BOT places! List them here!

Over the top and not even particularly amusing. It does point out the absurdity that with all the RL issues that need to be dealt with at an ethical and moral level, there are so many people willing to invest so much moral indignation over bots in shops. A Darfur demonstration - that I can see. Human rights, yeah, I understand. Death penalty? Been there and have a few Tshirts. Really. Bots in shops - sorry, your moral and righteous indignation doesn't really raise my skin temperature much.

Show me the person that was put out of business by bots in shops. Show me the person in the bread lines because of bots in shops. Those who keep saying its enough to have a good product at a reasonable price, uh, well, what is your complaint? You either believe it or not. Ethical? Ethics is far more nuanced than 'it offends my sense of fair play'.

There are enough dead bodies in RL to worry about, bot bodies in shops, not really.

But the kitchen knife *is* a knife that can be used as a weapon or for cutting vegetables. The traffic metric can't be realistically used as a measure of popularity because it isn't one. LL used it for something that it wasn't.

What Google does with sites that don't abide by Google's own rules (not laws) is just fine. LL does the same, but using bots is not against LL's own rules (ToS).

There is nothing deceptive about the use of bots to improve the traffic numbers. They do exactly that, and the numbers are accurate. If you've read the whole thread, you'll remember that there is nothing in the Places tab that suggests anything at all to do with popularity. It's just traffic - good and bad traffic - just traffic. Even Google recommends acquiring more links to rank better; i.e. doing things that wouldn't normally be done, for the sole purpose of improving the rankings.

If we do anything that breaks RL laws, then we deserve to be punished. But we don't. We don't use bots to make our places look more popular than they are. We use them to increase the traffic count, so that they will rank higher in the Places tab. And the traffic count is real - not fake. All the minutes were spent on the parcel by avatars. If people choose to infer that the stated minutes in the Places tab was only real people moving about, or if they choose to infer that it's a popularity count, then that's their choice, but nothing in the Places tab suggests either of those things to them.

I am against anything that wrecks what could be a good thing, whether that be your dumb gaming of the system, anyone elses, plain old corruption or game company stupidity and inaction.

The concept of a virtual reality was there, long before "Snow Crash," Linden Labs or even the internet. The concept of using new, imersive communciation technology to improve RL has been there a long time.

LL did and still does, sell and present SL as something built on high ideals. That they do not live up to that, or take appropriate actions to stick to those ideals, is a risk to the concept--which as I said, they do not own.

As an example, the United Nations, was formed with high ideals, but has been essentially gamed by the various countries and factions, and therefore has not accomplished it's purpose and is caught up in a struggle between those with the high ideals and those who attempt to game it. There are countless other examples of how things begun with high ideals, degenerate into business as usual. The good concepts that have come out of high minded dreams, such as the United Nations however, is still there, as is the concept of a new way for people to communcate world wide, in a virtual reality.

Historically, when the attempts to put high minded dreams or revolutions, into practice, they have degenerated and been pulled apart, by the lowest common denominators. It is due to a base nature of the collective people's minds and behavior. There are still good people fighting the good fight and bad people trying to bring it down. Choose your sides carefully in the current world. The adage you are part of the solution or part of the problem is a good one. Whether you think people are fundamentally bad or fundamentally good is a big part of it, but a bigger part of it is what you choose. Do you choose to fight the good fight or capitalize on it and savage the situation because of a loss of a dream or because of never having a dream. That kind of thing pertpetuates the problem.

"The parasite in the lion's bowels, kills it." the old Japanese buddhist adage, reflecting on human nature, is a challenge to humanity to become better.

Cynicism or defective and naive ideologies that excuse corruption and defend inaction, human disunity or a status quo of survival instinct, leads nowhere. Mob mentality leads nowhere. Those who rationalize or criticize those with positive perseverance and broad compassion and instead look only for personal advantage or personal freedoms alone, are run of the mill, traitors to humanity or all that is good and right.

Ya maybe I am "weird." to you. But I am able to extrapolate the future from the present and look at the big picture of things and know that all is cause and effect

What the heck are you talking about?

I wasn't making a comparison between any of that garbage.

I was using a metaphor.

At no point was I saying that the use of trafficbots was as bad as any real world injustice. You are simply throwing out a Red Herring.

I didn't read the rest of your post - sorry.

Your mistake is your assumption that a "good thing" is they way that *you* would like it. A good thing to somebody else is often very different. It's the same mistake that some other people in this forum make. Like you, they only see it their way and, if someone sees it differently, then the other person is wrong. And trust me on this - bots are not going to wreck SL

But it's so easy for you and them. Just avoid the places that don't fit with your idea of what's a "good thing", or your idea of what SL should be. SL is plenty big enough for that.

So you're saying we shouldn't be offended by unethical behavior if there's other worse things to be against? Because... um... people are only capable of being offended by one thing at a time? M'kay. Let's just have a test, shall we? Go find someone on the street and tell them you think they're ugly and their mother dresses them funny. When they get offended look at them incredulously and say "how absurd for you to be offended by by my bad behavior when there's a genocide going on in Darfur!"

Hey Chip. You were there. Traffic was set up to measure Popularity originally - right?

I think "Low Prim," in your case has another meaning.

It does, actually. It means top quality and low prices, as well as low prim. That's why so many people buy so many of my products, and why they tell their friends to go to the store. Thank you for the reminder. It's appreciated.

Hi Guys!

Everyone gets so passionate about this, but I have a problem with calling Bots unethical. Let me start by saying I run a photo gallery. I think my product is good but my sales are not. Traffic at my location is poor and most of the transient visitors I get are not my market. I don't have the budget to place L$30k classified ads, so I rely on place search. If I am not on page 1 of the photography search I get no traffic whatever!

So I work to keep my numbers up. I "park" my avatar in my store during my workday. When I can get my husband to log in he parks his there while he works too. I put in a jukebox and a couch and encourage my friends to sit in my gallery and listen to music. All of these things boost my traffic, but none make my product any better. What if I parked an alt? What if I asked everyone I knew to park their avatars? What if I bought a bot for its intended purpose as a greeter? It would still make my numbers go up, but would my product be better or my store more popular? The line seems awfully gray to me.

I believe the things that I do are ethical or I wouldn't do them (and with my sales I can honestly say that nothing I am doing is hurting anyone much), but consider this. If you want a photo for your home this weekend you will go to seach and look for photography and with luck you might just look all the way down the first page. If you don't find me somewhere there you will probably not buy your art from me--no matter how good my product is. You will simply never know that I exist. But you will still buy that photo! You may buy it from someone higher on the page tho--maybe a big home store who uses campers and bots to get your attention.

Why is this? Because it's the way the Lindens set up the world. If someone writes a script that goes in and directly manipulates the traffic figures that's flat out wrong. Ban them. But if someone stays within the rules I am not going to condemn them for it. I'd suggest saving your anger for the Lindens.

Sandy

Odd, the idea was popular locations would get more traffic. Therefore it was intended to be a measure of popularity when it was introduced. But much like a kitchen knife it was used in a manner it was not intended to be used for (namely boosting position in search)

And actually as pointed out there are rules that LL can use against Bot farms, if people report and complain about them. (community standards and TOS ones)

And since the bot/camper is not a person visiting the location for anything other than manipulation of the traffic stats, it's going to be considered unethical to many and a cheap way to try and compete (and puts a question on quality and service of the establishment in many people's eyes... )

And you keep saying that it's just boosting search height... but that is manipulation of the tool in a manner that is not meant to be (hence traffic being removed... kinda indicates that LL is not happy with the gaming of the system, kind alike when they removed the voting options)

Good post, Sandy. The problem with real person/customer traffic is that it is never very high, even for stores that are not oftem empty, and that sell a lot of items every day, such as mine. You are in what I would think of as a low traffic market as well, so all it would take is places that do different things plus what you do, to include your keywords in their parcel's description, and you have no chance of getting high in the Places tab rankings because they have naturally higher traffic, even though you may be much bigger in your particular field than they are.

I don't think you'll get any opposition to parking yourself and your husband there, or for organising alt as a greeter, or for putting things there that might encourage people to stay a while.

If you haven't already done it, I suggest aiming for high rankings in the All tab. That produces plenty of traffic as well.

Good luck with the business.

I already said that LL used it wrongly. The measure of avatar minutes on a parcel of land is not a measure of the parcel's popularity. We went through this earlier in the thread, where various reasons why it is not a measure of actual popularity were given.

Not against bot farms specifically, no. There are ToS rules against some things that bot farms can cause, just as there are laws against some things that a kitchen knife can be used for. I agree with, and support, those LL rules, and the measures that LL take when the use of bots breach them. You're probably not aware of it, because it's some time since I posted about it, but I did ask LL about my traffic bots, and the answer I was given was a green light, as long as they don't fall foul of such things as filling the sim. I think that's the sort of thing that you mean.

I'm not concerned with how some people view it. They are only comparing it with the image they themselves have of SL - or how they would like SL to be. LL doesn't even share that image. Also, I'm not concerned about people who choose to boycott my store because of the bots. They are just a drop in the ocean so, if I lose anything at all from it, it's a tiny amount. There are not many people who are so against bots as you might think. It's only here, and it's only the same old voices time and again. Just as an experiment, count the number of different people in this thread who are anti-bot, and count those in this thread who don't mind one way or the other plus those who positively approve, and you'll see that the numbers are not as different as you might think. The anti-bot people post much more than the others, but that doesn't mean there are a lot more of them.

Seach engine optimisation has been around since very soon after the first search engines appeared. Search engine optimisation means doing things to improve the rankings, that would not normally be done - and the search engines recommend it. Google even tells individuals what they need to do with their specific sites, in order to be ranked higher. Doing things to improve rankings is not against any search engine's rules, and certainly not against LL's rules.

The fact that LL has removed the Popular Places tab, and are talking about what to do with the traffic metric, is indicative of what I've been saying - the traffic metric is not a measure of popularity, in spite of the fact that LL wanted it to reflect popularity, and used it as though it did. In the early it actually did reflect popularity, but it was never a measure of it. It was always wrongly used.

Actually they used it correctly. It was misused to the point it no longer serves it's original function. They are the ones that determined the use of it when they added it.

They also have other abilities, including the ability to change the rules to cover anything they determine to be detrimental to the service.

And none of them are concerned with how You view it. They like you state the view they posses...

And there is optimization and manipulation. Google has punted listings for using the later which to quote you is something that boosts the search rating that would not normally be done.

Nope, it's an indication that something was misused (to quote their comments) by people gaming the system. Not that you are right.

Sorry, but you are mistaken. If you give it any serious thought at all, you'll relaise that avatar minutes on land are not indicative of the land's popularity. In some cases the minutes should count as unpopularity. They used the metric wrongly. It's as simple as that. It doesn't matter what their intention was, the metric has never measured popularity - end of story.

Of course they can. Nobody is saying otherwise. Are you trying to make a point? If traffic bots are 'outlawed' we will stop using them <shrug>

Google has punted sites for all sorts of reasons, and they have given specific advice to people in order that they can move up the rankings, or even get more more pages into the main index. It is not against any search engine's rules to do things to move up the rankings. It is against their rules to do certain things, but that's not the point. The point is that LL has known for a long time that the traffic numbers are being inflated, and has done nothing against it, and said nothing against it. They accept it, even if they wish it hadn't happened. They could do what Google does if they are really against it, so what are you trying to say?

Right, due to the thousands of people being kidnapped and taken against their will to parcels where they don't want to be and forced to stay there? People who teleport somewhere and don't like what they see tend to leave, thus not contributing more than a minute to the parcel traffic. It's amusing to watch you keep making such illogical arguments while implying that anyone without your blinders on hasn't thought it through completely.

It's simply a matter of normal thinking, Chip. As I said earlier, only a brain dead person could believe that measuring avatar minutes on a piece of land is measuring the land's popularity. But, if that's what you think...

And what, pray tell, do you think popularity means if not the number of people who go someplace and how long they spend there? Is English not your first language?

I'll give you an opportunity to show that I'm wrong, Chip. I know you're good at running in, throwing a stonme, and running away again, but try not to this time. It's a chance to prove yourself. This is perfectly true, btw...

I'm am *not* a shopper. When I had a partner, she wanted me to look different, and I don;t blame her for that So she took me to shops where I could buy things. We spent many minutes in various shops. I didn't want to in them, I didn't want to go back to them, and I'd rather they didn't even exist. I was content as I was before.

So explain how the time I spent in those shops, which were all unpopular to me, actually make the shop more popular. Why did my minutes count *for* their popularity, instead of being decducted from their popularity, as they should have been? And I'm not talking about just a few minutes here and there.

My minutes counted *for* them, but my minutes were not a vote of their popularity with me - quite the opposite.

English is my first language, but I can't speak for you

Popularity is a *positive* view of a place. If a place is popular, many people want to go there, and do go there. On the other hand, places can be unpopular, which is negative, and many people don't want to go there. Measuring the first of those would be measuring a place's popularity. But that's not what the traffic measurement does. It counts *all* minutes in the place as meaning that the place is positively popular, but all minutes in the place don't indicate that at all, as I just showed in the previosu post.

Right, just like I said. Traffic is all generated by the abducted. Those places were popular enough with your partner that she got you to go with her. If there wasn't anything there that appealed to her she wouldn't have stayed and shopped and you wouldn't have had to stand there holding her purse.

Yes they were - to some extent anyway. She may have found them through search. I don't know. But they were *not* popular with me, and yet my time in them added to their 'popular' counts.

It's the same with just about all places, including mine. Not everyone who goes finds something that they want to buy, or LMs the place so they can come back again. For those people the places are unpopular, and yet they spend time int them looking round, before they realise there's nothing there for them. Their minutes count as traffic but they are not 'popular' minutes. To count them as being indicative of the place's popularity is wrong.

You made the choice to go there, and the choice to stay, even if there was someplace else you'd rather have been. Popularity in SL terms is only a measure of how many people make the choice to go someplace and how much time they rack up staying there. Unless you were caged and not allowed to leave you legitimately added to the place's popularity, even if you didn't care for it personally. You're conflating popularity as a measure of how much legitimate traffic a parcel gets with popularity as a subjective measure of quality which it was never intended to be (because it's impossible to measure that). Of course you have to conflate those two things because your extremely flimsy premise depends on it. Nice straw man though.

Thanks Phil,

I really appreciate the comments. If I were to sum my position, I guess I'd stress that the playing field needs to be level. When you lost 20% of sales by doing away with your bots that business didn't go away. It went to someone else--probably someone competing on your level and using many if not all of the same techniques you use--including bots.

The Lindens make the rules. It's their responsibility to ensure that those rules are ethical and fair. So, while I understand that bots may offend some sensibilities, I would ask what their detractors might propose to keep business competitive without bots? Criticism is easy, but I would sincerely love to hear some alternatives and solutions. No kidding! Assume that many business people are ethical and decent people. What would you suggest they do to compete if or until LL changes the rules? I can use any good advice I can get!

Thanks,

Sandy

"The law does not pretend to punish everything that is dishonest.
That would seriously interfere with business." C. Darrow

"The worst of all deceptions is self-deception." Plato