Linden Lab is building a NEW virtual world

[Phil Deakins]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

@Phil.  I know GSA was around before this but I don't know where this note on V2 fits into the picture:

 

"Search has been redesigned to make it easier and more intuitive to find people, places, and content in Second Life. Search is now HTML-based and powered by the Google Search Appliance (GSA)...."

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Release_Notes/Second_Life_Release/2.00#Search

 

---

They were describing the new V2 viewer at that time and presumably it needed a bit about search. They probably redid the search interface for the V2, including the new little seach window at the top.

[Medhue Simoni]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

Those are good points, but are they ground shaking? Do any of those events move the stats? This is easily provable in the stats. The real turning point, where the stats completely change direction is on

April 2, 2010

, which correlates with an update the search engine in V2. Again, if I remember correctly, which it seems that I do, not only was the new V2 viewer affected, but all other viewers lost access to the pages that were created until they updates to V2. Or something to that affect, which is why the old viewers today will not return the same results that we had in 2008. Heck, the whole real world economy in the states fell appart, and SL kept growing for 2 more years.

---

Show us the stats that "

completely change direction

" on or about the 2nd April 2010 please. I'm not suggesting that it didn't happen but I would like to see the stats.

April 2nd 2010 is around the time the V2 was launched but I've proved that the GSA (the new search engine) came in 2 years before that. I can promise you that no new search engine or system came in at around the time the V2 was launched, so what "

update [to] the search engine

", that was so "

ground shaking

" that it caused the decline to start, happened around the 2nd of April 2010?

Parcels had a webpages, with objects listed on them, for the previous 2 years, and they continued to have pages with objects listed on them after that date - right up to and including today!. So what happened?

In case you didn't notice that, Medhue, I'll say it again.

Places have pages with objects listed on them in the search today. They didn't disappear.

The conclusion is that your theory for why SL went into decline was very wide of the mark. In fact it was simply wrong. It didn't happen. Pages in search, with objects listed on them, never went away after they came in for the GSA.

---

Whether or when the GSA was being used, parts of it or not, is somewhat irrelevant. I'm not spending anymore time on GSA stuff. I have already proved how the search engine worked. You and any1 else can dispute whatever, I don't really care, nor have the time to continue it.

I will give you a graph of the change I talked about. This is not the only graph it shows on, and I'm sure they are better graphs that highlight the change better but here is just a graph of total sims.

Here I point to the 2 dates when the major changes to the search engine happened. This is just total sims here.

 

Many also connect that the decline was related to V2, but it is not really the viewer that was the problem, as you didn't have to use it. The actual viewer had nothing at all to do with the decline. This is a graph of the amount of individuals making between 1,000 to 2,000 a month. These are all sim owners, or mostly. Look how they dwindle after the search changes. The steep rise right after, to me, shows how they all scrambled to change and adjust, with some success, but only to be hit again a month later to changes. I wish the graphs went on, as it would show the total devastation, but that is when they stopped giving out the data.

That's it. I'm done with this topic. You either believe me or not.

 

[Phil Deakins]

Interesting. More or less coinciding with the new V2 then. But nothing to do with search.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

Those are good points, but are they ground shaking? Do any of those events move the stats? This is easily provable in the stats. The real turning point, where the stats completely change direction is on

April 2, 2010

, which correlates with an update the search engine in V2. Again, if I remember correctly, which it seems that I do, not only was the new V2 viewer affected, but all other viewers lost access to the pages that were created until they updates to V2. Or something to that affect, which is why the old viewers today will not return the same results that we had in 2008. Heck, the whole real world economy in the states fell appart, and SL kept growing for 2 more years.

---

Show us the stats that "

completely change direction

" on or about the 2nd April 2010 please. I'm not suggesting that it didn't happen but I would like to see the stats.

April 2nd 2010 is around the time the V2 was launched but I've proved that the GSA (the new search engine) came in 2 years before that. I can promise you that no new search engine or system came in at around the time the V2 was launched, so what "

update [to] the search engine

", that was so "

ground shaking

" that it caused the decline to start, happened around the 2nd of April 2010?

Parcels had a webpages, with objects listed on them, for the previous 2 years, and they continued to have pages with objects listed on them after that date - right up to and including today!. So what happened?

In case you didn't notice that, Medhue, I'll say it again.

Places have pages with objects listed on them in the search today. They didn't disappear.

The conclusion is that your theory for why SL went into decline was very wide of the mark. In fact it was simply wrong. It didn't happen. Pages in search, with objects listed on them, never went away after they came in for the GSA.

---

Whether or when the GSA was being used, parts of it or not, is somewhat irrelevant. I'm not spending anymore time on GSA stuff. I have already proved how the search engine worked. You and any1 else can dispute whatever, I don't really care, nor have the time to continue it.

I will give you a graph of the change I talked about. This is not the only graph it shows on, and I'm sure they are better graphs that highlight the change better but here is just a graph of total sims.

Here I point to the 2 dates when the major changes to the search engine happened. This is just total sims here.

 

Many also connect that the decline was related to V2, but it is not really the viewer that was the problem, as you didn't have to use it. The actual viewer had nothing at all to do with the decline. This is a graph of the amount of individuals making between 1,000 to 2,000 a month. These are all sim owners, or mostly. Look how they dwindle after the search changes. The steep rise right after, to me, shows how they all scrambled to change and adjust, with some success, but only to be hit again a month later to changes. I wish the graphs went on, as it would show the total devastation, but that is when they stopped giving out the data.

That's it. I'm done with this topic. You either believe me or not.

 

---

I was about to say I had added all I had also.

No question that the decline coincided with the Release of Viewer 2.

But I'm more concerned with concurrency as a measurement and I can't see how the Search hurt me directly that I would have left.

Unless the drop in Concurrency was all Merchants leaving. 

I'm having a hard time grasping how the problems with search caused Second Life to lose its appeal to people outside of possibly Merchants.

But we'll try to leave the topic rest now.

 

eta:shpelling agin

[Phil Deakins]

Yes, Perrie linked to that graph and i agree, that does appear to be when the decline began.

What you haven't done is tell us what change happened to search at that time. It's not that I haven't asked. I have. What you claimed about search definitely didn't happen - I've proved that with evidence - and you haven't come up with anything else.

I'm happy if you've finished with this discussion. I'm sorry that you've steadfastly refused to accept the truth, even when it stares you in the face, as does the pre-GSA search. But it's your choice. You made a number of statements that have been irrefutably proved to be wrong. The last one you're left with is your theory as to why SL started its decline. You were shown proof that what you wrote wasn't right, and you were asked if you meant something else, and, if so, what. But you haven't answered. In fact, you've managed to avoid answering anything that you don't have answers for - and there's been a lot 

On three different parts, you been given actual proof that what you claimed simply isn't true, and yet you cling steadfastly to your claims. I'm sorry. Actual proof is usually enough for people but not, it seems, for you.

[Dresden Ceriano]

I just finished reading and responding to a thread about this very topic at SLU and I have to say that coming back here and reading this discussion is like going back to kindergarten where little children just want to slap each other in the face as opposed to having a cogent conversation about the topic at hand.  It's no wonder that Ebbe would prefer to interact over there rather than he would here.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to blame those who are obviously discussing that in which they are emotional invested.  I actually blame LL for chasing off anyone who might have had something thoughtful and pertinent to add to the level of conversation here.

Also, know that I'm not at all trying to absolve myself of my own behavior.  For far too long, most of my replies in this forum consist of comments about the actions of people who I consider either delusional, overly emotional or completely out of their minds.  I'm not necessarily ashamed of myself for doing so, but more so discussed by the fact that I now feel as if that's all that's left worth doing here any longer.

Perhaps it's time for me to take my leave of this place and move on to less crap-laden pastures.

...Dres  (Should I decide to do so, there are certain people with whom I shall greatly miss interacting... Perrie being on the top of that list.)

[Phil Deakins]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

I'm having a hard time grasping how the problems with search caused Second Life to lose its appeal to people outside of possibly Merchants.

---

What he said was that before the search change that coincided with the V2 launch, places had objects listed on their pages, so people could find the places in search when they were searching for those objects, and after the search change that coincided with the V2 launch, they didn't have objects listed in their pages and people couldn't find the places when they were searching for the objects. Consequently merchants suffered. But it wasn't true. No significant change occured with search at the V2 launch.

Certainly, before that date places had objects listed in their pages and people could find those objects in search. That was true for the 2 years that we'd had the GSA up to then. But when the V2 came out, we still had the GSA, and we still had places' pages with objects listed on them, and people could still find the objects at the places in search. And we've had the same ever since. There was a search system change much later on and we can no longer see the pages with objects now (except in a browser) but they still exist, get indexed, and are ranked for the objects that are listed in them. He made a mistake, that's all.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

Perhaps it's time for me to take my leave of this place and move on to less crap-laden pastures.

---

What a brilliant idea

[Dresden Ceriano]

Screw you, Phil.

...Dres

[Phil Deakins]

It's still a brilliant idea

[Medhue Simoni]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

I was about to say I had added all I had also.

No question that the decline coincided with the Release of Viewer 2.

But I'm more concerned with concurrency as a measurement and I can't see how the Search hurt me directly that I would have left.

Unless the drop in Concurrency was all Merchants leaving. 

I'm having a hard time grasping how the problems with search caused Second Life to lose its appeal to people outside of possibly Merchants.

But we'll try to leave the topic rest now.

 

eta:shpelling agin

---

I never mind talking theory, as that is quite enjoyable. The frustrating parts is arguing about what actually happened, when it's been documented fully. Heck, I lived it.

The everyday user is the 1 affected the most, as they no longer got relevant search results. They were no longer directed to the places that would most likely satisfy them. It would be interesting to compare LL internal studies to see if they were retaining more people between 2008-2009, than they are now, or especially during the 2010-2011 period.

Merchants being affected is crucial because, outside of land barons, as a class, they own more land than any1. How much land they own, is completely dependent on whether their SL income can afford it. You drop their SL income, you lose sims.

 

[Medhue Simoni]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Yes, Perrie linked to that graph and i agree, that does appear to be when the decline began.

What you haven't done is tell us what change happened to search at that time. It's not that I haven't asked. I have. What you claimed about search definitely didn't happen - I've proved that with evidence - and you haven't come up with anything else.

I'm happy if you've finished with this discussion. I'm sorry that you've steadfastly refused to accept the truth, even when it stares you in the face, as does the pre-GSA search. But it's your choice. You made a number of statements that have been irrefutably proved to be wrong. The last one you're left with is your theory as to why SL started its decline. You were shown proof that what you wrote wasn't right, and you were asked if you meant something else, and, if so, what. But you haven't answered. In fact, you've managed to avoid answering anything that you don't have answers for - and there's been a lot 

On three different parts, you been given actual proof that what you claimed simply isn't true, and yet you cling steadfastly to your claims. I'm sorry. Actual proof is usually enough for people but not, it seems, for you.

---

You haven't proved anything at all. You have not pointed to 1 thing but a 3rd party viewer. I have pointed to actual proof, from all creditable sources. You might very well have a point that parts of the GSA were used before the official announcement, but Torley's video proves exactly how the search engine worked at that time, which matched EXACTLY with what I said. You have only addressed whether parts of the GSA were used. At best you can argue that my statement about GSA being the core problem is wrong. This, again, you can only argue, because it isn't proven. Whether it was GSA or just a change in algorhytms, it is irrelevant. That facts are that there were major changes.

I could easily go on and find every single blog or whatever that announced all the things I talked about, but that means hours to find them all. I actually appreciate the exercise so far, as it has proved to myself that my memory is as sharp as a tack.

Oh, 1 of the reasons I always remember the April 2 date, is that it was such a disaster, that some1 created a webpage that counted how many days since LL broke search. It went on for a couple years too, but I think it is closed now.

[Suspiria Finucane]

Woohoo! The best news I've heard since...V2 was released. I'm really glad they aren't going to be focused on compatibility. Trying to fix broken things for 10 years still hasn't worked. The going forward approach is music to my ears.

SL has been stagnant for years with nothing really generating higher retention numbers. For all the hoopla around TPV's they haven't improved retention at all. Being closed source is also something I am happy about.

So, yes, finally I will be leaving SL once the new project is open for new members. I'm really excited about the creator driven world with design quality and performance being a priority. I read my man Rod was involved in this so, thanks Rod, once more.

I'm really impressed that Ebbe told everyone about the new product sooner than later. I only hope the old will all be left behind and that the creations tools rock for everyone, not just the few. I saw some people debating the so called decline of SL and they missed one key reason. Sculpts. Once creation was taken from in-world, SL became a less exciting place. The emphasis on out of world creation took part of SL away so many enjoyed. I'm not against sculpts or mesh as a product medium, however they should have tools incorporated to create them in-world.

It's been an interesting 8 1/2 years, but the time is past for this antiquated version. Viva la new virtual world!

 

[Prokofy Neva]

No. Not "well, duh, " Qie, you're wrong and he's right.

It's appalling that the CEO of a company would not tell vital news to his most faithful and high-spending users who bother with the forums, and instead go to an elitist, highly closed third-party forum to chat only with high-end coders and graphic designers about his plan to make an even more elitist world and shaft this one.

Here's my bottom line on this:

o I'm selling any land that is not currently rented or needed for prim land immediately.

o I'm not buying any more land or content

o I'm demanding 1:1 compensation for sims in the new world, or, if they do'nt have sims (and they likely will not), some relevant and fair equivalent OR cash on a certain pennies-to-dollar basis for purchased sims as compensation.

And that frankly should be the attitude of every land owner and particularly the big sim rentals businesses, full stop, and they should not argue or squabble about this but close ranks, put it on the table, *or walk*.

I don't see any evidence that any of them got an insider chat and heads up about this, but they may have, that's a question to ask.

But the vast majority of rentals, clubs, live music, mall etc sims are being shafted with this "backward compatibility" and "new world where the creator is customer" news. It's a world where *you cannot take your sim with you, much less your content*. Every penny you've spent here is lost, except possibly as good will to keep a group of customers that you might port to the new world IF you have money to invest AGAIN what you just ALREADY spent.

Land owners need to be really, really clear on what's happening here and not have illusions about it.

[Prokofy Neva]

Well all that was deliberate, to try to move the revenue stream away from the land model, which they hate and detest though they depend on it, and move to a sales tax/currency exchange tax/subscription model.

The Lindens need to learn, however, that this is not where their current bread is buttered, and need to stop shafting customers who pay bills.

That means they to plan FIRST how they transition fairly, with compensation or 1:1 exchanges, THEN make their world accordingly. Not visa versa.

Land is a model that is a good thing because it enables masses of customers who aren't skilled coders or designers to come in and have a job and something to do. Without that, SL is a Renaissance Faire where you gawk and stare and buy a few overpriced baubles and then go back to your hovel.

[Prokofy Neva]

Here's what's going to happen.

The creator authoritarians who are only too happy to have the masses and the land barons who serve them screwed over in this move, and to shed them and the land model while they go to creator paradise and make new gadgets and baubles and make money, are going to get a very RUDE awakening.

They will discover exactly what you've just said -- they've been in libertarian/communist paradise for 10 years, and it's about to get real.

Silicon Valley real means HUGE cuts by the platform provider for the service of making your wares show up in search.

I pay Amazon.com 30-70% in fees to collect my payments for my e-book for sale there. that's a whopping cut even at the low end, and almost  not worth it at the high end (some countries take that much).

So once you start paying those kinds of fees to be in Linden search, essentially, and essentially be licensed to create and access the market, suddenly, you will wish you had not spat on that land model so hard...

[Prokofy Neva]

o every single texture you've uploaded for years will need to be redone, so all those 10 L fees are for naught now

o there are plenty of cheap newbie rentals for $1.99 US per month, I have them, others have them too, they are all over, that is not the issue. The Linden Home option is only $9.95 a month with a house and spending money. Really not expensive.

o you're merely saying your business costs to maintain a store for viewing is too high and cuts too much into your profits. Then you're in the wrong business or the wrong place. If you went on Renderosity, you might find much less business cost.

o the reality is as I've explained that business costs for access platforms everywhere in Silicon Valley for middlemen, secondary vendors, people with ebooks, whatever are high. 30% for Amazon just to start in the US. This is life in the real big city which we've been sheltered from for years

o the Lindens are not going to make land less expensive, they will either keep it expensive to pay their server costs, or change to a subscription/time/access model that will still mean high costs somewhere for some people. Remember, Ebbe said low land costs means high sales tax -- and frankly, that is NOT something he can pass on to your customers, but not to you. You will be paying the Silicon Valley entry fees which is a creator tax, a license cost, something like that.

[JohnyGlide]

Hey prok, can I ask you something, WTF was you going to do if they pulled the plug on this version of SL tomorrow? 

 

you are in your right to ask what you are asking, but they are also well within their rights to say no.. 

 

 

[Prokofy Neva]

I would demand compensation because a) they have a history of doing this already b) that's the right thing to do c) they should be interested in not killing off their customers with a bad-faith action like this. And I'm the least of their problems as a tiny rentals business. This is an issue of principle with continents of sims 100s by count. Those people should care. They are only watching warily, thinking it will be far away in the future, or they already made their deal. But since not everybody is a big land owner, the issue must be raised early in the process, often in the process, and addressed properly.

Remember, this story was leaked. It was not planned. It was leaked by people with a clear agenda to force the Lindens hand into open source at least of the browser. That's all that was about.

I notice a lot of Social Darwinism in the sluniverse.com comments and elsewhere, to the effect that "If you can't  manage your business like us high-end content creators, and you were in the server rental business, too bad so sad, it's progress, it's Silicon Valley disruption, guess that sucks for you."

Sorry, but that's not acceptable. People who paid the bills around here for years need to be treated properly.

[Qie Niangao]

---

Prokofy Neva wrote:

No. Not "well, duh, " Qie, you're wrong and he's right.

It's appalling that the CEO of a company would not tell vital news to his most faithful and high-spending users who bother with the forums, and instead go to an elitist, highly closed third-party forum to chat only with high-end coders and graphic designers about his plan to make an even more elitist world and shaft this one.

---

You may be surprised that I don't disagree about what should be Linden's view of these forums, but that ship left port a long time ago. It's idle habit that brings me back to these forums to read and post, but this is the dead lands here, whether it should be or not.

On the plus side, we can all chat amongst ourselves here with absolutely no risk of any Linden ever seeing anything we've said.

Even the NSA ignores these forums, so if you've got any ECHELON bait you want to discuss, this is the place. Spetznaz, anyone?

You're also probably right to dump land. Get out before the panic spreads. But the odds of this whole next gen thing actually taking off are pretty low, in which case an even further diminished SL might struggle on for a long time, I doubt there's much money left in it, though, for anybody... starting with land first, and starting about now.

And finally, yeah, the Lindens have been weirdly intent on sabotage of their own land-based revenue model. I've never been able to keep from giggling every time you ascribe it to a Communist conspiracy, but it is almost as childish in its knee-jerkiness. Anyway, yes, 30% app store sales fee sounds about right -- and I can already hear the stuck-pig squeals of the precious content creators.

[Kenbro Utu]

Well heck, ain't this thread been fun!

[Phil Deakins]

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Yes, Perrie linked to that graph and i agree, that does appear to be when the decline began.

What you haven't done is tell us what change happened to search at that time. It's not that I haven't asked. I have. What you claimed about search definitely didn't happen - I've proved that with evidence - and you haven't come up with anything else.

I'm happy if you've finished with this discussion. I'm sorry that you've steadfastly refused to accept the truth, even when it stares you in the face, as does the pre-GSA search. But it's your choice. You made a number of statements that have been irrefutably proved to be wrong. The last one you're left with is your theory as to why SL started its decline. You were shown proof that what you wrote wasn't right, and you were asked if you meant something else, and, if so, what. But you haven't answered. In fact, you've managed to avoid answering anything that you don't have answers for - and there's been a lot 

On three different parts, you been given actual proof that what you claimed simply isn't true, and yet you cling steadfastly to your claims. I'm sorry. Actual proof is usually enough for people but not, it seems, for you.

---

You haven't proved anything at all.

You have not pointed to 1 thing but a 3rd party viewer

.

I have pointed to actual proof, from all creditable sources.

You might very well have a point that parts of the GSA were used before the official announcement, but Torley's video proves exactly how the search engine worked at that time, which matched EXACTLY with what I said.

You have only addressed whether parts of the GSA were used. At best you can argue that my statement about GSA being the core problem is wrong. This, again, you can only argue, because it isn't proven. Whether it was GSA or just a change in algorhytms, it is irrelevant. That facts are that there were major changes.

Oh, 1 of the reasons I always remember the April 2 date, is that it was such a disaster, that some1 created a webpage that counted how many days since LL broke search. It went on for a couple years too, but I think it is closed now.

---

I have provided actual proof of three different things, each of which prove that what you claim is wrong.

This is one of my proofs that you were wrong. Third party viewers are where you can still see the original search system operating. The system isn't implemented by TPVs. It's implemented by SL and is displayed in the viewers. But you won't even look because it will prove you to be wrong about how the results in the orginal search system were/are ranked.

This is another of my proofs that you were wrong. Your "proof from creditable sources" was not proof of what you claimed. You claimed that the Torley video was about the original search system but it was about that system's replacement - the GSA. So much for that proof huh?

The other proof you provided only proved that you were wrong. You thought it was proving that the GSA arrived when the V2. I proved that the GSA arrived 2 years earlier. Yes, actual irrefutable proof. It's all still there in this thread if you have eyes to see.

My, you are so very stubborn. No, Medhue. Parts of the GSA were not used before the official announcement. ALL of the GSA was used - never just parts of it. Torley's video demonstrated it in December 2007. It was in the Release candidate viewer at that time. very soon afterwards, it was in the main viewer. But let me rimind you - you offered Torley's video as proof that the original search system made use of objects on pages. You didn't even realise that the video was about the search sysrtem that replaced the orginal system. So that proof of yours wasn't proof of anything that you tried to prove. You got it wrong. It didn't match exactly with what you said. It was the wrong engine for what you were claiming. It would only have matched if you'd made the claim about the GSA, but you were trying to prove something about the orginal search. You proof failed.

Not "parts of the GSA". The GSA as a whole. Parts never came into this discussion. Anyway, it's nice to see you backing down a little now - from the search engine changed, to it might have just been some algorithms that changed. We're making prgress. However...

I most certainly can argue that no change of search engine system occured at the time when the V2 was launched. You've been shown categorical, and irrefutable, proof that the GSA was the search system 2 years before the V2 came along. So the GSA didn't arrive at that time. A replacement for the GSA perhaps? No. Absoluutely not. A couple of years later, yes, but not when the V2 arrived. Algo changes? Again no. LL could not change the GSA's algorithms. They could fiddle on the outside of it but they had no access to the code.

So we get to what you actually wrote - that the decline was caused by objects no longer being listed on parcel pages. That's a potted version of what you wrote. Now, I can't actually prove that that didn't happen. All I can say is that I was heavily involved with the SL search at that time, and I promise you it didn't happen. Not only that, but it hasn't happened since then either. I've shown you the current pages, and all the objects are on them. Since the GSA arrived 2 years ealier, parcels have had pages with the objects listed on them, and that's still the case. What you wrote as the cause of the decline was totally wrong. It's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact.

My third proof that you were wrong concerned your outlandish claim that a change to search caused SL to decline - specifically that, before the change, ovbjects were listed on parcle pages and could be found in search, and after the change, objects were no longer listed on parcel pages and couldn't be found in search. Some theory, huh? But it didn't happen, and I proved it by showing a current parcel page - with all the objects still listed, of course. I also described a demo to prove that objects are on parcel pages and can be found in search.

You've never understood how any of the search systems we've had in SL work. You've imagined - I'll grant you that - but your imaginations were totally wrong, as is your reason for SL going into decline, What you claimed simply didn't happen.

Sorry about this color. I've run out of decent ones to highlight the parts of your post I'm replying to. This is a reply to the last paragraph.

During the GSA era, people often claimed that LL broke search. They couldn't break the GSA because they had no access to it, but they fiddled on the ouside to influnece the results in keeping with SL specifics. For instance, pre-GSA, places were ranked solely on traffic and traffic was gamed to death. They kept a small traffic influence with the GSA but they couldn't make the GSA take account of it. Remember I told you how links to pages push pages up the rankings? Well that's what LL used so that traffic had a small influence. They created 12 additional pages of links for the GSA spider to crawn and index. The top n places according to traffic got a link on all 12 pages. The next n pages according to traffic got links on 11 pages, etc. etc. So the more traffic a place had, the more of the 12 pages it got links on. The pages were updated daily, of course.That's the sort of external fiddle that LL had to use to influence reults.

Getting back to LL breaking search. People often claimed it, and, on occasion they did something that changed things quite a lot. One of those occasions might have been around the time when the V2 was launched. BUT what did NOT happen at that or any other time, was objects no longer being listed on places' pages, but that's what you claimed happened and you claimed it caused SL to go into decline. Since the GSA arrived, right up until today, objects have been listed on parcel pages, and can be found in search.

 

Comment (not specifically a reply to your post)

I'm sorry, Medhue, but you know next to nothing about the SL search systems through the years. For whatever reason, you've managed to mix things up, and even add something that never happened. Everything you've said in this thread about search has been wrong. What you said about the cause of the decline was wrong. The fact of the decline is true, of course, but the cause you stated was wrong.

Someone told me that you're stubborn. I can see that that's true. A person needs to be stubborn to argue in the face of irrefutable proof The person added, "just like you" - meaning me. I'm stubborn too. I'm stubborn in this discussion because I know it all. I'm the expert on SL search (except the latest one because I lost interest). And I can afford to be stubborn in this discussion because I've provided not one but three irrefutable proofs that prove three of your claims to be wrong. Such proof cannot be argued against except by a really stubborn person  - and such a person cannot win against such proof.

Although I can be stubborn, I do pride myself on the fact that, when I'm shown to be mistaken, I admit it. I'm not too proud to accept being mistaken or wrong.

[Phil Deakins]

I've been involved in a side issue in this thread but not in the main topic, but I've been reading the main topic too, and I'm wondering something.

I'm wondering if LL isn't really creating a new virtual world, but instead recreating SL - with hindsight. I'm thinking that SL has run into a great many difficulties since it began, and many of the fixes/solutions must themselves cause further difficulties down the road, etc. In other words, the SL system has become a bit of a mess, and could do with a complete overhaul; i.e. start again using hindsight, up to date technologies, programming that is better able to do what will be required in the future, and features from the start that they've realised would be good, but would be too messy to try to get into SL.

In other words, SL has become a bit of a technological mess and they're starting again, and making use of all the knowledge acquired from the first (this) incarnation, and knowledge of the pitfalls to avoid.

That's what I'm wondering - not a new world - just a second incarnation of SL but done much better through hindsight.

 

[Conifer Dada]

I think LL working on a new and better virtual world is a good thing as long as it allows the same level of creativity, or perhaps even more, as in SL.  I'm wondering how Philip Rosedale's independent High Fidelity project might fit in with the new LL world.

But it's important that the existing SL would not only be retained and supported, but also continue to be enhanced until such time as either everyone has migrated to the new world or, by some as yet undicovered electronic miracle, it could be seamlessly converted into part of the proposed new world!:matte-motes-big-grin:

[Phoebe Avro]

I can acttualy see this going **bleep** up big time because the real world may not be in resesion but its far from recovered and people just don't have the money to start over,

I have a feeling the v2 will be geared up for professional content creators, hobby creators prob generate more profit for LL than the big names in sl do so that will be a shot in the foot right off

Hey lets see who gets an invite to the beta when its out?

Leaking this was the most stupid idea ever because it will effect sales in the coming months, this is typical of LL

We all know how LL will pay no attension to ideas put forward because we know nothing, look at the migration on the mp lol how long did that take? the enhancements are still borked as far as I know

Look at the LL viewer cough cough

LL will say they will keep sl open  as long as its profitable but they wont within one year of V2 opening sl as you know it now will have its plug pulled