Jump to content
CoffeeDujour

Please let us see bots.

Recommended Posts

Wandering around looking for signs of life, dots on the map .... bots on the map more like. I've been at this for an hour going region to region and I've yet to find a real person.

Bots .. lets have them shown on the map in a different color, keep the green dot for real people, this is a social platform, let us at least see where the real people are.

  • Like 12
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, CoffeeDujour said:

Wandering around looking for signs of life, dots on the map .... bots on the map more like. I've been at this for an hour going region to region and I've yet to find a real person.

Bots .. lets have them shown on the map in a different color, keep the green dot for real people, this is a social platform, let us at least see where the real people are.

I would suspect that would only show how few people register them as bots and how much they are allowed to get away with it.

PS. I like the idea otherwise though.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, CoffeeDujour said:

Wandering around looking for signs of life, dots on the map .... bots on the map more like. I've been at this for an hour going region to region and I've yet to find a real person.

Bots .. lets have them shown on the map in a different color, keep the green dot for real people, this is a social platform, let us at least see where the real people are.

So what's the difference between bots and alts logged in on a text client to boost traffic numbers?

Edited by BilliJo Aldrin
added words
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

So what's the difference between bots and alts logged in on a text client to boost traffic numbers?

Bots are supposed to be registered with LL in an effort to keep a lid on them sucking up resources needed by people driven avatars and boosting traffic. They are not meant to be used like a normal account. Alts are meant to be used as intended by LL (people driven) and are not required to be registered as bots.

Or you can just read this: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Bot_policy

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Selene Gregoire said:

Bots are supposed to be registered with LL in an effort to keep a lid on them sucking up resources needed by people driven avatars and boosting traffic. They are not meant to be used like a normal account. Alts are meant to be used as intended by LL (people driven) and are not required to be registered as bots.

Or you can just read this: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Bot_policy

Yes but isn't a bot still an avatar?  Doesn't it use up just as many resources as an alt logged in?

10 alts sitting on a platform at a club 24/7 to inflate traffic numbers are NOT being used as LL intended

Edited by BilliJo Aldrin
fixed a word

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main reason bots need to be registered is to exclude those accounts from traffic figures and throttle spam.

Edited by Gabriele Graves
I take it back, I was wrong
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

The main reason bots need to be registered is to exclude those accounts from traffic figures and throttle spam.

Oh, so it I wanted to inflate numbers at my club, there's no reason to have bots,?

I'd just log in 10 alts on 10 copies of a chat client? That's how it works?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Oh, so it I wanted to inflate numbers at my club, there's no reason to have bots,?

I'd just log in 10 alts on 10 copies of a chat client? That's how it works?

Certainly if you wanted to violate LL rules about traffic, registering bots is not the way to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gabriele Graves said:

Certainly if you wanted to violate LL rules about traffic, registering bots is not the way to do it.

Almost every knot of avatars on the map is a bunch of alts. I go to clubs all the time, cam up, and go, oh alts, byeeeee.

I really think there's maybe 10,000 "real" people logged in at one time, 80% of that 50,000 people concurrency  are probably traffic gaming alts

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's frustrating, so long as traffic or simple dots on a map are used as a metric of a locations actual popularity, people will find ways to game it. Either with bots or text clients. People fishing for pennies (as mathematically ridiculous as it is for a source of income) are still actual people at the screen partaking in a minigame.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CoffeeDujour said:

Bots .. lets have them shown on the map in a different color, keep the green dot for real people, this is a social platform, let us at least see where the real people are.

Extra bytes on the map/minimap=lag.

But, you are a dev, no? Wasn't there was a time when the TPVs could show the ClientID. Is that still available?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shudo said:

Extra bytes on the map/minimap=lag.

But, you are a dev, no? Wasn't there was a time when the TPVs could show the ClientID. Is that still available?

I could be wrong but I don't believe there is a supported way of querying for bot status.
If there was then this status could also be displayed on the inworld profile.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

I could be wrong but I don't believe there is a supported way of querying for bot status.
If there was then this status could also be displayed on the inworld profile.

It could be added. I can see it now... New Bug Feature Coming Soon!

LL yanked the ability to see what clients others were using many years ago* because some jack@$$es kept hassling people over... of all things... the client/viewer they were using.

 

*8-10 years, somewhere around there. Not sure and I can't be arsed to go hunt it down this late at night. It's pushing midnight here. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

It could be added. I can see it now... New Bug Feature Coming Soon!

LL yanked the ability to see what clients others were using many years ago* because some jack@$$es kept hassling people over... of all things... the client/viewer they were using.

 

*8-10 years, somewhere around there. Not sure and I can't be arsed to go hunt it down this late at night. It's pushing midnight here. 

Lol, yeah, that's the trouble with useful stuff, it carries the baggage of the potential to cause trouble in the wrong hands with it.

Usually when I am examining the mini-map, I assume that if it moves then it might possibly be a real person.  Most bots-in-a-box don't move around.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@BilliJo Aldrin

Your reasoning concerning bots and alts inflating traffic misses one important thing. It's not just that traffic bots aren't allowed. It's the artificial inflation of traffic by any means that isn't allowed. It's why camping, sploders, etc. on land that's set to show in search became prohibited when traffic bots did.

When LL brought the new rules out, it was easy for them to include a flag for bots, but all those methods are equally against the rules, including yours - the placing of multiple alts, that are logged in with viewers, on land that's set to show in search, for the purpose of inflating your traffic. Your alts would fall foul of the rule just as a group of unregistered bots would, unless you'd registered them as bots, of course.

So there's no difference between your alts on viewers and unregistered bots run by programmes, when it comes to inflating the traffic count. They are both against the rules.

Edited by Phil Deakins
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

@BilliJo Aldrin

Your reasoning concerning bots and alts inflating traffic misses one important thing. It's not just that traffic bots aren't allowed. It's artificially inflating of traffic by any means that isn't allowed. It's why camping, sploders, etc. on land that's set to show in search became prohibited when traffic bots did. When LL brought the new rules out, it was easy for them to include a flag and a rule specifying them, but all those methods are against the rules, including yours - the placing of multiple alts, that are logged in with viewers, on land that's set to show in search, for the purpose of inflating your traffic. Your alts would fall foul of the rule just as a group of bots would, unless you'd registered them as bots, of course.

So there's no difference between your alts on viewers and unregistered bots, when it comes to inflating the traffic count. They are both against the rules.

Thank you, that's my point, why do people go on and on about whether an alt parked in a skybox is a bot or not, both affect traffic counts in the same way, both are either allowed, or not, which ever the rules say.

Of course this thread isn't about search results, it's about dots on maps. So, since my club isn't listed in search, I could put 10 alts at my place, and people might be drawn to the cluster of dots on the map, looking for some place active

Edited by BilliJo Aldrin
added stuff, fixed a word
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be because it was compaints about traffic bots that caused the new rules. Nobody complained about camping or sploders - just traffic bots. So it's always bots that people have in mind, and I guess that, over time, the word 'traffic' has tended to be dropped, although I do think people still mean bots that are used to inflate traffic.

Coffee brought up a good topic with this thread, and, imo, a very good suggestion. I've no idea why LL decided that we couldn't see the bot status of avatars, but they did. Imo, it would be better if we could see them, so that time isn't wasted trying to ascertain whether or not people are behind them. We can't even do that anyway, because a small group can be in IMs, so we wouldn't know. And we wouldn't waste everyone's time (LL's and ours) by reporting avatars that aren't breaking any rules but look as though they are.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

It could be because it was compaints about traffic bots that caused the new rules. Nobody complained about camping or sploders - just traffic bots. So it's always bots that people have in mind, and I guess that, over time, the word 'traffic' has tended to be dropped, although I do think people still mean bots that are used to inflate traffic.

Coffee brought up a good topic with this thread, and, imo, a very good suggestion. I've no idea why LL decided that we couldn't see the bot status of avatars, but they did. Imo, it would be better if we could see them, so that time isn't wasted trying to ascertain whether or not people are behind them. We can't even do that anyway, because a small group can be in IMs, so we wouldn't know. And we wouldn't waste everyone's time (LL's and ours) by reporting avatars that aren't breaking any rules but look as though they are.

Either way they are fooling themselves using unregistered bots or alts to boost traffic numbers. Inworld search sorts by traffic, a place with inflated numbers is easily determined once you tp in either from a search , or looking at clusters of dots on the map. 

I'm more annoyed when a club hogs mainland access by putting 20 alts on their parcel, thus limiting sim access to real people.

That is a far bigger issue to me than gaming traffic counts.

 

Edited by BilliJo Aldrin
changed a word
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inworld search (that's the web search) sorts by search criteria, and not by traffic. It's only if you switch to the legacy search that the results are sorted by traffic.

37 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

I'm more annoyed when a club hogs mainland access by putting 20 alts on their parcel, thus limiting sim access to real people.

That is a far bigger issue to me than gaming traffic counts.

You would have had a huge issue with me in the past then :)  I wrote my traffic bots system to maintain high occupancy in the mainland sim. It kept tabs on how many avatars were in the sim, and, by logging bots in and out, always made sure there were 3 or 4 spaces available for people to come in - customers, land owners, passers-by. The very day after I'd finished it and it was running perfectly, LL announced the banning of everything that manipulated traffic counts. It had to go lol.

Edited by Phil Deakins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

Inworld search (that's the web search) sorts by search criteria, and not by traffic. It's only if you switch to the legacy search that the results are sorted by traffic.

You would have had a huge issue with me in the past then :)  I wrote my traffic bots system to maintain high occupancy in the mainland sim. It kept tabs on how many avatars were in the sim, and, by logging bots in and out, always made sure there were 3 or 4 spaces available for people to come in - customers, land owners, passers-by. The very day after I'd finished it and it was running perfectly, LL announced the banning of everything that manipulated traffic counts. It had to go lol.

If you didn't own the whole sim, it seems then that you were the mainlands worst nightmare, making it so that only 3 or 4 people could get on the sim at any one time.

I would hope that you were reported many times for hogging sim access.

Of course it wouldn't have affected me, since if i was looking to buy land, seeing all your bots parked at your place, I'd have kept on looking.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't own the whole sim - just almost all of it. I don't think it was reported at all. Traffic bots were allowed and the sim access was never an issue. As I said, the system always made sure that there were 3 or 4 spaces for people to come into the sim. It was a beautiful system :D  Only people who don't think things through, or who object to things merely on principle, could possibly have found any fault with it as far as what was allowed is concerned.

Edited by Phil Deakins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

I didn't own the whole sim - just almost all of it. I don't think it was reported at all. Traffic bots were allowed and the sim access was never an issue. As I said, the system always made sure that there were 3 or 4 spaces for people to come into the sim. It was a beautiful system :D  Only people who don't think things through, or who object to things merely on principle, could possibly have found any fault with it as far as what was allowed is concerned.

Yes but, you effectively blocked anyone new from buying land on the sim, since no one would buy land on a sim that has 36 bots parked on it. With your system, you basically reserved the whole sim for your own personal use.

So, yes, I object to that.

Want the resources of a full sim? Then go buy a full sim.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that brings up my biggest beef about mainland. On my sim, there's my "club" which has never had more than 10 people there at once, there's a popular furry club which often hosts events which draw maybe up to 20 guests, usually closer to a dozen and the rest are private homes, or low use fetish clubs.

However there are parcels for sale, one being a 4096. 

I always worry that someone could buy it, build an afk s e x club, then fill it with 30 afk avatars, effectively destroying the use of the sim for me and for the furry club.

Is it fair? No, not really.  Is it allowed? No, not really. But to AR the club and get satisfaction would require a certain amount of concerted effort on my part and on the part of other parcel ownrs affected

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...