Jump to content

The Lindens Are Giving Search a Facelift, But Not Fixing It


Prokofy Neva
 Share

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 178 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Yeah, returning 2000+ on an exact name search, yeah, that's a blunt instrument. Something he admits, and you don't.

He didn't admit anything of the sort. You're applying your own preferred interpretation to something that he said, but what he said isn't anything like your interpretation.

My opinion is that the results for such searches are what LL wants, otherwise they would be different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Probably a combination of unknown hidden factors and edge cases, we also don't know how frequently the search is updated or what actions would trigger an update. 

Yet she hasn't been in search for ages.  I posted the same search results earlier in the year.  I've never noticed it with places as I don't often use that.  However, quite often people who show up in firestorm people search do not show up on the website search.  Often.  Not just sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

That still doesn't explain why my alt does not come up in search at all on the website as you can plainly see earlier in this thread.  

That's a different thing to what Prokofy is talking about, but what's the name of your alt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Yet she hasn't been in search for ages.  I posted the same search results earlier in the year.  I've never noticed it with places as I don't often use that.  However, quite often people who show up in firestorm people search do not show up on the website search.  Often.  Not just sometimes.

You can get different results in different searches. (banned account)

D3Hae9H.png

Edited by Coffee Pancake
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

You can get different results in different searches. (banned account)

D3Hae9H.png

No, not banned but unused.  I did create her soon after I started in SL so I am wondering, since I started her when I was using the SL viewer, if I checked something there to hide her.  She isn't hidden on the firestorm viewer.   I'll have to fire up the official viewer and see.

Edited by Rowan Amore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rowan Amore said:

No, not banned but unused.  I did create her soon after I started in SL so I am wondering, since I started her when I was using the SL viewer, if I checked something there to hide her.  She isn't hidden on the firestorm viewer.   I'll have to fire up the official viewer and see.

The are likely to be other hidden flags as to whether to show an account (etc) in certain places.

It might be an idea to file a support ticket (from sage) and ask why you're not searchable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

My search results under People on the SL website for Sage Mellow.

The only search I can find her listed under is the legacy search. I may be mistaken but I have an idea that setting an agent to not show in search, doesn't prevent it being shown in the legacy search. So, if it hasn't been set to show in search, then it won't be listed, except in the legacy search, which Firestorm still has but the LL viewer doesn't. Check if she's actually set to be listed. In the LL viewer, it's in the Privacy tab.

Assuming that nothing happened to cause LL to flag it as being unlistable, the only other thing I can think of is that she hasn't logged in for some months. I'm going back a long time, but LL was talking about cutting the size of the index down by only having agents in it that actually get used.

Edited by Phil Deakins
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

The are likely to be other hidden flags as to whether to show an account (etc) in certain places.

It might be an idea to file a support ticket (from sage) and ask why you're not searchable.

I actually filed a jira back in Jan. about it.  "We'll investigate further...".

https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/BUG-230051

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phil Deakins said:

The only search I can find her listed under is the legacy search. I may be mistaken but I have an idea that setting an agent to not show in search, doesn't prevent it being shown in the legacy search. So, if it hasn't been set to show in search, then it won't be listed, except in the legacy search, which Firestorm still has but the LL viewer doesn't. Check if she's actually set to be listed. In the LL viewer, it's in the Privacy tab.

Assuming that nothing happened to cause LL to flag it as being unlistable, the only other thing I can think of is that she hasn't logged in for some months. I'm going back a long time, but LL was talking about cutting the size of the index down by only having agents in it that actually get used.

Well, I logged her in on the official viewer.  She's set to show in search.  Also, set to show in Firestorm viewer.  She's always shown in Firestorm.  She hasn't shown on the SL website for almost a year.  As far as not showing people who haven't logged in recently, my original avatar shows and always has yet I haven't logged her in in years.  

I'm not implying that my issue is the same as rentals not showing but there is an ongoing problem with LL search.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does sound like there's a bug that's catching your alt, or maybe it's been flagged not to show in search for some reason. I am sure it's not the latter :)

On 11/13/2021 at 5:26 PM, Rowan Amore said:

As far as not showing people who haven't logged in recently, my original avatar shows and always has yet I haven't logged her in in years.  

The idea of reducing the size of the index by leaving out agents that had not logged in for some time, was something that the search team were considering. I'm pretty sure it was when they had the GSA. It makes good sense, but it sounds like it wasn't done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/13/2021 at 9:57 AM, Phil Deakins said:

He didn't admit anything of the sort. You're applying your own preferred interpretation to something that he said, but what he said isn't anything like your interpretation.

My opinion is that the results for such searches are what LL wants, otherwise they would be different.

So wait. One minute you say it's all "development" and therefore changing and therefore different than last year and this is "normal".

The Linden himself in this meeting states very clearly that they have been working on search, that they are now making a facelift, but they have plans to make it work better. He said he recognized it is a blunt instrument, which means exactly as it says. 

Indeed he recognizes there are problems with search. He may not believe it is the same set of problems that I do, but THAT there are problems is admitted here. Yet, curiously, you are claiming that a flat statement by a Linden is "my interpretation" or that "he didn't mean that." I mean, go and listen. I think everyone there and everyone listening to the tape gets it -- they tinkered with search, they didn't change it yet, they prettified it, but they are working on improving it and they recognize it is a blunt instrument.

So therefore it is not "what LL wants" as they are in fact in the process of improving it LOL.

I don't need to keep arguing this because the Lindens themselves will be rolling this out any day and commenting on it and when people see a pretty search box (or more likely, yet again a counter-intuitive change to the interface) they will pipe up. 

Let's hope it won't become even worse.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/8/2021 at 5:35 PM, Chic Aeon said:

Just nothing that INVENTORY search is also broken -- and in Firestorm (assuming it is also in the Linden viewer).  I was looking for some inventory last week and knew the exact name of the item (my blog credits copied and pasted) and also knew I had NOT deleted it.  Couldn't find it with search. Suspect that the database fairy may have struck again but then wen painstakingly though my folders looking for it where it "should have been" and indeed it was there. I tried searching again using the exact name of the item and then part of the name (like "table") and neither of those brought up the item.   

 

I had suspected this problem for a long while but never bothered to test it thoroughly. SO if you are missing a particular item in your inventory (not a folder's worth, just an item or two)  it may still be there. Just don't expect to find it with search. SOMETIMES of course you will find the item you are looking for. Very confusing. 

Ohhh I thought I was crazy!  This happens to me too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Prokofy Neva

In your clip, Reed said that search is a "blunt instrument", which means that it isn't a well refined instrument. It doesn't mean that it's broken, which is what you've been saying.

That's about it, really, apart from pointing out (again) that, just like many other types of programmes, search engines are continually being developed and, at any point in time, their results are what the creators want, at least for that point in time. They don't stay for years in a broken state and, as far as I can see, the SL search engine hasn't stayed/been in a broken state for the period of time you speak of. If it had been broken, LL would have fixed it.

Google, for instance, is continually improving their engine but it's never left in a broken state. Your message is that the LL search engine is actually broken and has been for a couple of years. I don't believe for a second that that is true. Everything I see, including the pics you posted, tell me that it isn't true.

Perhaps, as LL developes the engine, the results will again be what you think they should be, and you will be happy.

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

Going back to something you brought up earlier, 'models' were, and still are, THE way of ranking highly in the legacy search, which still gets used, but they are only a small factor for rankings in the main search - if they are still a factor at all, that is. Things may have changed since I controlled the top 10 results in the main search, but doing it only required multiple 4x4 parcels and some prims - wooden boxes were perfect. 'Models' weren't needed, and none were used.

After a while, LL changed it so that a parcel had to be bigger than that to be included in search, but I'd stopped doing it by then so it didn't affect me.

I thought you'd be interested in that :)

 

Edited by Phil Deakins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

 

That's about it, really, apart from pointing out (again) that, just like many other types of programmes, search engines are continually being developed and, at any point in time, their results are what the creators want, at least for that point in time. They don't stay for years in a broken state and, as far as I can see, the SL search engine hasn't stayed/been in a broken state for the period of time you speak of. If it had been broken, LL would have fixed it.

Oh so it is a new feature, not a bug. Personally I use Google to search for specific items in the marketplace as it works much better.

Edited by Arielle Popstar
punctuation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/9/2021 at 3:18 PM, Coffee Pancake said:

AVD0OcV.png

tIUeJEo.png

SO58L1M.png

 

Can you see why this isn't getting fixed? A linden tests this by searching for people who can be found .. and finds them .. and then disregards the complaint.

There could be an account setting that removes a person from search ... like 

iXy8V1E.png 

From Firestorm, this flag is missing from web profiles, but that doesn't mean it's gone forever and not used anywhere (it could also be another setting that doesn't explicitly state that it removes a person from search). It also wouldn't surprise me if some LL staff have elected not to be found in search because they don't want random IM's from residents.

I don't think any of my accounts will show up in search because all of them have that little box unchecked.

Edited by Silent Mistwalker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/9/2021 at 11:18 PM, Coffee Pancake said:

There could be an account setting that removes a person from search ... like 

iXy8V1E.png 

From Firestorm, this flag is missing from web profiles, but that doesn't mean it's gone forever and not used anywhere

I hadn't noticed that until Silent replied to the post.

I don't know if it went missing from the LL viewer, but it's in there now. It's in the inworld Profile's Privacy tab:-

31d3987eda9451c56e4b9a8142433c73.png

Edited by Phil Deakins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/16/2021 at 7:39 AM, Phil Deakins said:

@Prokofy Neva

In your clip, Reed said that search is a "blunt instrument", which means that it isn't a well refined instrument. It doesn't mean that it's broken, which is what you've been saying.

That's about it, really, apart from pointing out (again) that, just like many other types of programmes, search engines are continually being developed and, at any point in time, their results are what the creators want, at least for that point in time. They don't stay for years in a broken state and, as far as I can see, the SL search engine hasn't stayed/been in a broken state for the period of time you speak of. If it had been broken, LL would have fixed it.

Google, for instance, is continually improving their engine but it's never left in a broken state. Your message is that the LL search engine is actually broken and has been for a couple of years. I don't believe for a second that that is true. Everything I see, including the pics you posted, tell me that it isn't true.

Perhaps, as LL developes the engine, the results will again be what you think they should be, and you will be happy.

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

Going back to something you brought up earlier, 'models' were, and still are, THE way of ranking highly in the legacy search, which still gets used, but they are only a small factor for rankings in the main search - if they are still a factor at all, that is. Things may have changed since I controlled the top 10 results in the main search, but doing it only required multiple 4x4 parcels and some prims - wooden boxes were perfect. 'Models' weren't needed, and none were used.

After a while, LL changed it so that a parcel had to be bigger than that to be included in search, but I'd stopped doing it by then so it didn't affect me.

I thought you'd be interested in that :)

 

Reed Linden's words stand, and anyone is capable of understanding them. I'll have to repeat myself, although the record clearly stands, to show that I didn't claim Reed said search was "broken" (other Lindens recognize that it is); I said he said it was a "blunt instrument" which shows us he admits there is "something wrong with it." So your claim is not what I say, but it's more than you admit, claiming the Lindens think search is "fine":

Indeed he recognizes there are problems with search. He may not believe it is the same set of problems that I do, but THAT there are problems is admitted here. Yet, curiously, you are claiming that a flat statement by a Linden is "my interpretation" or that "he didn't mean that." I mean, go and listen. I think everyone there and everyone listening to the tape gets it -- they tinkered with search, they didn't change it yet, they prettified it, but they are working on improving it and they recognize it is a blunt instrument.

Search is indeed broken from the way it ran for many years, after Viewer 2.0 -- and broken from the way it was FIXED in 2018 when it broke and the Lindens fixed it within 48 hours. Why would they a) admit it was broken b) rush to fix it c) have Lindens that never, ever talk to me IM me personally to see if it is "working for me" back then? If it "wasn't broken"? Then it broke JUST THAT WAY again last year, and has remained in that broken state to date -- recognized by top coder Lindens in 2018 as broken but now not recognized as broken in 2021. I think part of the problem is that Lindens live on a different plane where they talk themselves into certain belief systems and now have the added advantage of saying many things are due to "migration to the cloud."

Now, either because they can't or won't fix it, it has remained broken, and it seems some Lindens -- and their boosters -- won't even admit that it used to work better, in a different way -- you know, like Firestorm, used by most of their customers does, LOL? -- and yet they acknowledge there may be "some issues" as they feel pressed to explain they are not changing search, only giving it a facelift. I'm pretty sure what people who use it actually need is not a "facelift" or yet another change to the UI, but actual fixing, i.e. putting it back the way it was, where it delivered clean results, few in number, on exact company name or person names searches. The end. This isn't so difficult to admit; in fact some Lindens do admit it, likely because they work inworld more than other Lindens, actually looking for stuff.

If "models" were not need to appear higher in search, you wouldn't have used them, and you wouldn't have fought so hard to claim such "models" were needed and were not a gimmick. We all get that there were all these other methods of dividing up parcels etc. etc. That doesn't concern me. I have never done this and I have never sought to be top in search because it is not a reasonable project given that I'm a small company and there are numerous companies larger and richer than me.

I am talking -- once again -- about the usefulness of search as a directory to find an exact business name and get those parcels in search that they paid 30L a week to be in such a listing, like a telephone book. It worked to produce those clean results for many years (not as good as 1.23 but serviceable); now it doesn't. Yet it did not change even from 1.23 on Firestorm, used by most people, for that reason of better search among other reasons like area search and de-render.

 

Edited by Prokofy Neva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

tldr; except for the last paragraph:-

5 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

I am talking -- once again -- about the usefulness of search as a directory to find an exact business name and get those parcels in search that they paid 30L a week to be in such a listing, like a telephone book.

But you haven't shown any parcels that have paid the 30L but aren't listed in the results. To be honest, I don't really know what you're complaining about. You seemed to think that arbitrarily putting regions first is an indication that search is broken, but that hasn't changed since around 2007/8. You didn't notice it until a couple of years ago, but that's just you not noticing it. They may have changed from exact sim name matches to what we see in your case, but I don't know if it was like that back in the day or not. What I do know is that the sim named 'Low Prim Furniture' was always arbitrarily listed first since that came in around 2007/8. Those are not actual search results. They are akin to advertisements that look like results, that some search engines put at the top.

When did the GSA come in? That was when regions first came in. Maybe 2008?

Incidentally, the search system is not a directory, and not even remotely similar to a telephone book. If it was, then all the parcels with the same name at the start would be listed without any other parcel interrupting them. But search systems do not work like that. Maybe you're expecting the search results to be directory/phone book listings. If you are, then that'll be why you think that search is broken.
 

5 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

If "models" were not need to appear higher in search, you wouldn't have used them, and you wouldn't have fought so hard to claim such "models" were needed and were not a gimmick. We all get that there were all these other methods of dividing up parcels etc. etc. That doesn't concern me. I have never done this and I have never sought to be top in search because it is not a reasonable project given that I'm a small company and there are numerous companies larger and richer than me.

Prokofy. I said that me controlling the top 10 results did not need 'models', and that was absolutely true. All it took was a few 4x4 parcels and some wooden cubes (prims). You never knew how to do it, and you never knew that it could be done. I accept that. But it doesn't mean that it couldn't be done. I did it. Heck I even rezzed the prims when the spider was due and removed them when it had gone through. It was a fun time :D

If you'd like me to explain how it was done, I'd be happy to.

I also said that 'models' were, and still are, THE way to be at the top in the legacy search. You only knew about that method. You never knew how to get high rankings in the GSA and beyond. You probably thought that 'models' were the way. They weren't. Incidentally, the models of mine in the store were functional for customers. I never used traffic bots since LL banned them. I used them extensively before that, of course.

You may well have been here 2 years more than me, as you pointed out earlier, but you don't know everything ;)

 

Edited by Phil Deakins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

tldr; except for the last paragraph:-

But you haven't shown any parcels that have paid the 30L but aren't listed in the results. To be honest, I don't really know what you're complaining about. You seemed to think that arbitrarily putting regions first is an indication that search is broken, but that hasn't changed since around 2007/8. You didn't notice it until a couple of years ago, but that's just you not noticing it. They may have changed from exact sim name matches to what we see in your case, but I don't know if it was like that back in the day or not. What I do know is that the sim named 'Low Prim Furniture' was always arbitrarily listed first since that came in around 2007/8. Those are not actual search results. They are akin to advertisements that look like results, that some search engines put at the top.

When did the GSA come in? That was when regions first came in. Maybe 2008?

Incidentally, the search system is not a directory, and not even remotely similar to a telephone book. If it was, then all the parcels with the same name at the start would be listed without any other parcel interrupting them. But search systems do not work like that. Maybe you're expecting the search results to be directory/phone book listings. If you are, then that'll be why you think that search is broken.
 

Prokofy. I said that me controlling the top 10 results did not need 'models', and that was absolutely true. All it took was a few 4x4 parcels and some wooden cubes (prims). You never knew how to do it, and you never knew that it could be done. I accept that. But it doesn't mean that it couldn't be done. I did it. Heck I even rezzed the prims when the spider was due and removed them when it had gone through. It was a fun time :D

If you'd like me to explain how it was done, I'd be happy to.

I also said that 'models' were, and still are, THE way to be at the top in the legacy search. You only knew about that method. You never knew how to get high rankings in the GSA and beyond. You probably thought that 'models' were the way. They weren't. Incidentally, the models of mine in the store were functional for customers. I never used traffic bots since LL banned them. I used them extensively before that, of course.

You may well have been here 2 years more than me, as you pointed out earlier, but you don't know everything ;)

 

Once again, as I have repeatedly said, this is not about "paid 30L ads NOT showing up in search." The question is: why does anything else BUT them show up?! Because that's how it was before. Type in a business name -- and you got only parcels with that business name, and in my case, only those put in search. The end. It's very simple. Not 2000 or 5000 returns. But 120 if you put 120 in 30L search.

Again, no, regions were not showing up in search before it was broken last year on the regular SL viewer. Maybe they were on Firestorm? I don't know, I don't use it. Once again, all that showed up was ONLY those parcels in 30L and that -- again -- is the point. Not their absence -- when they are present. But their presence -- along with thousands of other returns that were NOT there before it broke.

I believe GSA in fact came in with Viewer 2.0 which is why the search was so annoying and terrible compared to 1.23. But ask the Lindens, who are the sole authority on this.

Again, it doesn't matter if search, as intended by the Linden gods, with GSA or Apache or whatever they use, is "not a directory". It was in 1.23 and preceding when they used tables and MYSQL or whatever. It isn't now. But as I have maintained steadily  -- when it broke in 2018 and was fixed! -- and when it broke last year and was NOT fixed -- that if FUNCTIONED as a useful directory, returning only those parcels with that exact name.

If the returns were "like" a director before it was broke -- for years and years (excepting that one time in 2018), then it's reasonable and rational to say it is "expected behaviour" and was in fact documented actual behaviour.

The reasons the Lindens put in all these rules about microparcels, which don't work so well on the land devaluation front now, but still work re: search is because of search manipulation. There was no reason for your models; there was no reason for little parcels with prims rezzing and de-rezzing, either. If you make good furniture and it is priced to move, people will come.

I think you need to take a longer view here, Phil, and see how pathetic it is to be pawing over some old method you used on legacy search to defeat it -- when the record shows how you always denied manipulating it and how you kept defending you "models". I mean, it's sad. I guess you're not trying to sell furniture any more?

You're ascribing to me this or that thought or theorizing when the reality is I didn't follow it to that extent, didn't care, and only pointed out that these weren't models, that people don't need models to show them how to use adult furniture. They test it themselves. And PS the abuse of this by kids and/or griefers coming and "testing the furniture" constantly -- and me booting them constantly when shoppers and other store tenants saw their antics -- is why eventually one furniture seller left my mall and started his own store on his own parcel where I imagine he doesn't suffer from this problem as there is no one to pay attention -- the whole point is to annoy everyone else around. 

Search is broken; the Lindens are not fixing it. They may or may not grasp the ways in which it is broken; they may grasp it and not care; perhaps this is worth finding out; regardless they will do what they want and not look to customer requirements here, because they are mainly preoccupied with foiling gamers of search like yourself in the past, as you admit. You're welcome to keep replying but I don't think you have anything more to add to my main concerns, which I will express in due course to the relevant Lindens (and in fact have a tremendously long ticket filed which has had more Lindens and more answers than anything I've ever seen in any of my tickets in my SL).  Posting on the forums is relevant to find other people who had the same experience; it's not relevant to keep hearing from people who deny the concerns, for whatever motives.

You can call them models and say they aren't traffic bots. Nowadays people have the bots serve as group inviters, or they take messages, but they still enhance traffic. If it turns out that only you know this super secret sauce that in fact they don't, I could point out that age doesn't matter at all, when the actuality is that the Lindens know, and we don't. The end.

 

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Once again, as I have repeatedly said, this is not about "paid 30L ads NOT showing up in search." The question is: why does anything else BUT them show up?! Because that's how it was before. Type in a business name -- and you got only parcels with that business name, and in my case, only those put in search. The end. It's very simple. Not 2000 or 5000 returns. But 120 if you put 120 in 30L search.

No no no no no. That's not how a search engine works. A search engine is not a directory, as you seem to think. The two are very different types of programme. They work differently. What LL uses is a search engine, not a directory. A search engine lists results that match some or all of the searchterm. That's what LL's engine does, and always did. If, at one time, they had it so that only exact place names were listed when a place was searched for, then that was wrong, but I never saw that. It could only have been for a short time until they fixed it.

If you're interested in how a typical search engine works, have a look at how Google works. It is not a database with a table called Parcels, in which is a column called Parcel Name, or anything remotely similar to that kind of database. Google's creators published how their search engine worked while they were still developing it at Stanford university. They called it Backrub at the time. The name Google came about because of a spelling error. They were calling it Googol (a 1 with 100 zeroes after it) but spelt it wrongly. For examples of what a directory is, have a look at DMOZ and Yahoo!.

13 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Again, no, regions were not showing up in search before it was broken last year on the regular SL viewer. Maybe they were on Firestorm?

Again, you are mistaken. I told you that regions were placed at the top from when, or soon after, the GSA came in. That was 2008 - I checked in the archived forums. It was nothing to do with any 3rd party viewer. I only used LL's viewer too, and it was there. YOU didn't know about it, but that's irrelevant. I did know about it back then, when Lok's region suddenly, and arbitrarily, appeared at the top of the rankings for 'low prim furniture' - with or without quotes. At the time her region was called Low Prim Furniture. Its name has changed slightly since then.
 

Edited by Phil Deakins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

13 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

You can call them models and say they aren't traffic bots. Nowadays people have the bots serve as group inviters, or they take messages, but they still enhance traffic. If it turns out that only you know this super secret sauce that in fact they don't, I could point out that age doesn't matter at all, when the actuality is that the Lindens know, and we don't. The end.

You do know that 'models' can be used that are set to NOT count for traffic, don't you? I'm sure you know that. I told you already that I haven't used traffic bots/models since LL banned them. My models were for customers, not for traffic. Heck, I couldn't use models for traffic after it was banned because I was too well known for traffic bots, and you know as well as I do that there were people in the forum who would have reported me if they thought I was using traffic bots. They probably did. You might even have done it lol.

And yet my models were never removed, except for a couple of days when a Linden, who wasn't fully conversant with the changes when Adult land came in, told me to remove them because they contravened the new adult rules. They didn't, and his manager overturned that decision.

Ooooooh, the Lindens knew all about my method - what you call the "secret sauce". Heck, I discussed exactly what I was doing with the search team's leader at the time! lol. And, of course, lots of businesses used the method in one way, but I wasn't aware of anyone else doing it as I did. I'm sure that some did though. It was too obvious not to do, but it didn't get talked about in the forum. Maybe others didn't want to control the top rankings but, for me, it was fun, especially as I could keep one particular place out of them by promoting other places above it. Actually, I'm sure that you knew the method too, but not in the way that I used it. It didn't break any rules.

Incidentally, it was you who mentioned age, when you pointed out that you'd been in SL for 17 years, presumably hoping it would persuade me that you know about these things because you've been here that long.

Edited by Phil Deakins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

I think you need to take a longer view here, Phil, and see how pathetic it is to be pawing over some old method you used on legacy search to defeat it -- when the record shows how you always denied manipulating it and how you kept defending you "models". I mean, it's sad. I guess you're not trying to sell furniture any more?

Excuse me, but, from when I first entered the forum (2007?), I always said that I use traffic bots. Right from the very start. I even described what made me do it. I did defend using them then because they were allowed. I got into some terrific arguments in the forum over them. Thoroughly enjoyable :)

But now you're making stuff up, such as I denied manipulating the rankings. I've never denied it. From my start in the forum, I said I used traffic bots for that purpose, and many times I posted that I controlled the top 10 GSA and beyond rankings for my main searchterm. I even posted how to rank highly in the GSA. Someone gathered all the posts into a single thread that became a Sticky. It's still there. So there's no point in posting your imaginations because "the record shows" that what I'm saying is true, and that what you're saying is false. It's all still there in the forum archives if you'd like to check. Checking is sooo much better than imagining ;)

Also, you really haven't grasped it. I haven't been "pawing over some old method [I] used on legacy search to defeat it". The only thing I've said about the legacy search is that 'models' are the way to rank highly in it. The "method I've been pawing over" was for the GSA search and beyond, as you really should know if you're actually reading these posts. The GSA search, of course, is NOT the legacy search.

As to your question, no, I haven't sold furniture for years, except to those who get in touch to ask if I still have something I used to sell. It's surprising but it does happen.

Edited by Phil Deakins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

You're ascribing to me this or that thought or theorizing when the reality is I didn't follow it to that extent, didn't care, and only pointed out that these weren't models, that people don't need models to show them how to use adult furniture. They test it themselves. And PS the abuse of this by kids and/or griefers coming and "testing the furniture" constantly -- and me booting them constantly when shoppers and other store tenants saw their antics -- is why eventually one furniture seller left my mall and started his own store on his own parcel where I imagine he doesn't suffer from this problem as there is no one to pay attention -- the whole point is to annoy everyone else around. 

I've only ascribed things to you that you wrote in this thread. And for someone who "didn't follow it to that extent", you sure have some pretty fixed (and wrong) views about it.

You've been talking about my models - the ones that were in my store. Now you've changed to refer to some that were in your mall. I've no idea about those. I've only been talking about my models, that were there for customers.

You say that people test adult furniture themselves and that they don't need models for it. So a person arrives in the store and wants to know what the animations are like. How does s/he go about that on his/her own? You're not really thinking things through.

In my store, I had 3 sex beds that were easily accessible, but not in view from the main store. You know that, because you took a pic of yourself sitting on one. One bed had a male and female model, another had just a female, and the 3rd had no models. It was a nice discreet way for people to see or try the animations whether they were on their own or not.

It doesn't matter that people can test adult furniture themselves. It was good to have them there as an alternative method of seeing what the animations were like, and they weren't counting for traffic. I hope it's getting through to you now.

Of course, if I'd known that you would disapprove of those models many years later, I would never have put them there. That goes without saying :D

 

ETA: There is no point in you continuing to discuss my models. They didn't count for traffic, so you have nothing against them. That should be the end of the part of our discussion that concerns them.

 

Edited by Phil Deakins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 178 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...