The Discussions on Traffic Reform with the Lindens

Not by design, but it was found that some types of spending money with LL did it, but not all. Creating a group (100L) was tried and it worked. Kitty's idea of creating an event (free) wasn't thought of or tried. Neither was taking out a Classified at 50L.

Events and Classifieds are short-lived, and the html pages may not remain, but creating a group is a permanent method. The first 2 may take continual effort - too much time/effort. Creating a group is only done once.

Looking at the posts that came in while I was typing, it would seem that the game would be to engineer a link to an avatar, causing the system to generate an avatar page.

L$100 to have the avatar create a group would seem to be inexpensive.

Groups seem to be a big factor in database load.
And maybe we'd have thousands of two-bot groups being generated.

But hey!
If a group has very large numbers of members, then it must be a popular group, so things to do with that group should be weighted for relevancy. Yup! I could see that being thought of.
So thousands of thousand-member groups then.....
...and because of the 25-group membership limit, there would be bots created just to be members.

If the avatar web pages are static pages generated at intervals, then the odds are that once generated, they would remain for all time (until the account was closed).


If a cheap/free method took continual effort, then what the hell/ The effort is only being expended by a bot, so no effort.
All we get is more load on the system.

It seems to me that later parts of this thread - all the talk about Picks - is getting way ahead of the game. The current game is "the future of traffic". Theat's the topic of this thread.

The All search isn't being changed, so what's the point in discussing its pros and cons in this thread? It can be left until afterwards - especially since it's all theoretical; i.e. nobody has said that, due to Picks gathering, wrong places are topping the search results. Right now, it's all just academic. It's interesting chat, but it's just academic at the present time.

They are generated at quite frequent intervals, and according to the data that exists at the time. My guess is that, if an av doesn't have a current Classified, and nothing else to merit a page, a page won't be created for it in the current run. It's testable though.

In that case, if Traffic is to have any future, then it has to be able to ignore accounts that fit the profile of bots.
If such matching also excludes a relatively small percentage of 'legitimate' accounts it wouldn't really be a problem. It's not a financial accounting exercise. It's just meant to be a general indicator of where 'real' people spend their time.

I don't disagree with that at all, but I'll repeat my oft-stated (in these threads) view - remove the Places tab, and the traffic bots/camping disappears. After that, traffic can stay as is, because it has some merit for the All search, and yet its effect there is comparitively small.

Classifieds aren't present in search anymore though so I don't think that would do any good still.

So it would be events (untested it seems), groups (tested?) and owning a parcel that's listed in search (probably quite likely to work).

That doesn't fix the new search, the fixes needed for that are the exact same *and* more that are needed for traffic in which case you're better off dropping picks and keeping traffic since it's the better metric of the two (see previous post in this thread) once you reduce the impact of it getting gamed.

Yep - creating a group was tested and it works.

The topic isn't the new search - it's "the future of traffic". Picks are as perfect as 'votes' as anything can be. Ungamed traffic isn't anywhere near as good, because it makes a positive contribution regardless of what the visitors think of the places, and visitors don't have a choice. Picks are only ever created by choice.

So do away with traffic...but somehow places have to be listed in search..i guees only way if no traffic is alphabetik order...so the first 20 pages if i search for something i will find places named like aa blabla 11a1 blabla..a126 blabla..sounds like a giant idea to me..

when that happens, those of us who pay premium fees and tier fees with our camping money will cease to play the game on any level that brings LL income.

Search is inextricably linked to traffic. I don't think it's wise to treat them as completely separate entities. Traffic is still counted as a factor in the new search.

he did say that in another reply.

Phil, you keep talking about removing the Places tab as tho that were the only part of Search that was being gamed by Traffic. But I'm still unclear about how that would help any other category of Search or why bot-generate Traffic should be used as a metrics for any category of Search. If your Traffic-bot is bad for the Places search tab then it's bad... period.

You defend your own use of bots to generate Traffic and seem to be really opposed to giving up your "gross and unfair" advantage over other, more honest people, who find the idea of using bots at all to be completely unconscionable. A Traffic-bot means you are lying about how popular your store is, plain and simple. It is it's only function, isn't it... to lie?

To me, it seems like you keep trying to nay-say every other option by claiming it will give someone else a "gross and unfair advantage" but isn't that what you already have over others who find the use of ANY Traffic-bot to be "unfair" because they rightly feel that Traffic-bot use its lying to their customers?

Traffic, Search and Advertising are all linked. There is no way to talk about one without expecting an impact on the others. Traffic, the way it is measured right now, is a lie. Your bot contributes to that lie.

Remove the lie first, then we can talk.

Yes I know. I said that, "traffic can stay as is, because it has some merit for the All search, and yet its effect there is comparitively small."

It would remove a lot of camping, but I'm sure that some would remain, and some new camping could even appear that's just for helping people.

You don't really expect is discussion with that sort of post do you? Judging by your last sentence, you don't even want one, so leave it out or these threads will degenerate rapidly.

Hit ya where it hurts huh?

It's the idea of want to "hit" that I find really stupid, especially in the middle of a serious discussion that could even result in influencing desired changes to the system at this time. Still, if that's how your brain works, you have to live it.

Ok wait, let me ask all nicey- nice.

Dear Phil,

In your infinite and much lauded wisdom, can you possibly explain to me, dullard that I am:

Why removing the Places tab would eliminate the gaming of Traffic?

Why Traffic-bots are so much more then a lie.

Why your traffic-bot is not a 'gross and unfair advantage' over those who refuse to use bots because they feel that the use of bots is a lie.

Why you are consistently advocating the removal of Search features rather then advocating a system that would render Traffic-bots useless.

Love and kisses.
Pie

Let me put it this way.... go and play with your toys, and leave serious discussions to grown ups. There's a good boy.

Phil, Pie has raised a very important point concerning your posts. You can either address her points and thereby erase all doubt as to your bias or lose all credibility as to your input on this matter. Transparency is inherent to objectivity.

That's what we've been saying for 20 odd pages...

[Edit: Oh and P.S., Phil has been advocating getting RID of traffic.]

Cop out.




Which is why I'm asking. I am completely serious in my questions.

But I refuse to entertain the opinion of someone who is primarily interested in maintaining the viability of their Traffic-Bots, which is what it looks like you're doing to me, Phil.

He has been advocating getting rid of the 'Places' tab, not traffic.