Phil Deakins Posted April 10, 2013 Author Share Posted April 10, 2013 Freya Mokusei wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Your understanding is wrong. If something is 'not any of your business', it means that it is nothing to do with you. I understand your definition. Orca's seems to be that it is not a business that I own, so I have no reason to be concerned. What they change on the website continues to be our business, as users of the service. What they change on the website is their business alone, and nothing to do with any of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czari Zenovka Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 I honestly don't see why these threads bother you so much, Phil. Everyone has their own opinions and are entitled to them. I'm quite sure if someone started a thread saying "Stop <talking about something that you enjoy>" you'd jump right in there and say, "Don't like it, don't read it." I'm jumping in. Sorry, Phil - methinks thou dost protest too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czari Zenovka Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Phil Deakins wrote: Freya Mokusei wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Nobody stated that LL can do whatever they like. That can, however, put all the ads they want on the website. Users have no statutory rights concerning that. As I said above, "Sure LL can put ads on their pages, and users can react to these ads, based on their opinions." You seem to have an issue with the second half of this statement, for reasons I can't possibly guess. There was a error in my post that you quoted from. Unfortunately the error made the sentence mean the opposite to what was intended. I've corrected my post now. The correction can be seen in brown in the quote in this post. You're yet to say why it's no-one's business, other than because you think it's no-one's business. I don't see this issue being any different to complaining about changes made to SLM/Web Profiles. (One could certainly argue that complaining about any of these things will lead to the same result.) I can therefore assume the issue with 'whining about ads' is simply one you perceive, rather than one that exists. Nobody asked me to say why I think it's nobody's business, but since you bring it up... It's nobody's business, other than LL, simply because what LL does with their site is entirely up to them, and nobody else. Users of the site don't get a say, a vote, or an opinion in making decisions about it. Users of the site don't have any vested interest at all in the site. Apart from those things, it's self-evident that what a website owner does with the site is nobody's business but his/hers/its. The difference is that some people may not want their profiles on the web. People's SL profiles being on the web is about them, whereas LL putting ads on the site isn't about anybody. It's quite a difference. Whining about the ads is all over this forum. It's not a matter of my perception. And your whining about people whining about ads is all over this forum. I'd say that's a fair trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czari Zenovka Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Freya Mokusei wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Nobody asked me to say why I think it's nobody's business, but since you bring it up... It's nobody's business, other than LL, simply because what LL does with their site is entirely up to them, and nobody else. Users of the site don't get a say, a vote, or an opinion in making decisions about it. Users of the site don't have any vested interest at all in the site. Apart from those things, it's self-evident that what a website owner does with the site is nobody's business but his/hers/its. The difference is that some people may not want their profiles on the web. People's SL profiles being on the web is about them, whereas LL putting ads on the site isn't about anybody. It's quite a difference. Whining about the ads is all over this forum. It's not a matter of my perception. I asked you why on Page 1 of this thread. You continue to state that simply because a service can do something, that no user can complain when it occurs? I find this a pretty nonsensical position, especially for someone who spends at least as much time here as I do. I would heavily disagree that users here have no 'vested interest' in how SL is seen on the web. I think there is evidence to the contrary almost everywhere here, but primarily in the Merchants forum. People have many issues with how SL presents their work on SLM, where these ads also show. It seems you're intent drawing lines in the sand. Unfortunately I don't have all day, so how about I reduce this for you: Stating dislike of changes made to the service, including its presentation - by LL - is acceptable on these forums, Y/N? Ooooo...have you been watching the Jodi Arias trial too? I'm starting to talk like Juan Martinez (prosecutor). Juan Martinez (after hostile witness tried to evade a question): Did I ask you whether the sky was blue? YES or NO!!! Love it!!! I'm also saying, "Ma'am, do you have trouble with your memory?" a lot. /derail off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Mokusei Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Phil Deakins wrote: What they change on the website is their business alone, and nothing to do with any of us. We can at least, then, agree to disagree. My understanding of UGC and services that encourage profiting from UGC leads me to believe that there is a real dependancy on the service provider to present itself in a way that protects its profit-builders. In my view, setting up an engine that sets SL's userbase in direct eye-focus competition with outside brands and services is a decision that adds value to zero (0) users of the platform. If a system adds no value to existing users (0), but may reduce value to prospective users (and a small subset of existing users) (0,-1), then the system has little cause to be integrated into the userbase(0,[0,-1] = -1). I see this as reason enough. It seems you're not saying no-one should be able to critique this decision, and only that you're bored of reading it. This is why I suggested you ignore threads that contain 'whining'. Just as LL has no requirement to change its website because of an opinion given by any one of its users, the users of the forum have no requirement to 'stop' anything that doesn't break the rules laid out by the service provider. This all seems like linear logic to me. And thanks for stating that impressions are free on this ad-engine. I only have limited knowledge of Google AdWords (which does cost per impression). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Mokusei Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Czari Zenovka wrote: Ooooo...have you been watching the Jodi Arias trial too? I don't know who this is, sorry. Typing style varies deliberately, according to audience/subject/prospective gains/risk/amusement, in that order. HTH. =] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tari Landar Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 When I see the threads about the ads..this pops into my head And when i read this thread..which to my surprise I actually read in it's entirety, this popped into my head Neither is helpful....but both make me giggle anyway. Hey, I never claimed I had anything constructive to add Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czari Zenovka Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Freya Mokusei wrote: Czari Zenovka wrote: Ooooo...have you been watching the Jodi Arias trial too? I don't know who this is, sorry. Typing style varies deliberately, according to audience/subject/prospective gains/risk/amusement, in that order. HTH. =] Heh...I wasn't taking a jab at you. There is a highly-publicized trial going on in the US currently concerning a "scorned woman" who killed her ex-bf by stabbing him 29 times, slitting his throat 3" deep from ear-to-ear and toppig it off with a gunshot to the head. The prosecutor will ask a question and always ends with "Yes or No?" Your Y/N just made me think about that since I've been steeped in this trial for the last month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Mokusei Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Haha, noted! This trial has evaded me, I miss a lot of the publicised stuff. It was actually a reference to a programmatic application of user interface that Phil was determined to be familiar with. I presented the question in a format he and I could understand without confusion of syntax/word selection and using terms whose definitions were already mutually understood. Y/N was mostly an indicator of my preference for a binary response. I am not too surprised prosecutors use a similar device, though I hope I am less intimidating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melita Magic Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Phil Deakins wrote: It's hard to believe the number of threads that are being started to complain about the ads, but some people have started threads and some other people have joined in with agreement. To all of those people... The ads are nobody's business but LL's. They are not your business and they are nothing to do with you, so get over it. If you don't like seeing them, you don't have to see them, so stop being so self-centred. Stop whining about them, and mind your own business. I not only don't mind the ads I think it's smart. This was one of the if not the only, places online I didn't see ads. When the internet began I told people I knew "one day there will be billboards all over the information superhighway" which is what people used to call the 'net back in dino days. I also couldn't believe how many brick and mortar stores refused to make a website with a functioning checkout. (Or those who did, refused to put anything worth buying on there.) I'm only surprised there has yet to be an ad when you log in to Second Life. If that day ever does come, it's OK with me. There isn't a money tree on Linden Ave. and everyone has to pay their bills. If that means LL is around longer, fine. I will say that I hope the ads continue to not be sexist or demeaning to women (which ads often are) and continue to be PG rated. But I don't think that will be a problem with LL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melita Magic Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Now I am reading backward through the thread... Speaking for myself I haven't been watching the Arias trial. There have been too many trials on Tv that seem like the person is so gulity and then they walk. I can't invest my time in another one. Kathy Griffin the comedian is having a field day with it in her standup though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coby Foden Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Phil Deakins wrote: Maybe not always, Coby. But such ads aren't negative, even if you're not interested in what they are offering I'll rephrase my statement and say that contextual ads are generally good. Thank you Phil. :heart: :matte-motes-big-grin: :smileywink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coby Foden Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Phil Deakins wrote: Coby's observations were interesting, of course, but the ads she saw didn't have a negative effect. They only had an amusing effect. /me forgot to smile or laugh... :smileysurprised: :smileysad: Well, maybe next time. :smileyvery-happy: :matte-motes-big-grin: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czari Zenovka Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 Melita Magic wrote: Now I am reading backward through the thread... Speaking for myself I haven't been watching the Arias trial. There have been too many trials on Tv that seem like the person is so gulity and then they walk. I can't invest my time in another one. Kathy Griffin the comedian is having a field day with it in her standup though. I OD'd on the Casey Anthony trial (including being in live court one day...what an experience!) so haven't followed others since then but this chick puts the psych in "psycho." Someone even put together a side-by-side comparison of the stills in sequence of the shower scene in the movie "Psycho" next to the photos Arias took of her bf in the shower prior to murdering him and the similarities are creepy. Then she inadvertently took a pic of herself dragging his dead body to the shower and her first story to the detective questioning her was that she wasn't even there...that story later changed to she was there but two "Ninjas" killed him (after her bloody palm print was found at the scene, along with all the photos she took that she deleted but the techs were able to retrieve)...and now she's claiming "Domestic Violence." I never thought I'd say this but, by comparison, Jodi Arias is making Casey Anthony look like a saint. ooopppsss...derail again...kind of Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 Phil Deakins wrote: Users of the site don't have any vested interest at all in the site. Apart from those things, it's self-evident that what a website owner does with the site is nobody's business but his/hers/its. yes we do. when we log into the site on our account then what we do is shown to a 3rd party. why this is of interest to us is that it changes the longstanding understanding of the linden policy. that they will not share our information with others without our permission it is ok for linden to change this policy. and it is of interest to us. and people can express their views. whether that is: I like. I hate it. I don't care people complain about things they don't like. whine. yell. scream. is ok to do this and to say that its wrong. like wrong for them/me/whoever. and to whine that is somehow going to make the planet fall into the sun even don't need a rational reason to dislike, love or hate even. is emotional this. we not machines. so is ok to get upset about whatever vent and mouth off. at the policy change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steeljane42 Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 And like always, when someone's whining about something, there will be people whining about whiners. Congrats, now you're the one of them. And I'm all for that whining. Spread the love adbock plus around. More people will know about it the better. Props to LL for that too, even if they will push 5-10% of marketplace users in to adblock, they already doing the good job. I found out about adblock few years ago in about same situation. Two of my favorite sites decided to put some disturbing and flashing ads everywhere where it was possible (they had some ads before, but non disturbing ones). Some pictures were really terrible, so I've started to look for solution and found about adblock. Thanks to those sites, I also found that I don't need to watch 30sec ads to watch 60 sec vid on youtube anymore. As for the fact itself and who's business is that. Yes, it's LL's business, but it just shows how they treat us, that's it. They didn't even put any system to hide ads from paying (premiumd) users I believe. You know, like streaming sites do. Google twitch.tv and check how their subscription/turbo system works. If you're too lazy, then short version: you subscribe either to certain channels or just buy "turbo" for 15$ a month and you never see ads, but system still count ads you would've seen, so streamers and site still getting profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melita Magic Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 Would love to hear about what it was like in live court for one of this century's most notorious trials. Feel free to IM me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tari Landar Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 16 wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Users of the site don't have any vested interest at all in the site. Apart from those things, it's self-evident that what a website owner does with the site is nobody's business but his/hers/its. yes we do. when we log into the site on our account then what we do is shown to a 3rd party. why this is of interest to us is that it changes the longstanding understanding of the linden policy. that they will not share our information with others without our permission it is ok for linden to change this policy. and it is of interest to us. and people can express their views. whether that is: I like. I hate it. I don't care people complain about things they don't like. whine. yell. scream. is ok to do this and to say that its wrong. like wrong for them/me/whoever. and to whine that is somehow going to make the planet fall into the sun even don't need a rational reason to dislike, love or hate even. is emotional this. we not machines. so is ok to get upset about whatever vent and mouth off. at the policy change 16, I think you, and quite a few others, need to actually read the TOS. I'm not saying that to be a smartass, but it's actually spelled out very specifically what they can, can't and will and will not do, with regard to third parties. https://secondlife.com/corporate/privacy.php?lang=en-US#privacy3 It's near the bottom Third Party Advertisements Linden Lab participates in ad and/or affiliate networks operated by various third party companies. These companies collect and may use certain anonymous information about your visits to our Websites as a function of referring Internet traffic to our Websites. We do not permit these companies to collect any personal information about you, such as your name, address, or email address; however, we do permit these companies to collect your IP address. These companies may set and use cookies, web beacons, pixels, or other technologies to collect anonymous information about your visits to our Websites, and may otherwise aggregate, analyze and anonymize that data. If you seek information about these specialized advertising technologies, the Network Advertising Initiative offers useful information about Internet advertising companies (also called "ad networks" or "network advertisers"), including information about how to opt-out of their information collection. ETA: The last known revision of this privacy policy... Date of last revision: October 11, 2011 So this is far from new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 Tari Landar wrote: 16 wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Users of the site don't have any vested interest at all in the site. Apart from those things, it's self-evident that what a website owner does with the site is nobody's business but his/hers/its. yes we do. when we log into the site on our account then what we do is shown to a 3rd party. why this is of interest to us is that it changes the longstanding understanding of the linden policy. that they will not share our information with others without our permission it is ok for linden to change this policy. and it is of interest to us. and people can express their views. whether that is: I like. I hate it. I don't care people complain about things they don't like. whine. yell. scream. is ok to do this and to say that its wrong. like wrong for them/me/whoever. and to whine that is somehow going to make the planet fall into the sun even don't need a rational reason to dislike, love or hate even. is emotional this. we not machines. so is ok to get upset about whatever vent and mouth off. at the policy change 16, I think you, and quite a few others, need to actually read the TOS. I'm not saying that to be a smartass, but it's actually spelled out very specifically what they can, can't and will and will not do, with regard to third parties. https://secondlife.com/corporate/privacy.php?lang=en-US#privacy3 It's near the bottom Third Party Advertisements Linden Lab participates in ad and/or affiliate networks operated by various third party companies. These companies collect and may use certain anonymous information about your visits to our Websites as a function of referring Internet traffic to our Websites. We do not permit these companies to collect any personal information about you, such as your name, address, or email address; however, we do permit these companies to collect your IP address. These companies may set and use cookies, web beacons, pixels, or other technologies to collect anonymous information about your visits to our Websites, and may otherwise aggregate, analyze and anonymize that data. If you seek information about these specialized advertising technologies, the Network Advertising Initiative offers useful information about Internet advertising companies (also called "ad networks" or "network advertisers"), including information about how to opt-out of their information collection. ETA: The last known revision of this privacy policy... Date of last revision: October 11, 2011 So this is far from new. accepted. thanks. I stop whining now is quite clear. the policy says accept it or don't use the service. so thats it. oh! well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willow Danube Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 I was googling for bombs, bullets, whip, feathers, men in combat and cuffs - you know for a project in SL. Then I realised the banners started showing ads about Dating Websites for lonely men in Qatar, Pakistan, Southern Philippines and Toronto. I'm afraid to click on it, I don't know who is watching and I don't want one of those stupid secret service people comes knocking on my door, arrest me and sent me to Area 51 lookalike and starts brainwashing and training me to become a super-assassin. Well... hmmm.. come to think of it.. I might just click on the ads. I could use a new skill that I haven't learned before and all those combat training may helped me losing those extra kilos that I had accumulated from sitting in front of my computer years after years building stuff and what not and then whining at LL's forum thread after thread that my business was not as lucrative as it was way back in 1893. Yeah, no whining please... but if you became self-concious about it and it had turned into an inner self-concern/conflict, you are allowed to be vocal and expressive. It's not whining.. it's just an open self expression that centering towards the inner self. Yes.. that's right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tari Landar Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 16 wrote: accepted. thanks. I stop whining now is quite clear. the policy says accept it or don't use the service. so thats it. oh! well Oh I don't mind whining, personally. I actually find it amusing to be honest. Well, rather, amusing that others think people shouldn't be able to whine. I think everyone does. I think everyone whines and complains about all kinds of things. Sometimes they're things we possibly could change. Sometimes we simply choose not to change them. Sometimes they're things we can't. I'm all for letting people whine, so long as they're not harming others by doing it. We all need an outlet from time to time. When threads start to bug me, cuz I've seen a million and one just like it, I usually stop reading them. It helps a lot with eliminating that feeling. But shhh, don't tell anyone, its my great great great great grandpappy's nephew's uncle's brother's thrice removed dog's pet goat's front left paw's sekrit...they might be upset if I share. I only posted that because yours happened to be the last post I saw that questioned whether or not they should be able to use the ads, in the manner they're being used. Quite a few people have said the same thing, or similar. Which, in fact, they can do, and we let them, just by being here. That said...no part of the TOS says we have to like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted April 11, 2013 Author Share Posted April 11, 2013 Czari Zenovka wrote: I honestly don't see why these threads bother you so much, Phil. Everyone has their own opinions and are entitled to them. I'm quite sure if someone started a thread saying "Stop <talking about something that you enjoy>" you'd jump right in there and say, "Don't like it, don't read it." I'm jumping in. Sorry, Phil - methinks thou dost protest too much. They don't really bother me. It's just that new threads keep getting started, saying the same thing which is effectively that LL should not put ads on their own website. The idea is stupid and self-centred and I posted an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted April 11, 2013 Author Share Posted April 11, 2013 Freya Mokusei wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: What they change on the website is their business alone, and nothing to do with any of us. We can at least, then, agree to disagree. My understanding of UGC and services that encourage profiting from UGC leads me to believe that there is a real dependancy on the service provider to present itself in a way that protects its profit-builders. In my view, setting up an engine that sets SL's userbase in direct eye-focus competition with outside brands and services is a decision that adds value to zero (0) users of the platform. If a system adds no value to existing users (0), but may reduce value to prospective users (and a small subset of existing users) (0,-1), then the system has little cause to be integrated into the userbase(0,[0,-1] = -1). I see this as reason enough. It seems you're not saying no-one should be able to critique this decision, and only that you're bored of reading it. This is why I suggested you ignore threads that contain 'whining'. Just as LL has no requirement to change its website because of an opinion given by any one of its users, the users of the forum have no requirement to 'stop' anything that doesn't break the rules laid out by the service provider. This all seems like linear logic to me. And thanks for stating that impressions are free on this ad-engine. I only have limited knowledge of Google AdWords (which does cost per impression). Then your understanding is wrong. Your understanding of what I'm saying is also wrong. AdWords ads only appear in the Google search results. These are not those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted April 11, 2013 Author Share Posted April 11, 2013 16 wrote: people complain about things they don't like. whine. yell. scream. is ok to do this and to say that its wrong. like wrong for them/me/whoever. and to whine that is somehow going to make the planet fall into the sun even You've misunderstood, 16. Of course people can air their views. They can even whine about things. But the negative views that have been expressed about the ads have been written by self-centred people who imagine that they have rights that they don't have. E.g. 'I don't want to be advertised to, therefore LL is wrong to place the ads' and 'I pay LL for a premium account, therefore LL is wrong to place the ads'. Idiotic stuff like that. I started a thread to say stop being so self-centred about something that's none of your business. One or two threads is ok but new threads like that were appearing almost daily. I didn't stay stop posting comments about the ads. I said stop posting that LL is wrong (because of the poster's self-centred desires) to place the ads in their own site. Words to that effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Mokusei Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 Phil Deakins wrote: Then your understanding is wrong. Your understanding of what I'm saying is also wrong. AdWords ads only appear in the Google search results. These are not those. Regarding AdWords, ya, I know. That's why I said thanks for explaining AdSense. It's CoolStory that you think I'm wrong, but I don't think your counter-argument is convincing. Oh well. You've cleared up my points well enough, I could give a damn if seeing Ad threads bugs you. Thanks for the thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now