Definition of Theft?

As you said *I* didn't bring them up, and I'm not trying to advance any cause. However, as I said, the indications are that the silent majority couldn't care less about bots, even when they know about them.

For Colette.

You are still wrong. To the best of my knowledge, nobody in this forum is "supportive of traffic bots being allowed". Also to the best of my knowledge, 100% of the forum users would like rid of them.

Which of course raises the question... what do the silent majority care about, even when they know about? And the answer is, pretty much nothing, unless it directly impacts them. So there's no point bringing them up, unless you really want to be lumped in with all the other other petty nastiness the silent majority doesn't care about.

Role play isn't basically antisocial, but it is antisocial to role-play with an expectation of it giving me a certain feeling, as it's basically demanding that others act a certain way. Performing, for me, would be anti-social because I'd be demanding other people act as an audience when I'm not really doing anything that anyone couldn't do.

The reason the silent majority is often brought up, is because some people in the anti bot camp like to make it seem as if they speak for the entire population, while there is maybe a dozen users. Yes a whole dozen. Imagine how much weight the claim then holds: Nobody likes bots! Now that is a bad example because I know no one that says: hey Marcel, I like a bot. But you catch my drift I guess. A dozen people at max claiming to speak for the SL community. At least, trying to give that impression.

I'll remind you that I didn't bring them up

That's the main paragraph from the notecard.

Points:-

1. Search is among the top things to improve AFTER stability and availabilty. It isn't even the next one down - it's amongst the things to do.

2. I was ages ago that they had those Future of Traffic meetings, and this is first we've heard of them since then. In all those months since then, they've managed to identify some metrics - that they asked for and people told them. Well good for them - they are moving at the speed of light.

3. Notice the last sentence. They *hope* to have progress (but they don't know if they will or not) in the months ahead (months??!!), especially over the long term (even more months? years maybe?)

So I don't suggest that anyone holds their breath about them changing search at all - not even to allow everyone to scroll that All search results. Ok stability is excellent, but what was all the fuss about the Future of Traffic about? It seems to me that it was a total sham that wasted our time.

Ooh don't you put words into my mouth young lady I've said repeatedly that I don't like traffic bots, that i don't see the value they add to the platform as a whole. That unlike genuine camping there's no recycling of money going on.

I have said that I understand why people use traffic bots.

Personally I'm happy to see traffic removed as a ranking factor. The stat may even become meaningful then. I'd still like to at least see my traffic as I know which tools I'm using to generate it.

You admit that traffic bots go against LL's intentions.
You admit that traffic bots subvert Search - with the exception of the "destroy" definition of "subvert"
You kinda sorta admit that LL (via a notecard issued by a coordinating Linden to an inworld group) see traffic bots as disruptive of Search.

To most people, this would be an indication the LL don't want your traffic bots, and other back-door manipulations of ranking.


But you....
'disruptive means disruptive' ?? Thanks for that

To disrupt a system is not to abuse it?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. You know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

You have a way with words. You torture them.

Sometime it takes some getting clear understandings through to you, but here goes (again)...

Yes. Do you have apoint to make about that?

Yes. Do you have a point to make about it?

It does seem that she's saying that, although it isn't certain. Do you have a point to make about it?

Wrong. It says 3 things:- (1) that the use of traffic bots goes against what LL intended ages ago. (2) that traffic bots change the listings. (3) that LL seems to consider that changing the listings is disrupting the listings, although other interpretation could be put on it, but I won't go into that. She did seem to say what you're saying.


You are very welcome. I'm glad that you now realise that disrupting something is not at all the same as abusing something. Things are disrupted for all sorts of reasons - good, bad, and indifferent.

Precisely.

Is that a riddle?

That's rich coming from someone who changes the meanings of words so much, as to being falsehoods; e.g. disrupt and abuse.


So...
Do you have any conclusions, or is it just rambling? Leaving your falsehoods aside, from today's notecard, it's not unreasonable to think that LL don't care much for traffic bots influencing the search results, so what do you suggest?

I suggest that you stop using traffic bots.

Ah. I can't help you there, I'm afraid. You see, as long as they are ok with LL, they are ok with me and they are staying. Perhaps you should get onto LL and ask them to speed things up a bit, so that we are not waiting for "the long term" before they do anything.

If it helps you in the meantime, let me remind you that my bots do distrupt the listings but in a good way - the listings are better for them.

I am reminded of the various spammers who claimed that what they were doing was bringing valuable information to people who might be interested in it.

You have the ethics of a spammer.

Perhaps, but it's much better than having the ethics of someone who spreads falsehoods. However, in this case, my bots really do improve the results.

And two or three actively pro-bot (except Phil say he isn't, really), and maybe as many vocally "I don't care". That sounds about right.
Indeed, the best you can hope for is silent apathy. That's hardly the strongest basis for a pro-bot position. Perhaps you can argue that they're a necessary evil, but no more than that.

I think you're using different meanings for the word "improve". I suspect you mean "it moves my store up in the results". And I suspect he means "it makes the results more useful".

You are way off again. Who is pro-bot? I haven't seen anyone posting a pro-bot view in the forum.

I don;t mind telling you what I mean - then there's no need for you to suspect anything

My bots move my place up the listings, and above some that don't sell what they claim to sell - low prim furniture. If it weren't for my bots, the non-low prim furnitre listings would be higher. That's why my bots improve the listings.

Let me be quite clear about it. I have never seen a pro-bot opinion posted in this forum - not by me and not by anyone else. What do get posted are acceptances of bots, but that's quite different. I'll go further and state that I don't know of anyone in this forum, including me, who doesn't want rid of traffic bots. In that sense, we are all anti-bots. But some of us accept that they exist, and that the people who use them have every right to use them.

So why do you use them?

If you use them and you argue in favor of people being allowed to use them, you are supportive of them being allowed.

Whatever additional marketing spin you want to place on that, is just silly.

Because other people might use them!!

lulz

It still boils down to lying. The numbers are not the true number of real customers in your store(s).

It matters not whether the green dots can be seen on the map when it's in Search that the deception is occurring.

And if you're one of those store owners using such tactics, you can be sure I'll stay out of your stores henceforth.

.

Such convoluted logic. Such spin.

You're just doing everyone a favor, heh? How noble.

In essence, by using bots like this, you're cheating . . . and lying.

You don't get the customers your numbers seem to reflect . . . and you truly shouldn't be at the top of the ratings.

Bottom line: You cheat the other low-prim fuirniture businesses who don't use such tactics out of their rightful positions in the search listing ... all in the name of advancing your own profit.

From my perspective, that's seriously amoral and unethical.

But each to their own, I know who you are now . . . and you can forget my business.

What I stated is that I do not use bots. The only thing I do is defend the right of people who do use bots at this moment. Who said it again... "I do not like what you say but I will defend your right to say it", or something like that. And once again, it has nothing to do with lying. Nothing at all.

Plus, and that is something no one seems to consider, as a business owner you simply are confronted with your competitors using traffic bots. Now you say I dislike bots, so I rather not be found, or you can say I join the bot runners and make sure I am being found. You do not have to like bots to choose the latter.