BOT places! List them here!

It appeared?

So exactly what does that mean Phil?

It appeared.

Does it really mean that it never did. As you so directly point out here ...



Or does it mean that it may have?

Of course you would never know, since you were not here to experience it, as you so wisely mention here ...



But that is not keeping you from giving us an opinion of which you know nothing about, since you were not here to experience it, is it?

I don't think the mini-map has caught up with the new height limit.

I'm afraid you gao the wrong end of the stick here, Cheyenne. As I did say, they ARE high in the sky. It was not my intention to suggest otherwise. The interesting thing is that there would appear to be a bug in the mini-map that inverts the arrows if they are so high. Sorry if I misled you.

I'll explain it for you, Cheyenne. I joined in December 2006. Of course, I found and used the Popular Places tab. I used to go to Dusty's from it. The places that were listed then did have people in them, and using the traffic number to rank them in Pop Places did work at that time, but not because the traffic numbers were actual measurements of popularity, but because they did give a very reasonable idea of which places were more popular than which places. (I think we've been through this before.) So using traffic appeared to work, even though it was never a measure of actual popularity.

I can't say how well it worked because Dusty's had camping, and others may have had it too. So I don't know if some genuinely more popular places weren't listed because of that.

I hope I've clarified it for you. Traffic gave the appearance of working as a popularity metric back then. But it was only the appearance of it. It wasn't an actual measurement of popularity.

Anything else?

No need to apologize Drongle. The response was meant for Phil.
Hence why his post was the one quoted in my post.

I understand this, and I thank you for accompanying your post with a personal experience to round out your explanation nicely.

The question still remains ...

Is it that it never did, as you so matter-of-factly point out here ...



Or that it may have, but you simply just do not know?

Which one is it Phil?

It's the latter. Measuring feet on land does not measure popularity.

Correction:
It's the former. It never did. Sorry about that.

It's the latter.

As in ...

You simply just don't know!

OK, Gotcha.

Now, a friendly suggestion - When engaging in a discussion regarding a subject of which we have no or limited knowledge, it is advisable to seek out facts and/or knowledge about said subject prior to engaging in a lengthy discussion over a subject of which we know little about.

I wrote the correction long enough ago for you not to have missed it. Would you like to redo your post, using my correct answer? i.e. it never did.

Oh, and btw, which particular piece of knowledge do I know nothing about? Would you like to know about dwell and traffic?

A friendly suggestion: don't make asumptions like that. It's far better to know these things than to assume them. It can save some embarassing moments

Then why don't you want to know the results of putting up the sign?

It would allow you to know for sure the impact, and can then use it to prove the argument.

By refusing to prove your side, your argument is worthless.

Many of us are willing to accept being wrong Phil, but so far the data and proof is not with your arguments.

All we get is your statements with nothing backing them up on what the purpose of traffic was or the impact of being honest about having the bots in world would be.

Oh, so were back to it never did?

Do you realize how foolish your post are beginning to sound Phil?

Surely, you must realize that there is a distinct and definitive difference between ...



and



There comes a point in time from which there is no return.

You my friend, have reached it.

Because I'm not interested. I'm quite satisfied with what I already know. What do you know?

I don't need to know for sure. It seems to me that you're the one who needs to know. Find out.

No problem. By not providing any proof yourself, you argument is worthless. So we have 2 worthless arguments - we're on a roll

And I'm one of them but, alas, the data and proof is not with your argument either.

hmm.. I don't think there's any disagreement about what the purpose of traffic was. I think you must have missed something. If your not happy with statements, go out and do a survey. You want proof? Go out and get it. Nobody is stopping you.

Is that the best you can do, Cheyenne? You still don't know what the word "appeared" means? Good grief. Clutching at straws is not your strong suit, is it?

For your information, and I hope it helps...

Dwell ceased in 2006. While it was running, it was a measure of feet on land. Not as simple a measure as the avatar minutes that replaced it (traffic), but it was feet on land just the same, and feet on land is not, never was, and never will be a measure of the land's popularity.

Do you have any other nits to pick today?

So now you know better than I, what is in my head?

And although it is you who makes the "mistake," It is I who is not good at this?

O0Kayyy!



Again,

So were back to "it never did?"

Do you realize how foolish your post are beginning to sound Phil?

Surely, you must realize that there is a distinct and definitive difference between ...



and



Which one is it Phil?

We have the LL statements on reasoning for traffic

We have the website data on what the original intent was.

And the whole time those are being brought up you argue they are nothing since LL dropped dwell and other features after they were being gamed. To the point traffic is now on the way out due to the abuse of the system with alts (since they have no way to verify that the alt is not a bot)

All of those facts are backed by the company's statements, and since they are running the show they carry a bit more weight than your opinion

I sort search results the other way round and start at the low traffic end. I find the ones with high traffic rarely have what I was looking for bcause they put everything under the sun in the description to hit as many search criteria as possible - this often bears no relation to what they actually sell or have at that location.

No I don't, but I do know you ignored the correction, and it does seem obvious why.

We never left it.

Not nearly as foolish as your clutching at straws.

Oh there certainly is a distinct and definitive difference bwteen them. The first is a phrase that you picked out of a sentence of mine that stated that traffic never measured popularity. The second is taken from a statement of mine that said that traffic appeared to work for Popular Places when I arrived. Now... I'll explain for those who can't figure it out for themselves...

1. Traffic never measured popularity.

2. Traffic appeared to work as a measure of popularity at one time, even though it didn't actually measure it. i.e. it gave the appearance of working.

More friendly advice:
You'd probably understand better if you didn't cherry pick phrases out of sentences. It's a silly thing to do, because you lose the meaning of them. And worse than that, other people can see it, and that's embarassing for you.

Don't you just wish you'd never got into this? The only points you've scored are minus ones lol

<sigh>

Which I've never disagreed about.

Which I've never disagreed about.

No I didn't.

Which I've never disagreed about.

I've never even given an opinion on why they dropped dwell, but if you want the company's official line it's:-

"In mid-2006, stipends based on dwell were removed as population growth provided a audience sufficient enough to support a more conventional economy in Second Life."

Somewhat different to what you're saying, huh?

Which I've never disagreed about.

I don't think that LL has ever said that traffic is an actual measure of popularity. I know they use it for that, but that's not the same thing.

Why do you make things up? Go out and do that survey.

You want to see something really embarrassing Phil?

Take a look at this ...




Doesn't that just make you just scratch your head?

Tell the truth now, isn't it really you who wishes he had never got into this?

hmm... it looks ok to me. Don't tell me you don't understand it? It's hard to believe of a native english speaker, but I'll take your word for it. huh - would you believe that.

Oh I'm happy as Larry in this one. You clutching at straws? You nit-picking? You not making any sense? It's too easy for me. Don't you have anybody there to help you? Try and get hold of Chip. He's much better at it Chip makes statements - much meatier. All you can do is ask silly irrelevant questions. Try and get Chip involved. You know it makes sense.

There he goes again with the childish and immaturish attacks. It is so predictable of you. Whenever anyone begins to get the best of you, you attack like a 9 year old child.

A trait so unattractive in a grown man, Mr. it "appeared to have worked" but of course "it never did" because we all know you are the definitive know-it-all.

I predict this thread will end soon. And not on a good note.

Come on Cheyenne. Surely you can do better than that. You've been clutching at straws, asking silly irrelevant questions, nit picking. Where's the personal attacks in that? Along the way, you've been throwing in little demeaning statements, as have I. Surely you can't object to me stating facts. Or have you run out of anything remotely sensible?

As it happens, it seems that I do know much more about it than you do, although I don't know everything. From your point of view, I guess I would appear as a know-it-all, but then from your point of view, I am

You see, that's the reason why I gave you that advice about not cherry picking phrases from sentences. You get the meanings all wrong that way. But don't worry - I'm here to help you.

When I said "it never did", it was part of sentence that said that traffic never measured popularity - it never did. See? You taking those 3 words, and forming another sentence with them, making them say something different, is a bit silly, don't you think?

Oh, don't be so modest Phil. You know more about it than anyone else on this thread.

After all, it was you, and only you, who knew that it "appeared to have worked" but that "it never did" because you sir, you know-it-all.