Definition of Theft?

Just out of interest, here is what you wrote:-

"100s of shoppers" inflated to "perhaps 1000s if they start handing them out to their friends". It's quite some imaginary leap, isn't it?

I don't think I'm capable of evaluating this accuratly, does anyone thinks this thread has become a flame wars or somthing? or the argument is still at a civilized level?

Still trying to be civil...but it's hard....in spite of being continually called Insignificant.....

You can pull some aspects out of the argument that relate back to the original thought. I think you got a really good grasp on the Business Model of a Bot User. I did.

You can pull out some gems on "customer relations."

I don't think there's any need for Phil and I to go farther, personally. But I will continue to correct him if he misreads my statements and twists them. I don't like my thoughts to be manipulated and twisted any more then the traffic counts.....and I don't think it's necessary to call me Insignificant another time. It's overdone. And I disagree.

No one on the face of the earth is insignificant.

Its became a "My dog is bigger than your dog" back and forth. Neither group changing the others mind. Quite amusing to watch these games but useful? naaa

It's perfectly civil at this end. No insults etc.

I haven't called *you* insignificant as a person. I've said that your impact on already successful stores is insignificant, and I said that because you made out that you are so valuable to stores when you are not, even listing some big ones.

You could have avoided most of this if you'd taken my suggestion and gone back to *your* thread's topic a couple of pages ago.

The thread became a argument between Mickey and Phil.

Mickey thinks he (she? really dunno..) has influence on sales of furniture sellers with his group and notecard system, plus his/her own business. Probably the influence is real, the question is how big the influence is. The higher the sales of the particular business, the less the impact would be if Mickey stopped supporting them. But how high their sales should be before this becomes important, no one knows.

Phil thinks he is big enough (in terms of sales) not to notice the influence of Mickey's list. When he really makes about a million linden per month, that might pretty well be the case, depending on how much the group Mickey influences, would spend at Phil's.

So in fact, the argument is done. Mickey thinks his/her influence is higher then Phil does, and Phil thinks the other way around. Nothing wrong with different opinions. Okay, Mckey implicitly called Phil a thief, and Phil called Mickey insignificant, well I have seen worse in these fora. So lets get back to normal?

Today I sent Mickey an IM to get on the list (and got response). Though my business runs quite well, I don't even come close to the million (not even a within sight! ). So I should notice the difference. Since for me still every sale counts, initiatives like Mickey's are initiatives I want to participate in. And who knows, after a few months I might revive this thread to prove one of these two individuals wrong

I don't mind not "avoiding" it. I learned a lot, and it didn't have any effect on me. Apologies to the others if it was ugly to watch.

We did end up at the original topic. Bots. And Business Ethics.

I think it depends a lot on who you're targeting, to be honest.

With low prim furniture, I suspect Phil is targeting newbies, which is why he'd want to use bots and game Search - that's where newbies tend to be looking. Certainly for making money in SL, targeting newbies is a pretty good idea, as those newbies who actually buy L$ tend to do so in a single blaze of glory as they arrive, then start cutting back.

Mickey's scheme seems to be something for more experienced users who're more likely to be in commerce groups, looking for reviews, and feel comfortable participating in the word-of-mouth networks.

That will be really interesting, Marcel, and I look forward to seeing some results. So far, my judgement is based on her own numbers, so it will be interesting to see some additional data.

I don't target any group of users. I just do things that allow people to come to the store, whoever they are. I've no doubt that newer people come, and I know that older people come. I make sure that I'm ranking well in the All search, and I do the same for the Places tab search (bots).

That's it really. I don't do marketing because I don't want to. I don't sell via SLX or OnRez, for instance, because I don't want the extra bother. I don't do things like sales, treasure hunts, lucky chairs, or any other marketing techniques for the same reason. I don't do satelite stores, and I don't place LM givers/ads in other people's places even though I am often offered them free. I just do my simple few things for search and whatever happens, happens. I'm not really a businessman in that respect.

Sure, but that search optimization is a form of marketing. Again, essentially you're using your old RL job to benefit from a marketing service (SEO) that could cost hundreds or thousands of real dollars to anyone else. Maybe some day, SEOers will be regulated in the same way as lawyers, but for now..

Yes it is. I do it because I know how to do it. It's the only form of marketing that I do.

A quick OT question, Yumi. Did you once IM me and we had a little chat? Either you or Yummi did, and I can't remember which of you it was.

Whoooooaaaaa....wait a minute, Marcel.

Let me make a huge correction. I did not go off on a tangent about how "influential" I am. Someone misunderstood that, and got carried away. I am not proposing to be "Influential"....that was all misread and misdirected. In the simplest sense - I am just a customer. I have contact with people who spend money. It's that simple.

I do not think that my Influence is Higher than Phil's. I think that I am a customer, and that I count. To Anyone. If any of those large stores wants to contact me and tell me that I do not count. Fine. But I did not learn business that way. I never ran a business in rl thinking that any one customer did not count. And I won't run it that way here. It does not matter how big you are. You would never get that size, if you felt like each customer did not count.

I did NOT call Phil a Thief!

Marcel, I'm not going to do all that work on the notecard advertisements, just so someone can track whether I am right or wrong, or to have a contest with Phil. I do not claim that it will work for you. Referrals have worked for me in the past....and that's what this system is based on. I'm using it to make shopping easier for people, and as a tool for business owners to continue to combat the Bot User stores taking some of their traffic. It is not a contest, it's just a tool.

*nod* But again, on a platform like SL there's grounds for it to be regulated in a similar way to lawyers IRL (they're limited in how much they may represent themselves, because it wouldn't be fair for lawyers to have greater access to justice due to not needing to pay someone else to be their lawyer)



I think I have talked to you in-world once, but I don't think it was for very long..

Hang on a sec, Mickey.

You implicitly called me a thief in your first post (I use traffic bots).

In the thread (your posts with the numbers) you gave a *very* strong impression of thinking that you are able to influence the success of stores, to the extent that they would be over-confident to think they can turn their backs on you.

As a customer, you are as important to me as all my customers, and my customers receive excellent customer service and help. But a person who tries to make out that they can influence my store's success is not important to me at all.

And a new one...
I don't consider myself to have any influence whatsoever. I could close my shop today and it wouldn't even cause a ripple in SL. All I do is make and sell furniture - it's not something that is influencial - or even needed.

laywers can't represent themselves? where? i've never heard that before 0.o

(or did I misread what you said?)

this reminds me of an idea I've thought about several times before but nver got talking a bout it with anyone, SL should develop it's own regulatory agencies (by SL I mean the people that use it), so people that do busyness could have a seal of aproval of an unbiased agency that has the interest of the people in general in mind, like the 5 stars rating systems that exists for hotels, documents that allow monetary institutions to work, diplomas for professionals of certain areas etc, but I'm not sure how hard it would be to keep those agencies corruption free though :/

From that aspect, I did share most of it with the forum, as you know. And I shared more of it with a few individuals - mostly direct competitors. So it's not something that I kept totally to myself.

Then it was you. I've been wondering which of you it was for some time now

Last Word is yours, Phil. I'm going back to work. Have a Great Day.

Yes, I know that you shared some part of it with the forum, but that doesn't really change anything. Some principles of general SEO are well known, but that doesn't stop the SEO companies charging thousands of dollars for the parts that aren't.

Define "optimization".

I well understand the structuring of website content to assist search engines to rank a site. I am aware of the benefit of having inbound links and the need to have such links constructed in a helpful manner.
There is no dishonesty in this. If a website contains useful content, and other websites vote with their links based on that, then that is a useful thing. One would hope that the engine algorithms are weighted heavily in favour of content. That would work towards opening up the Net to people whose gifts are in the product/service rather than in the tech area. It is after all the service/product that the end user of the search engine is looking for.

Phil and I have crossed swords( to put it mildly) on the ethical/honesty issues, but I see nothing at all wrong with him using his knowledge within SL
Provided.......


My view is that inbound links that are artificially engineered are dishonest.
Paid-for picks are dishonest in the same way that IBLs for hire or abuse of the "blogosphere" (ugh!) in the wider web are dishonest.
Many think that this is a correct view. Such engineered IBLs work directly against the common good.


"Optimization" is a much-abused word used to camouflage dishonesty.
I see people posting to the effect that a practice is "business", as if that in some way excused immoral/dishonest behaviour.
It doesn't.


Yuki writes: Maybe some day, SEOers will be regulated in the same way as lawyers, but for now.."
*grins* .. and that has prevented lawyers from being creeps?

Nope!
Some people will be creeps in RL and SL. It's their nature. Does a shark have a conscience?


The answer? (of a sort)

Pointy sticks!!!

Read the bastards out. Highlight their activities. Never let them rest easy in their fantasy that they deserve respect.

Poke, poke, poke

I can't speak for anywhere else, but here in the States that statement is totally off base.

Not entirely. For example, companies can't represent themselves pro se, even if they have lawyers on their staff.

The cost is because SEOs know what they are doing, but most companies don't have such experts in their employ, and it's cheaper not to hire someone for the task. There isn't much in the way of secrets in seo, as it's all out there in the specialised forums. The only difference between SEOs and everyone else is the same difference between any other kind of expert and everyone else - SEOs have taken the time to acquire the knowledge and experience.

I used to suggest to people who approached me for my services, that they do it themselves because it isn't difficult. They just didn't want to put the time into it, since they didn't already have the knowledge, and they are busy enough doing other things to gain the knowledge.