BOT places! List them here!
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
07-25-2008 07:37
From: Sling Trebuchet Yeah! People hang around in places that they don't like rather than going off to find somewhere they do like.
"Come on! This place is crap. Let's go" - "No. Let's stay. I hate this place" "Come on!! A friend gave me a LM to a really great place!" - "No. I want to stay here. This place is useless and awful".
If traffic were simply a visitor count, you would have a point. Traffic is more influenced by the time that people spend in a place. If it were otherwise we'd have armies of bots just visiting places briefly. Traffic is about keeping avatars on the parcel. Choices: 1) Make a place that earns high traffic through people liking the place and hanging around, telling their friends, blogging, etc. which generates more visits. 2) Bribe people to stay (even if they are just parking an avatar there and leaving it) 3) Put a bunch of your own (or hired) alts in a box. Actually, your little conversation isn't so far fetched. Not exactly like that one, of course, but people often need/want to spend some time looking round a store, sometimes trying things even, before they decide that there's nothing there for them, and that they've no desire to ever go back. You missed at least a couple of choices out:- 4) 1 and 2 combined. 5) 1 and 3 combined. I prefer to go with choice #5 
|
MortVent Charron
Can haz cuddles now?
Join date: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 1,942
|
07-25-2008 08:22
From: Phil Deakins Actually, your little conversation isn't so far fetched. Not exactly like that one, of course, but people often need/want to spend some time looking round a store, sometimes trying things even, before they decide that there's nothing there for them, and that they've no desire to ever go back. You missed at least a couple of choices out:- 4) 1 and 2 combined. 5) 1 and 3 combined. I prefer to go with choice #5  Ah but those options give a false reading on the traffic, since you are creating inflated numbers. Therefore deceiving those that look at the traffic ratings to see if it's popular. Reminds me of a club that closed down recently... in rl they actually hired about 30 people to take shifts making it look popular. (they danced, drank at the bar, etc... non-alcoholic drinks.. but once word was out nobody went there anymore)
_____________________
==========================================
Bippity boppity boo! I'm stalking you!
9 out of 10 voices in my head don't like you... the 10th went to get the ammo
|
Gabriele Graves
Always and Forever, FULL
Join date: 23 Apr 2007
Posts: 6,205
|
07-25-2008 08:36
From: Phil Deakins What I do, I do for gain, but traffic does not represent popularity, and never has, so it couldn't have been me and people like me who made it not so. If you'd care to go back 2 pages and read my long post, you might get an understanding of why influencing the traffic is not about popularity. It's all there, and I'm not going to repeat it here. But it wouldn't be a measure of the parcel's popularity. The traffic figures are accurate - there is no deception. see my last comment. Influencing the traffic numbers makes no difference to this. People will go to a place, some will like it and some will not. The traffic they produce will not indicate how many, if any, of the people liked the place, and how many didn't. That's the point. Traffic does not equate to popularity. For a social place, perhaps so - I already said that. But not so for a store. When people are looking for something, they are not interested whether or not other people are there, and their intuitivity doesn't get a run out. Nobody said they were. Traffic isn't about quality or popularity. That's been established already. I don't think I ignored it. I already said that when I joined SL the Pop Places tab seemed to list actual popular places, even though camping was well on the go. I can't say what the Places results were like because I really don't know, but camping was well on the go, so I guess the Places results were already very affected. What I can say is that, when I came across the idea of bots, about 6 months ago, it was all up and running, giving me no chance of top rankings due solely to normal traffic, so I joined them. I didn't cause it, but you are right that people 'like me' caused something that wasn't popularity, but did a reasonable job at it, to change to something that doesn't do a reasonable job of representing popularity. I'd never heard of SL at the time, but i assume that's correct. However... Nobody denies influencing the traffic figure to get higher in the rankings. What I do deny is that I influence my 'popularity', because there is no such thing. I deny pretending to be more popular than I am (my place, I mean), because the Places tab search doesn't list according to popularity. And I deny that there is any deception. In fact, I proved that there is no deception. The only people who think there is, are those who have closed minds and refuse to have them changed by mere facts. I was accused of falsifying my place's popularity, and I have proved that to be false. And I have stated that my place's traffic figure is always absolutely correct - and it is (except when SL fails to update). There is no deception. You have proved nothing, you must be delusional. When shown evidence that traffic is presented by the Lindens as a popularity indicator you cannot prove otherwise. If you can prove me wrong, show why traffic is used as the metric in Popular Places if LL did not intend to promote it as such? By proof I mean some link or conclusive quote that is not just another poor argument against it. You call my evidence of the Popular Places as irrelevant and minor details but it is not. Just because I made up my scenario does not mean it is wrong - prove it wrong. You say that there is no dishonesty or faking, that is the weakest of all your arguments. When LL brought out traffic they intended it to be generated by people visiting parcels of their own volition, not some captive bot army. An uncomfortable fact that you would rather ignore and trivialise. The traffic figures were never meant to be gamed, how do I know? Because traffic would not rely on avatars staying on the parcel and you have a much easier mechanism for doing what you do today. Yes I was wrong, I did say what I had forgotten I had said. Well done you proved me wrong on a point that is totally pointless to be right on. Here is another tidbit for you - I knew all along that traffic is not "accurate" for popularity, nevertheless it is meant to be an indicator regardless of the quality of that indicator. How do I know it was meant to be? See above about how LL implemented it and presented it. Yes I am getting repetitive on this because how traffic is presented and intended to work is the crucial corner point of this whole discussion. You claim that it never was intended to be a popularity metric, it does not matter how good an indicator it is. I show evidence otherwise - where is your evidence? The facts are this regardless of what we have argued back and forth: 1. LL created traffic, presented it and intended to be a popularity indicator, this is shown by the fact Popular Places uses traffic as it's only differentiator and is called Popular Places. 2. If LL presented as such then it was the intention that people use it and regard it as such. Hence the general populace mostly sees it as such. Not you and I or informed people of the forums who are now well used to the why's and wherefores. I am talking about people who make up the bulk of the population. 3. If the general population and LL considered it to be a popularity indicator then increasing your traffic using a method that exploits the system to ensure much higher than normal traffic figures is definitely making the system misrepresent your parcel as that many people did not come to your parcel, stay for a while because they liked it before heading off someplace. There is a right way and a wrong way to use traffic, the right way does not require 20 bots, the wrong way does. If traffic was not meant to be based on real people visiting and staying on a parcel, it would not involve having to visit and stay at all to get the result. 4. Following on from this, if you are misrepresenting how many real people are visiting and staying on your parcel then you are dishonest and making the system say a falsehood about your parcel. It does not matter what you and I understand traffic to mean, it is what the general population understand it to mean. You know full well that bot driven parcels that generate more traffic do better. If most people thought that bots driven parcels were no better or worse than anywhere else then you would not bother wasting your time with them. You do because you know more people will visit you due the traffic figures being high, which is deceiving them as you did not generate that traffic using the intended methods. It is also very ignoble of you to make huge sweeping statements about how you've won an argument when someone has already left the room and is not there to refute you.
_____________________
 Trout Rating: I'm giving you an 8.2 on the Troutchter Earth-Movement Slut Scale. You are an amazing, enchanting woman, and, when the situation calls for it, a slut of the very best sort. Congratulations and shame on you!
|
Colette Meiji
Registered User
Join date: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 15,556
|
07-25-2008 08:55
This thread is proof that nothing ever changes.
|
Sindy Tsure
Will script for shoes
Join date: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 4,103
|
07-25-2008 09:01
From: Colette Meiji This thread is proof that nothing ever changes. You expected it to?
|
Gabriele Graves
Always and Forever, FULL
Join date: 23 Apr 2007
Posts: 6,205
|
07-25-2008 09:15
From: Colette Meiji This thread is proof that nothing ever changes. Welcome back, you have been missed  You didn't really expect things to change did you? 
_____________________
 Trout Rating: I'm giving you an 8.2 on the Troutchter Earth-Movement Slut Scale. You are an amazing, enchanting woman, and, when the situation calls for it, a slut of the very best sort. Congratulations and shame on you!
|
Colette Meiji
Registered User
Join date: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 15,556
|
07-25-2008 09:19
From: Sindy Tsure You expected it to? From: Gabriele Graves Welcome back, you have been missed  You didn't really expect things to change did you?  Yes. My 20 Forums bots and I thought that there would be all new topics being discussed rationally and reasonably.
|
Sling Trebuchet
Deleted User
Join date: 20 Jan 2007
Posts: 4,548
|
07-25-2008 09:33
This thread is a more stable version of the Thread That Never Dies.
It's a comforting thread. It affords a sense of security. You can dip in, check that it's still going on, and dip out again.
In the main Thread That Never Dies, you dip into the last page because no way have you time to read the 100 pages added since you last dipped. Then you find possibly references back to something that might be interesting, but where?? How many pages back?? Oh the time!!! What have you missed? Did someone mention you? Praise you? Insult you? ZOMG! Was there something really funny buried somewhere in there?
So stick with this thread. It's dependable. No surprises. Time-economic. Sense of security 'R us.
_____________________
Maggie: We give our residents a lot of tools, to build, create, and manage their lands and objects. That flexibility also requires people to exercise judgment about when things should be used. http://www.ace-exchange.com/home/story/BDVR/589
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
07-25-2008 10:15
From: MortVent Charron Ah but those options give a false reading on the traffic, since you are creating inflated numbers.
Therefore deceiving those that look at the traffic ratings to see if it's popular. Streuth Mort. Get up to date with last few pages of this thread. It's been well and truly established that traffic has nothing to do with popularity or deception.
|
Colette Meiji
Registered User
Join date: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 15,556
|
07-25-2008 10:21
From: Phil Deakins Streuth Mort. Get up to day with last few pages of this thread. It's been well and trult established that traffic has nothing to do with popularity or decepetion. QFB Whoever established that was wrong. Traffic was supposed to be about popularity, its been replaced by deception. Some of us were actually there. I know you don't put much stock into the things that Chip says but hes right on this topic.
|
MortVent Charron
Can haz cuddles now?
Join date: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 1,942
|
07-25-2008 10:36
From: Phil Deakins Streuth Mort. Get up to day with last few pages of this thread. It's been well and trult established that traffic has nothing to do with popularity or decepetion. So then why do you bother to inflate it with bots to increase it? If it has no relevance to a place's popularity? If traffic doesn't have an effect on visits? There is a lot of claims that it doesn't matter... by you. Yet you keep inflating the numbers with bots to make the place look more heavily visited in the results... So you are using the bots to give false traffic ratings to your location. Because the traffic is inflated by the bots being there to keep it up and higher than the places that are not injecting false traffic with bots... So you are deceiving anyone that sees the traffic score for you land which still shows up in places search.. where most go to find stores...and traffic is usually seen by many as an indicator of a locations popularity (and is listed as such in the wiki and kb... your definition in defense of actions you claim need no defending not withstanding)
_____________________
==========================================
Bippity boppity boo! I'm stalking you!
9 out of 10 voices in my head don't like you... the 10th went to get the ammo
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
07-25-2008 11:14
Oh, for goodness sakes. There's no way to get you to see that what's blatantly obvious and staring you in the face, is there? Are you doing it intentionally? From: Gabriele Graves You have proved nothing, you must be delusional. You don't read too well, do you? It's interesting to note that you completely skip whole posts that you have no answers for. "I know. I'll pretend they don't exists - then I can say that he's proved nothing" lol From: Gabriele Graves When shown evidence that traffic is presented by the Lindens as a popularity indicator you cannot prove otherwise. If you can prove me wrong, show why traffic is used as the metric in Popular Places if LL did not intend to promote it as such? By proof I mean some link or conclusive quote that is not just another poor argument against it. sigh... words fail me From: Gabriele Graves You call my evidence of the Popular Places as irrelevant and minor details but it is not. Just because I made up my scenario does not mean it is wrong - prove it wrong. Oh don't be so silly. You made a statement of how things happen in SL. The onus is on you prove it. Like I said, you invented it, and you've admitted it. What sort of debate is this? Write the first thing down that comes into your head? From: Gabriele Graves You say that there is no dishonesty or faking, that is the weakest of all your arguments. Did I say that? Nooooo. I said there is no dishonesty, that's all. You're using your imagination too much again. Just like you used it to claim that *you* didn't say something that you actually said twice not long before. Sheesh! From: Gabriele Graves When LL brought out traffic they intended it to be generated by people visiting parcels of their own volition, not some captive bot army. And your point is? From: Gabriele Graves An uncomfortable fact that you would rather ignore and trivialise. Aha. That's your point - but it's a poor one. It's not uncomfortable to me at all. What they did and thought in the past is quite irrelevant. I've no wish to ignore it - it's just that it's irrelevant, and it sidetracks from the discussion, which is far more relevant. Remember - you got yourself this mess by making a false accusation that I've proved was false, but you can't let go, can you. You can't have been mistaken. From: Gabriele Graves The traffic figures were never meant to be gamed Yes. And your point is? From: Gabriele Graves how do I know? Because traffic would not rely on avatars staying on the parcel and you have a much easier mechanism for doing what you do today. uh-hu. Are you coming to a point? From: Gabriele Graves Yes I was wrong, I did say what I had forgotten I had said. Aha! You don't seem to retain very much for very long - except that years ago, the Lindens blah blah blah - therefore, the facts that exist today must be wrong. From: Gabriele Graves Well done you proved me wrong on a point that is totally pointless to be right on. Thank you. But if it were totally pointless, why did you bring it up at all? huh From: Gabriele Graves Here is another tidbit for you - I knew all along that traffic is not "accurate" for popularity, nevertheless it is meant to be an indicator regardless of the quality of that indicator. How do I know it was meant to be? See above about how LL implemented it and presented it. Oh well I guess that's game set and match to you then. lol You now say that you've been lying all along. What am i to make of that? Is this another piece of fiction from you? From: Gabriele Graves Yes I am getting repetitive on this because how traffic is presented and intended to work is the crucial corner point of this whole discussion. No it isn't. The crucial part, since your short-term memory seems to fail you, is that you called me deceitful because I fake my place's popularity (my paraphrae), and I said that I don't. Remember now? That's what this discussion is about. From: Gabriele Graves You claim that it never was intended to be a popularity metric, No I didn't. More fiction? Let's have a quote please, but you won't find one. I stated that it was *never* a measure of popularity. I didn't state anything about the intention for it. Please try to be accurate - it does help. From: Gabriele Graves it does not matter how good an indicator it is. I show evidence otherwise - where is your evidence? You haven't shown any evidence. What are you talking about? You've only talked about LL past intentions and the word 'popular' in the Pop Places tab. That's not evidence. The word 'popular' in that tab is evidence of LL's intensions for the traffic metric, but it isn't evidence that traffic actually measures popularity, so you haven't shown "anything otherwise". I wish you'd make up your mind. A few sentences ago, you said that you knew allong that traffic isn't a good indicator of popularity, but now you're saying that you've shown evidence otherwise. Such opposite statement in such a short space of time can be very confusing, y'know. Please try to be consistent - at least within the same post. From: Gabriele Graves 1. LL created traffic, presented it and intended to be a popularity indicator, this is shown by the fact Popular Places uses traffic as it's only differentiator and is called Popular Places. Correct (as far as I know). From: Gabriele Graves 2. If LL presented as such then it was the intention that people use it and regard it as such. Hence the general populace mostly sees it as such. Not you and I or informed people of the forums who are now well used to the why's and wherefores. I am talking about people who make up the bulk of the population. Also correct, as far as I know. But the conclusion you draw from those 2 points is wrong. Traffic does not measure popularity. It's a known fact that is so blatantly obvious that it doesn't require anything other than stating. It's a truth that is self-evident. From: Gabriele Graves 3. If the general population and LL considered it to be a popularity indicator then increasing your traffic using a method that exploits the system to ensure much higher than normal traffic figures is definitely making the system misrepresent your parcel as that many people did not come to your parcel, stay for a while because they liked it before heading off someplace. Now you've taken a giant, and unjustified, leap. Your first 2 points were about how things were when traffic was introduced into search. The first part of point 3 is also about how the general population and LL considered it a long time ago, but then you leap ahead into the now, and that's an unjustified leap. They may have "considered it" to represent popularity at the time, but they don't consider it the same now, except perhaps in the Pop Places tab, but we are discussing the Places tab, where it's only about traffic and not about popularity. From: Gabriele Graves [still in point 3] There is a right way and a wrong way to use traffic, the right way does not require 20 bots, the wrong way does. If traffic was not meant to be based on real people visiting and staying on a parcel, it would not involve having to visit and stay at all to get the result. Tell it to the marines. I play the game that is in front of me, and not the game that was there a couple of years ago. The game that is in front of me now is one in which popularity doesn't get a look in because there was never a measure of it. Perhaps the best way out of this for you is to go back to where you accused me of lying by falsifying my store's popularity, and reword it, because that's what this discussion is all about. Do you know, if you had used the word 'traffic' instead of 'popularity' we would never have had this discussion. We would probably have had a discussion because you called me a liar when I am not, but it wouldn't have been this particular one. But I guess it's too late now - you're in it so deep. From: Gabriele Graves 4. Following on from this, if you are misrepresenting how many real people are visiting and staying on your parcel then you are dishonest and making the system say a falsehood about your parcel. Now you're beginning to make some apparent sense. I do cause the search to misrepresent how many real people are on my parcel, if searchers want to think that the traffic figures only represent real people. But, even though that's what they were intended to represent originally, it's common knowledge now that that's not what they represent. Newer people probably don't realise it, but I think the majority of people know that the numbers are representative of the number of avatars that are not necessarily real people. I think most know about camping bots and such. So I don't consider it a deception, and the traffic figure really does indicate the number of avatar minutes on the parcel. From: Gabriele Graves It does not matter what you and I understand traffic to mean, it is what the general population understand it to mean. see my previosu comment. From: Gabriele Graves You know full well that bot driven parcels that generate more traffic do better. Yes they do. That's why we do it. From: Gabriele Graves If most people thought that bots driven parcels were no better or worse than anywhere else then you would not bother wasting your time with them. Yes I would! Hell, you've missed the whole point of them. Places do better because they are ranked higher - in front of more people eyeballs than they would otherwise be. Good grief! *That's* why they do better - not because people think they *are* better and go to them. From: Gabriele Graves You do because you know more people will visit you due the traffic figures being high, which is deceiving them as you did not generate that traffic using the intended methods. They do, and no they are not deceived. The figures state avatar minutes, and they are wholly accurate. From: Gabriele Graves It is also very ignoble of you to make huge sweeping statements about how you've won an argument when someone has already left the room and is not there to refute you. A quote or I didn't say it. I think you're refering to me saying that you now agree that traffic does not represent traffic, but that's what you said. And I quote:- From: Gabriele Graves I never said I thought traffic really was representative of popularity any more. That's the same as saying that traffic is not representative of popularity, and you said it again in this post that I'm replying to. What's the problem?
|
Chris Norse
Loud Arrogant Redneck
Join date: 1 Oct 2006
Posts: 5,735
|
07-25-2008 11:21
From: Phil Deakins Doublespeak and flat out lies... I said it before, I will say it again. Using bots to increase your traffic in order to get a higher place in the listings is deceptive. Anyone who does it is a liar.
_____________________
I'm going to pick a fight William Wallace, Braveheart
“Rules are mostly made to be broken and are too often for the lazy to hide behind” Douglas MacArthur
FULL
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
07-25-2008 11:28
From: Phil Deakins Oh, for goodness sakes. There's no way to get you to see that what's blatantly obvious and staring you in the face, is there? Are you doing it intentionally? Quoted for irony 
_____________________
 My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
Sindy Tsure
Will script for shoes
Join date: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 4,103
|
07-25-2008 11:30
Does anybody REALLY think that Phil doesn't understand what's being said here?
He understands it just fine but does not care. His game is to make money and anything that isn't explicitly disallowed is fine. Those that bring up such passé issues like morals and honesty, since those things are not required by law, are suckers.
Until LL steps up and smacks people who cheat the only thing residents can do is push for social change - educating new people on how the system is being gamed. Also, you can add him to your ignore list, which I've found greatly increases my forum-browsing pleasure.
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
07-25-2008 11:33
From: Chris Norse I said it before, I will say it again. Using bots to increase your traffic in order to get a higher place in the listings is deceptive. Anyone who does it is a liar. lol. I said it before, and I will say it again now. You're as thick as two short planks, Chris, and I genuinely mean that. Ok, so it was a paraphrase of what I said before. Happy now? Good  But it's interesting how you never seem to have anything to contribute about what is written. I guess that's what thickies are like. Oh well 
|
Colette Meiji
Registered User
Join date: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 15,556
|
07-25-2008 11:34
From: Sindy Tsure Does anybody REALLY think that Phil doesn't understand what's being said here?
He understands it just fine but does not care. His game is to make money and anything that isn't explicitly disallowed is fine. Those that bring up such passé issues like morals and honesty, since those things are not required by law, are suckers.
All you can really do is push to educate people on how the system is gamed. Until LL steps up and smacks people who cheat the only thing residents can do is push for social change. Also, you can add him to your ignore list, which I've found greatly increases my forum-browsing pleasure. This is true. I do think some people wish Phil would just admit it rather than try to Spin everything. Its one thing to know something is deceptive but do it for business reasons, Its something else to not only do that but also hound those who call you on it.
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
07-25-2008 11:35
From: Chip Midnight Quoted for irony  Would you like to expound? lol
|
Colette Meiji
Registered User
Join date: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 15,556
|
07-25-2008 11:36
From: Phil Deakins lol. I said it before, and I will say it again now. You're as thick as two short planks, Chris, and I genuinely mean that. Ok, so it was a paraphrase of what I said before. Happy now? Good  But it's interesting how you never seem to have anything to contribute about what is written. I guess that's what thickies are like. Oh well  Phil also seems very quick to call/imply everyone who disagrees with him is stupid. Wonder why that is? Feelings of inadequacy?
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
07-25-2008 11:39
From: Sindy Tsure Does anybody REALLY think that Phil doesn't understand what's being said here? I'll put their minds at rest, Sindy.... As Sindy said, I understand very well what is being said here. I understand that it is being said by a very few people who prefer not to use their brains when what they might realise goes so against their personal preferences. And I also understand that some of it is just plain nonsense, and doesn't make any sense to anyone - use of brains or not. I think that's cleared it up, Sindy 
|
Sindy Tsure
Will script for shoes
Join date: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 4,103
|
07-25-2008 11:40
From: Colette Meiji Feelings of inadequacy? Feelings? From Phil??? Shirley, you must be joking. Phil knows it's bigger than anybody elses and he's probably got the Corvette to prove it.
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
07-25-2008 11:41
From: Phil Deakins Would you like to expound? lol If I have to explain that to you then you should probably refrain from impugning anyone else's intelligence, but if you really need a hint, see Sindy's post below mine.
_____________________
 My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
07-25-2008 11:46
From: MortVent Charron So then why do you bother to inflate it with bots to increase it? Because it moves the place higher up the Places tab rankins. I thought everyone knew that. From: MortVent Charron If it has no relevance to a place's popularity? That's where you need to read the last few pages to get up to date. The Places tab nothing to with the popularity of places. It's been well establsihed already. From: MortVent Charron If traffic doesn't have an effect on visits? Traffic has an effect. Read those pages please  From: MortVent Charron Yet you keep inflating the numbers with bots to make the place look more heavily visited in the results... read the pages please From: MortVent Charron So you are using the bots to give false traffic ratings to your location. read them please Because the traffic is inflated by the bots being there to keep it up and higher than the places that are not injecting false traffic with bots... From: MortVent Charron ...and traffic is usually seen by many as an indicator of a locations popularity (and is listed as such in the wiki and kb... your definition in defense of actions you claim need no defending not withstanding) Traffic has never been an indicator a place'spopularity. read the pages 
|
Colette Meiji
Registered User
Join date: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 15,556
|
07-25-2008 11:47
I think Phil should run for office.
|
Sindy Tsure
Will script for shoes
Join date: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 4,103
|
07-25-2008 11:53
/me takes 10 seconds to look at the KB.. http://support.secondlife.com/ics/support/KBAnswer.asp?questionID=4562From: Lindenz Popular: The thumbs-up icon represents popular locations in Second Life. Popularity is determined by the amount of traffic at that location
|