BOT places! List them here!

Huh? What's being sold is completely irrelevant. If you create fraudulent data (be it advertising claims, votes, or traffic scores) to gain an advantage over a competitor by deceiving consumers (or voters) you're engaging in fraud.

In the words of Argent Stonecutter, "I endorse this product and/or service"

A better solution still would be to do away with traffic scoring in search ranking. If people want favorable ranking in search, they should pay for it, and there should be a cap on paid placement.

There's too much pudding in the pie as it is, and there is NO way to level the playing field in any fair sense. Search is saturated with garbage that dilutes and obfuscates results, and frankly, there's no fixing that. All that can be done is to eliminate advantages through gaming, and limit advantages through paid placement.

Replace the word "bot" with "camper" and you have almost this same conversation 2 years ago, 3 years ago. It just doesn't make any sense that this is still an issue today. Great. Shiny new search. Great, same shiny warts.

What exactly we helped with at SL Views V when we looked at this thing, still escapes me.

We sat in front of viewers for 10 minutes and conducted searches the details of which the NDA prohibits me to disclose.

Some of us immediately recognized it as a Google appliance, and saw the benefit in a technically improved implementation.

Others saw it as a potential pandora's box of evil corporate bed-sharing.

None of us, to my recollection, were engaged in any discussion of the long running social plagues of the then current search, and how this new appliance might serve to mitigate them.

It was merely a presentation of a new search offering with new bells and whistles, but the same core faults, and an evaluation of how we used it. Like everything else at Views V - presentations, not discussions, save for the agendas brought along by certain attendies. But I digress, and perhaps say too much. Not that I care much.

And sure as hell isn't going to be a solution based on everyone don't play fairly.

Which is exactly why traffic might as well be removed completely or we just allow people to enter their own traffic figure between 0 and a billion so bots become unnecessary for accurate measurement.

I wonder how things would be if Torley released a few "How to run 20 bots" tutorials, why not educcate the masses as to the advantages of running multiple accounts and mass botting

What is in question here is the *abuse* of tools without breaking the letter of the TOS.

Is it OK for a spammer to spam if their ISP does not explicitly forbid it?

Using bots to make your land look more popular then it is is only one step short from using bots to vote for you.
Using the the tools provided by LL? LL provite tools to do all sorts of things, many of them you would no doubt fin objectional. The provide the tools to have 10 of your bots pretending to shop in the sim of a competitor silly enough to use 90 bots to bump his traffic and hence blocking access to his land.

The LL tack is apparently to find changes that would make them unattractive to use. A little recent talk here at about 17:37 :
https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:Andrew_Linden/Office_Hours/2008_07_03

It does tell me some things. It tells me:-

(1) that you want to argue on the topic.

(2) that you think you speak for "most people", when you speak for yourself and a *very* small number of other people who have stated the same view as yours. You have no idea what most people think.

(3) It tells me what I already wrote. I don't think you digested all the posts. If you did, you'll remember I said that I used to debate/discuss the issue with them, but they always resorted to insults, so I stopped discussing it some time ago. So it's not the "problem" that you seem to think

You see, I don't care what you and a few other people think. It's no skin off my nose. I do care about doing right to people, as well as to myself, and my opinion of that is a bit different to yours. So what? You think I cheat; I know that I don't. So what? You do it your way, and I'll do it mine. Who cares? My way takes lots of real money from SL and into my bank (money that I don't even need, incidentally), but your way doesn't - not in the store business, anyway. I wonder who's got it right

If you really do want to hear the other side of the debate, there are a number of threads that contain it. Do a search. But if you want to discuss/debate your view of it, you're asking the wrong person. I just do it these days - I don't debate it. But I think you just want to have your say on the topic, and tell me how wrong I am. Feel free. You think I care?

I hope you do realize that you have a pretty one-sided view on reality here.

Where you stated before that everybody uses SL in their own way, you now seem to translate your own view of what SL should be. (e.g. A platform to make money in any way possible|) onto the views of others. And then judge them on that.

People have different ethical standards. Yours clearly differ from those of most other people in this thread. This has nothing to do with their abilities or inadequacies. By turning it into a personal attack, you have made any discussion impossible.

There are actually people in SL who do make money, without reverting to the tactics you are using (myself included). They are not envious of the money you make by using these practices.
I am convinced I personally could probably make more money from SL, if i would use bots etc. Not doing so is not an inability; it's a choice I make based on my ethical standards, which I am prepared to explain en defend.

Sadly, this whole concept seems lost to you.

lol. That made me laugh. You are correct in one thing only - it's not a "clever" strategy - it doesn't need some eureka moment of insight to conceive it. But it's certainly a marketing strategy, no matter how much you wish it weren't

Incidentally, they are not camp bots. I said it before and I'll say it again. Camp bots are used for making money for their owners. They are not used for driving up traffic for the parcel owners. You mean traffic bots. You're not very informed on the subject, are you?

I've had a few laughs from the posts that were made while I was asleep, and that caused the biggest laugh of all. Envious? LMAO

I have a cheque from LL for US$5000 sitting here on my desk right now (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.), and in a few days, I'll send for the next US$5000. But I did say 4000-5000 each and every month. Sales are a little down during the summer, so I'm not quite making 5000 each month just now. But yes, it's absolutely true. I do make that amount of money every month from SL - *after* costs, such as tier. Sorry if it gets up your nose

We've been through this before. People don't care about traffic bots - they just don't care. All people want to do is find things that they want to buy.

But let me correct you on one point. I have never said that I am "using unethical techniques" - I'm not.

And let me correct something that keeps being said in this thread. Artificially inflating the traffic numbers is *not* advertising. I do not advertise anything by means of inflated traffic. I don't advertise my products that way, and I don't advertise my popularity that way. I do see why the word is being used - because the search results are full of advertisements. The only advertising that is done in the results is written in the parcel's names and descriptions. LL lists parcels in the results. Each parcel's advertising is in its name and description. You could correctly say that LL lists advertisements, but being listed higher rather than lower is not advertising. It's merely getting your existing ad in front of more eyeballs. Checking the box to show in search, and writing the parcel's name and description to suit is advertising.

It's a small point but when it's used inaccurately, as it has been a number of times in this thread, then it becomes erroneously significant.

I doubt LL inactivity on battling any form of search pollution isn't based on any ethical standpoint.

A little bit of history:

In the past we had voting boxes, to decide which places were popular.
People rallied votes, and people were paid to vote for specific places. E.g. the system was gamed.

LL removed voting boxes

In the past we had ratings, which (partly) defined the money you received each week. The result was 'rating parties' where people came together to randomly positively rate everybody there, to boost the ratins. E.g. the system was gamed.

LL removed ratings

In the past we had subsidies on events. People flooded the event schedule with 'events' which were hardly actual events, just to get the subsidies. E.g. the system was gamed.

LL removed event subsidies

In the past we had a popular places list based on 'dwell' which paid out US$.
People used camping tools, money balls etc. to boost their 'dwell'. E.g. the system was gamed.

LL removed popular places payments

In the past we had a search and top listing purely based on 'dwell' or 'traffic'. Again people used camping tools, bots, money payments etc. to boost their traffic numbers. E.g. the system was gamed.

LL couldn't remove search as it's essential to the SL infrastructure, so they replaced it with a google based search system which took a lot of other factors than just traffic into account. An was pretty tight lipped about how the ranking was done.

People figured out the ranking system, more or less. And introduced:
- bots (traffic)
- huge numbers of prims with 'show in search' enabled on specific terms, with no further function
- Payment systems to pay people who put specific locations in 'picks'
etc.
E.g. the system was gamed.

LL hasn't responded to the new challenge yet.

Generally, LL's ethics have been to create an 'equal playing field'. They generally try to remove/change systems that were gamed by the residents. But I assume they realized they were/are fighting an uphill battle. As every change introduced more systems to game the new functionality.

Is that all?

You are mistaken, Damanios.

So I'm just the same as everybody else then

If you read my posts carefully, you'll see that I haven't judged anyone on their views. I've judged a few as dickhead and idiots because they chose to be insulting - not because they have different views to me (I have friends who don't like the use of traffic bots). I judge them that way solely because they chose to be insulting. I am more than happy for them to use SL their ways - I don't find any fault with that. I think you'll find that it's the other way round - they are not happy for me to use SL my way, even though my way doesn't affect anyone in any way - except competitors, but that's expected in business.

Yes they do, it seems, but the few people in this thread are neither representative of the people who use the forum, nor of the SL population. Count them and see for yourself.

I pointed out the inadequacies of those who chose to be insulting. To you, it might have looked as if I were judging everybody that way, but look again and you'll see that I either addressed them personally, or spoke about them specifically. You'll also see that my personal attacks on them were responses to their personal attacks on me. Now, you may dislike me, but even you should realise that the one who responds to a personal attack isn't the one who who caused it, and I haven't noticed you criticising them for it. Interesting, huh?

That's untrue. People here made any discussion *with me* impossible months ago. I have no intention or desire to discuss it, but you'll notice that others are happily discussing the topic.

Yes I know. Lots of people make money from SL - mostly pocket money. They must really wish that they could make enough to live on from it. People try, and people fail - a lot!

The question is, how much can be made, and you answered it yourself by saying that you could make more by using bots. I can make US$100 a day without bots (I tested it recently out of curiosity), but I see no reason to lower my income to please a few people who would like SL to be some sort of utopia.

Oh no it isn't I *choose* to earn the extra - and there's nothing sad about that Even though I don't need it, I can make an RL livelihood from my store without using bots, but I choose to use them and earn the extra money. It's strange how people sometimes imagine that, when others don't agree with their ideas, that the others are missing something obvious lol

LL doesn't know the details of how the rankings are done, so they couldn't be anything but tight-lipped about it.

People (specifically me) already knew the main parts of how the rankings are done, having been in that business for quite a few years, and passed the information on.

LL seem averse to developing technical measures to prevent gaming of the system.
As mentioned in that Andrew Linden Office Hours http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:Andrew_Linden/Office_Hours/2008_07_03 they don't want to get involved in an arms race.
An arms race would require them to permanently dedicate very skilled software developers to something that is not a core function of SL.

Removing features that are being gamed clearly gets us nowhere but backwards.

The making of 'gaming the system' an ARable offence would be far less resource-intensive for LL that would be an arms race.
If people game search, then they and all their stuff should be removed from the search indexing.
Forget about warnings, suspensions. Punishing or finger-wagging at the perp avatar is silly. Remove the prize.





There might be an initial deluge of ARs, but as removals bite

I don't dislike you. I have never met you.
I dislike het practice of using bots though. And what I've seen is that others who also do in this thread regard it as a form of fraud, and stated it like so. It's a valid opinion on the practice. And I saw you regarding this as a personal attack, and respond to it as such.

I could have missed any true personal attacks on you from others, while scanning the thread. And I agree that those should be criticized too. Personal attacks have no place in a discussion on a specific practice.

As you stated to have no interest in discussing the topic itself though, I'll refrain from any further comments on the subject directly towards you.

On a personal note and to put things into perspective.

I'm not making pocket money in SL, and I'm not failing business. My earnings are actually higher than yours. I'm not 'wishing I would make more, but can't.'
My choice not to use bots etc. is not to cater to the opinions of a few people. But based on my principles, that my work should be judged and appreciated on quality and effort. Not on tricks. I abide by these principles, and I do wish more people would do so.

I like utopias

I respect your principles differ from mine on these matters.

List places with bots...yes its no good at all, first ppl dont care and how will you find them and how many will you list, i mean it like this.

I own an rock club, had now 2 times ppl im me wanting to sell me traffic, first time i was really confused how can you buy or sell traffic. Deal is i pay X linden and the dumb some bots abouve my land or i pay a bit more linden and the make bots up to look right for my place and dumb them on poseballs, dance poles, on camping stuff...

With this in mind search for something and go round places from the first pages...last week i went to an place that had 5 camping banches paying 10L for 250min, so about 2 L for 1 hour, would a real player dump his ava there? i dout it strongly..

I went to an club that allways has high traffic, i know the owner and somehow doubted this traffic is real, outside camping banches that pay allmost nothing..inside dancers, an couple dancing, 2 sitting on chairs, sayed hallo..silence..hmm all right now afk making dinner or so? i wounder...

No way linden will stop the bots for obvestly reasons...

I cant see anything good about them...some ppl argument use them as models and so...hmm ók use them as that or just make an place look more real..ok...

As i understand it all bots work on the same system, the dont log in with an viewer the log in with an extra program.Iff linden could make it that avas that log in with an extra program and not with an viewer are not counted in traffic should solve the prob. ppl can use them as what the like but the dont cheat the search/traffic system..

I completely agree on this. And I only mentioned it to prove my point that LL does try to prevent 'gaming the system' and sees traffic boosting systems as such.
Andrew Linden's office hours link does a much better job for this than I did though

I have nothing against that view. I don't object to people doing things they way they see fit, or of judging what I do. What I do object to are insults because I do what I do.

Even so, I'd already stated, more than once, that my personal attacks were responses to their personal attacks, but you perhaps missed those through scanning.

I don't normally wave money in people's faces and laugh at them while waving it, but I've done it intentionally in this thread, as a response to those who threw insults. That sort of thing can get up their noses. I've mentioned it once before - months ago - but that was a valid part of the particular discussion.

Nothing wrong with that but, as long as there is significant real money to be made, SL business will be no different to RL business, and it'll become more so rather than less so. SL isn't an isolated world - it's an extension of the real world, and a part of it. I.e. avatars don't populate SL - people at keyboards do - real people in the real world.

That's a new one to me, but I suppose it had to come sooner or later. The equivalent has been prevalent on the web for many years.

It's worth highlighting that office Hours link.
It demonstrates that far from LL being OK with stuff like traffic bots, they see it as a problem.
They just have some difficulty in coming up with a sustainable solution to the problem.

So:
Just because something does not contravene the letter of the TOS/CS does not mean that LL consider it to be OK to do.

I don't. Removing traffic as the sole ranking factor in the Places tab won't send things backwards, and they started to do it in one of the RCs recently, but then they changed their minds. They said that the change of heart was because of some things that were pointed out to them, but my guess is that the search team went ahead with a good idea, but someone higher up told them to change it back because getting rid of camping and bots will lower the stats for LL.

Replacing the traffic results in the Places tab with the Google results wouldn't be a backward move at all, imo. The Google results are already being influenced, so nothing new would come in to replace the influencing of traffic.

Although there's only hinted at that fact. With Philip being in an 'internal meeting' about bots.
This could also simply relate to technical solutions to optimize bots in SL (see NPC).
Also andrew Linden <> Linden Labs. There's a good reason he cringed at the mentioning of megaprims. (Andrew basically had his own failed quest to remove them out of SL)

It's a technical solution that won't fix the fact that search can be gamed.
If you remove traffic. The effects of for instance 'prim naming', and 'picks' will increase. And those can be (and are) gamed also.