't profit either until they fully deliver a reliable solid platform. ^^

I just read Jack Linden last post and browsed this thread; I’m well beyond disappointment!

Ah, there's the rub.

It would have to be /proven/ that the suspected malware originates from that particular individual's outworld site which is linked (by whatever object) inworld.

Also, even if the Lindens did investigate such a claim (see Section 5.1 of the Terms of service), did prove that malware was being distributed, and did take action (account termination) the name of the individual would not be made public as then the Lindens themselves would be violating Section 4 of the Community Standards (and would also be violating their own Code of Conduct which they agree to upon commencing employment at Linden Lab).