BOT places! List them here!

Really? You write as though you only arrived a week ago.

From the wiki. It's all there

Umm... how can I put this politely? Oh yes... allow me to correct you. You don't write very much but you do get so many things wrong. I think you take too much notice of what's written by the anti-bot brigade, so you don't have a chance of getting things right.

1. I have repeatedly said that traffic doesn't, and never did, measure popularity. That's slightly different to what you think I've repeatedly said. So that you know:- LL measured avatars on parcels, and used it as a measure of popularity, even it though it wasn't. Ring any bells?

2. LL didn't pull dwell because it was being manipulated. They changed it to a different system because of the size of the SL population. Do you even know why dwell was there? Notice I said "changed it to a different system". The way that you described it, LL saw that it was manipulated too much, so they changed to something else. If you apply a moment's thought to it, even you will realise that, what they changed it to was no different in terms of how it could be manipulated than dwell was. So they hardly thought that the new system would be better than the old. I siuggest you find out what dwell was, why it was there, and why it was changed to something else, before you write any more about it

A word of advice:
Don't believe the rantings of some of the people here, just because they write them If I was one of the "we" that you unilaterally decided to represent, I wouldn't thank you for being so wrong in your posts.

Wow! Talk about clutching at straws.

It is not possible to hide the green dots. Anyone who rents a shop in a mall, and who doesn't see the columns of green dots (traffic bots), or doesn't notice campers nearby; i.e. who doesn't check out the green dots, and subsequently gets burned by renting there, gets burned through ignorance, as Marcel said. Perhaps you meant "camouflage", and not "hide".

That's a different subject. Many thoughts have been expressed on how it could be done better. That one has been suggested before, but it isn't one of the better ones, because it leaves out most of the population, which would be very unfair to *all* places. The same could be said of only using the Picks of those with payment info on the account. The only benefit of the latter is that it does include more poeple.

K here you are.









Is it okay if I stop at 4 instances Phil? I got tired of reading all your propaganda. Oh and I stuck to just this thread.

Again. You weren't there. You have no idea how well the system worked before your ethical precursors started destroying the traffic system in Second Life.

I am in good company then. Pie is a woman I think pretty highly of. Always have, since I met her back at Tiger Lily's

If you are going to ignore us though. You should really just ignore us.

For the sake of discussion. Even if I am wrong .. Just let me be wrong.

I don't need the whole "I'm too good to read your posts, but I won't let your opinion stand" .. nonsense vibe.

LMAO. You are sooooo weird, Rebecca.

But just out of interest, what problems have bots been shown to cause? I know you're the expert at finding fault with anything and everything (it's all you ever do), and you're not alone in thinking that bots do cause problems, but exactly what problems have bots *been shown* to cause? Don't come back with opinions - they are no good. Come back with any problem(s) that bots have been shown to cause.

You won't find any - it's just your wishful thinking. I'm not the liar, Rebecca - you are.

well there is -

Ruining the Traffic metric

Ruining the Land Speculation Business

Scanning everyone's objects on their "private property" and compiling lists of them
(besides the personal feelings on the matter - this did lead to some people having items they didn't mean for general sale to be sold for 0$)

I've temporarily removed you from my ignore list - I am sure you've enjoyed being able write things that I don't see. I guess you've felt good being able to stir without having to answer for it lol

Umm.. are you serious? For goodness sakes, Colette. Go back and read. It';s all there, even in your post. Better still, I'll spell it out again for you, in the hopes that even you might grasp it:-

Traffic never was, and still isn't, a measure of popularity. It was used by LL as an indicator of popularity. It was "about" popularity as far as LL were concerned, although that may not be true, but it never measured popularity. It measured something different. Get it now? Streuth.

Unusually, you are right in that I wasn't there, so I don't know how well it worked early on. Buy we don't need to have been there to know what it was, why it was, why it ended (dwell), what replaced it, how it was calculated, etc. etc. etc. In case it had escaped your notice, there is a wiki and a KB, so that being there isn't necessary in order to understnd those thing. Good enough?

Naa... you've known I was ignoring you for a long time. You even stopped stalking me here. I've no doubt that you've enjoyed being able to write things, doing your usual stirring, that you knew I wasn't going to answer. After this little flurry, you'll go back on the list to keep Pie company.

My apologies. I did mean traffic bots (that's what this little part is about), but I missed the word out. Only one of your list applies to them.

You obviously think that manipulating the traffic metric is a problem. You are entitled to that view, and you're not alone in it. But it isn't a problem, imo. It's been discussed at great length in the past, and I accept that there are different views. I'll add this though...

It makes no difference whether a place rises in the rankings without using bots or camping, or it rises through traffic manipulation. It still rises in the rankings, pushing others down. If you consider that a place rising up the rankings is a problem, you are free to think that. I don't consider it a problem, and I don't think you do either. So, since the effect of using bots/camping to rise in the rankings is the same as other reasons for rising in them, and since changing rankings isn't a problem, traffic bots and camping are not a problem in that respect.

[added]
You didn't say what the problem with "ruining the traffic metric" is, so... The traffic metric itself is nothing until is used. It is used for sorting places in the Places tab. When it is manipulated, it changes the order in which places are listed. But changing the order isn't a problem, as I've just demonstrated. So what is the problem that manipulating the traffic metric causes?

No its not Good Enough. I was there, and I know what it was like. I know how much a better indicator of popularity it was 3 years ago compared to now.

No wiki is going to explain it to you.

If you don't want to beleive me and Chip and Pie, don't.

But you claiming it wasn't so is just silly.

You are loopy, Phil.

I was never stalking you.

In fact its quite more realistic to say the reverse is true, Since you admitted to ruining one of my threads with flaming.

I'll stand by my assertion that your posts contain far more personal attacks than mine ever have. I am also confident you have personally attacked far more posters than I ever have. Which is saying something since my Post count is quite a bit higher than yours and I've been here a lot longer.

Just Ignore me .. or Don't Ignore me. The whole sorta ignore game is lame.

No no no, Colette. I've never said, or even indicated, that it didn't work well back then. More than once I've written that it appeared to work when I signed up in December 2006. I don';t know if you've missed it, or if you're trying to shift is slightly, but I haven't suggested it didn't work well in the past. What I have said is that, even though it worked back then, it didn't work because traffic is an actual measure of popularity. It isn't, and never was.

Ok, but it does seem rather a big coincidence that, when I put you on ignore, you posted in threads right after me for a few days - threads that you hadn't posted in for quite some time.

I don't remember admitting to ruining one of your threads. If it ws one of the two that I simply got stuck into, I apologise. There were 2 threads like that.

I haven't said that you do personal attacks - others do, but I I haven't seen you do it. You stir - like a troll. I never see you post anything helpful to anyone - you just quietly stir things up.

So even though it worked, it didn't work?



A clock doesn't directly measure time. Time is an abstract. We know it occurs but theres no substance there to fill something up with.

So a clock counts. It doesn't actually measure time. It just counts.

Counts rotations of a dial or the number of electrons in a wavelength or whatever the clock is designed to count.

It only knows what time it was based on how many things it counted.


-----------------

Traffic is the same. There is no way to directly measure a concept like "Popularity" But you can measure how many and for how long people spend somewhere.

Thus the Traffic metric which was ruined in degrees by Camping, Camp Bots and Traffic Bots. It now no longer even remotely correlates to Popularity.

But it used to.

The traffic/dwell system was set up to measure the amount and time spent of avatars, controlled by RL people, actively performing some form of activity on a specific plot.
This based on the general idea that if a plot had many active people who spend a large amount of their time on the specific plot, there was a high chance this plot would be interesting to other people too.

That it is currently measuring the amount and time spent of either human or non-human controlled avatars, whether active or completely passive, is because non-human controlled (bots) and completely passive avatars (bots/campers) have been introduced AFTER dwell/traffic has been established.

Before camping and bots were introduced, being on a plot 99/100 times MEANT you were measuring active and human controlled avatars. So dwell/traffic had it's intended purpose.

You can't conclude it didn't have this purpose, simply because it doesn't have this purpose anymore nowadays. And you can't claim that the current implementation is the current intended purpose, as there is nothing to support that conclusion.

It would be the same conclusion as:
"In old derelict houses we see a lot of fungus growing, so old derelict houses are primarly meant for the culture and growth of fungi."

LOL. If you have me on ignore why do you care what I have to say on any thread?

Ill give you a news flash. I don't have you on ignore so when I see something you say I disagree with, I respond accordingly. Same as I do with everyone else.

Its all I ever did.

I may even respond when I agree with someone. Which in your case is rather uncommon.

Or I may just express my opinion on the subject at hand. The fact that you don't like my opinion is beside the point.


For those couple of people I do have on ignore I do not directly respond to the things they say. Even if I see something quoted. It would defeat the purpose of using Ignore.

Not a thing you say is legitimate when the topic of bots comes up.

Bots used for deceptive purposes creates an atmosphere of crookedness in SL business. The technical reasons Bots create problems are secondary.

Bots create an arms race of scammers and liars, who have no qualms about gaming Second Life. It's no different from email spammers, game currency farmers, junk websites, any kind of exploitation that come out of a deficit of ethical behavior in the real world, transferred into SL.

Despite LL's inaction in dealing with crap like this, they aren't any happier with in world deceptions as anyone posting against your nonsense on this thread.

It's crap like this that gives SL a bad name and makes it useless.

You are like a short-sighted person who sets his own house on fire to keep warm.

Grow up and stop trolling Colette. You know very that that question is invalid. I've never thought of you as lacking intelligence, but I'm beginning wonder. Naaa. You're just trolling.

You mean because you can't see something physically, it doesn't exist? That's not very clever thinking.

A clock measures the passage of its own time. It does count - it counts according to its own time, which is different to anyone else's time.

A clock is designed to measure the passage of time.

It doesn't actually know anything, Colette. It doesn't have a brain.

I hope we've finished the sidetrack about time. You get much more interesting below.

-----------------

Quite correct. There is no way to *directly* measure something like popularity, because it isn't tangible, and you are right that there are ways to measure how many and for how long people spend somewhere. It's good to see that you've realised there is a difference between the two - that one is not the other. Well done! You're getting there. That's what I 've been saying, and that's what you've been arguing against.

Often true.

It used to appear to reflect actual popularity, yes.

It's interesting to note that you've side-stepped the "problem" issue that you were so keen to come in on. Was my argument persuasive? A little, "you're right about that" wouldn't go astray, and it's much nicer than pretending it doesn't exist. But nothing changes, I suppose.

I've never concluded that it didn't have that purpose. I've agreed a number of times. The only thing I've been saying, which is perfectly true, is that dwell/traffic is not a meausre of popularity, and it never was. It is a measure of feet on land, for whatever reason those feet are there. LL used it as indicating popularity, but it didn't measure it.

LL knew all about manipulating dwell by camping when they turned dwell off and used the traffic metric for Places and Popular Places. They knew then that it was being manipulated. They didn't switch from dwell to traffic to fight against manipulation, as had been suggested here. They instituted traffic while knowing all about camping, and knowing full well that the traffic figures would be manipulated from the very start.

Weird - really weird.

I don't usually, but I was twiddling my thumbs earlier so I though I'd see what you had to say. It's good that I did because, though it, you've learned that traffic doesn't meausre popularity after all - and it never did. And you've also learned that traffic bots don't cause any problems.

If we both agree that dwell/traffic initially meant the measurement of conscious activity of actual living people within the world, the whole discussion on how we call this phenomenon is completely irrelevant.



Yes, and your point is?

Keeps going and going

I haven't suggested that it ever meant anything different to that. The only thing I've been saying is something that is self-evident, but a few people want to argue the point, presumably because agreeing with me is an absolute no-no to them.

That LL didn't switch from dwell to the traffic we know now in an effort to deal with manipulating anything, as has been suggested in the thread. It wasn't addressed at you. One or two people have made out that LL changed things because of the manipulation.