Ciaran Laval

Unless it's a bug, the only times I've seen things like this are when a texture or script are in one of the prims, when it's linked that would cause the whole structure to have iffy looking perms. Unlink one prim and check the perms on that. Did you use any sort of rez-foo or rez-faux device to package the build?

Toysoldier Thor wrote: Thats funny Phil that you mention the horrid V2 Cam controls. It was one of the top reasons I abandoned V2 when I first gave it a try... and from what Ciaran just said... they have not fixed it. When they separated the PAN and ANGLE Zoom... that was pretty much a show stopper. It made what was a great control into an utterly useless function. AND I use PAN ZOOM ANGLE ... ALLLL THEEE TIME!!! So I will never return. Sorry, I don't think I've explained this well. When it was first released you could pan or prbit, you had to keep switching from one to the other, now they're side by side like viewer 1.

Void Singer wrote: since the all sucked.... none of them... the card game! lol Oh blasphemy! The first one was great!

No I meant which Highlander Movie! Oh wait, just got it, sorry Ann! :smileyhappy:

Suella Ember wrote: I won't comment on the Facebook thing other than to say I'm not a Facebook user and probably never will be (although the recent info about Facebook pages rather than having a full Facebook profile is interesting. You even got Ciaran onboard with that one!) :smileytongue: No cheese for you!

Void Singer wrote: @Ciaran: I pity the poor soul who would try to implement category switching for keywords, twice as much if they they had to try to place category words .... the only way to do that properly is under user control... and even that would be likely to be a mess between shopping and every other type of activity wanting it's own special category. I did say it would be a nightmare and you're right on categories, I'd want a roleplaying category!

Ann Otoole wrote: Parcel size is irrelevant and people lobbying hard to get LL to artificially inflate their rankings because they have large parcels with little relevant content need to go back and make more relevant content. Indeed Ann, ths is the point, large parcel, little relevant content shouldn't score higher than small parcel lots of relevant content. Ann Otoole wrote: This whole business is beginning to sound like Highlander. Which one!

Void Singer wrote: for the exact reasons you stated... both have limited space, but a region has more literal content and more room which equate to more potential people interaction.. that's hugely important for all sorts of non-store and social locations. the space available to a region to describe it's content has to be focused to it's main content, but can cover a wider range, so the owner has to cherry pick it's majority content... that's always going to be over the focused content of a 512 plot... and if it isn't the region owner is throwing away business, because people will come in, not see what they were after and not come back. when they could have been generating leads for content that they do have a majority of. Wait wait, there was a time when you could have small parcels with relevant content generating leads and getting people to those areas, then something happened, this is when the parcel size bias rumours started which LL would neither confirm or deny but it seemed that larger parcels were getting a boost, this change hit me to such an extent that I gave up trying to have smaller parcels, I still had the same land area parcelled or not but the small parcels were completely and utterly buried in search, which made the whole exercise in trying to parcel, pointless. Void Singer wrote: content quality is a completely different case, and I don't think there is anything realistic that search can do about that right now. Also, not all content is measured in prims, social and RP venues find themselves in the position of providing space and content, but largely, space. more space = more interactions, more people = more popularity and driving traffic to them. I'm not suggesting that the size is more important than other stats, merely that it IS important for a wide range of venues, and should account for something. Throwing out metrics is never a good idea... if they become broken, reduce their weight or refactor how they are calculated, but you never throw out a useful metric... you just rebalance it. Agreed about quality of content, I've actually had that dispute with people before, search cannot measure quality. I know about RP sims and spaces, trust me, I've had people questioning why I have a market and wouldn't that space be better used for RP space, the answer remains no because markets help with funding and I like to get merchants involved at some point anyway, it's good networking. There are a limited amount of useful stats, maybe parcel size could be useful as a tiebreaker, when two parcels score equal everywhere else. Maybe there should be different relevancy states depending upon which search category you're in, hangouts have different scoring methods to shopping places, although I think this would be a nightmare for the folk running search to configure.

Sorry for making a mess of the quoting!

Void Singer wrote: Ciaran Laval wrote: So they can be at the top for several different search terms, this is a well known tactic. When you're specialising, you need less search terms. LL cut the number of characters in classifieds precisely because of this issue. and it worked... so why then abandon parcel size as a stat? this actually gives smaller parcels a edge since they can cover their content more thoroughly while the larger parcels cannot, which balances nicely against a parcel size modifier The reason there was a problem in the first place was keyword stemming. which was giving the top paid classifieds upto three times as much word coverage. Keyword stemming hasn't gone awat. We're back to me asking you why a 512m parcel that is dedicated to steampunk should be less relevant than a full sim that has only a few steampunk items? Void Singer wrote: Ciaran Laval wrote: Vendors have long been borked in terms of being useful in search, keyword stuffing in prims is more of an issue on larger parcels where they can hide hundreds of the damn things, and we have seen this happen too. The parcel size on its own shouldn't be a weighting factor, a larger parcel of content a should beat a smaller parcel of content a by virtue of having more content, but that's not what always happens. keywords/m^2 is an easy calculation to cut stuffing, and remember that stores are not the only things in SL, parcel size matters a great deal to events, hangouts, RP areas, sandboxes, educational venues, etc etc. On my RP Sim we have an events stage in the sky, we have no room on the ground for it, the sky area isn't as large as the parcel it's on. The only parcelling I have really done is for the tavern and market area and that's because I insist we have them on different parcels, I could merge them. The market would suddenly be on a full sim parcel, why should it get an advantage for that? When I'm searching for something I want to find the content I'm looking for, I don't want to spend time trawling around a hair store that has a small line in mens clothing when there's a much better mens clothing store with more content on a smaller parcel. Parcel content is what people are after, not parcel size.

Phil Deakins wrote: I have tried it out (V2) - more than once - and, by comparison to the V1, it's crap. Have they fixed the camera controls display yet? The last I heard, they hadn't done it, and I don't think they ever will - because they don't give a damn about users. Pan and orbit are on different tabs and the controls are much better than when it was first released.

MarkTwain White wrote: The two most popular airports in SL today (1- Olds Airport, and 2- Hollywood Airport) are ranked 35th and 30th respectively in the new search. A parcel that is virtual barren (Hollywood Airport Terminal) is ranked #6 in the new search. The top rated airport in both the old ALL web search AND the new search (SLPG Prague is 19th in actual traffic. Pardon me if i call the SL search system FUBAR (Futzed Up Beyond All Recognition). With all due respect, where the hell have you been for the last year and a bit? The issues you're complaining about have been going on with viewer 2 search and viewer 1.23 all search for over a year. Traffic has been diminished as a ranking factor for over a year in the new search. (The latest one is the new new search). You highlight some pros and cons of the old old search, genuine traffic is a sign of popularity, people using terms that have sod all to do with their parcel was a problem.

Void Singer wrote: why would a ful region, with what you admit is limited description space list a search term for a category that it holds less than a relevant amount of content for? if it has less than a 512 parcel worth of items, then that means that less than 1% of it's business is devoted to that... there would be no reason to list it, when other things are more common to it that could generate income and need the limited space available... sorry no I don't buy that argument at all So they can be at the top for several different search terms, this is a well known tactic. When you're specialising, you need less search terms. LL cut the number of characters in classifieds precisely because of this issue. Void Singer wrote: and I was very careful to say that it is NOT the only stat that should be looked at... parcel items should also count, although frankly they are hugely limited in that it just encourages keyword stuffing of every single prim you can, and actually hurts most smaller plots since they tend to need to rely on vendors, which reduces their for sale item counts compared to what a bigger plot can afford to waste on box vendors it is not the stat that is at fault, but how it is weighted and applied. when they first applied it, it was given too much weight, and that is something I think we can both agree screws up rankings. Vendors have long been borked in terms of being useful in search, keyword stuffing in prims is more of an issue on larger parcels where they can hide hundreds of the damn things, and we have seen this happen too. The parcel size on its own shouldn't be a weighting factor, a larger parcel of content a should beat a smaller parcel of content a by virtue of having more content, but that's not what always happens.

Stop pushing Facebook this side of fence, I have no idea why you can't see this.

Void Singer wrote: @Ciaran: Parcel size IS relevant, because it denotes content amount. example: 3% keyword match for a search term included for a full region that includes multiple search terms vs 100% match for the only search term on a 512 (or heavens forbid, smaller). which is likely to have more content for the search term? you can have 128 x 512 parcels in a single region.... keyword space is limited... if the region lists it it's very likely to have content related to it. I'm not saying it's and end all/be all stat, but it should be in there. No, sorry, the parcel size should be irrelevant, if a larger parel has more relevant content because it has more space that is a completely different issue. Why should a store on a 512M parcel that specialises in, say steampunk, be less relevant than a full sim that has less Steampunk items than the 512M store? If the full sim parcel has more relevant items, then of course they should score higher than the smaller parcel. I've been through this Void, I had parcels cut on a full sim and a quarter of sim so I could focus on the right products, in the right parcels and pay L$30 for each of those parcels to show in search and then LL changed something and they were all irrelevant in search terms, so I merged them into larger parcels again because it was the only way to be seen, but now I can't identify and focus so easily, it's broad based search terms so now I can't advertise to people looking for x,y and z that I have that, because there's not enough room in the parcel description to do so. That change messed search up badly.

Pamela Galli wrote: Ciaran Laval wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: Yep, Pam! This is exactly what I see. Any parcel below 1000 m should not even be able to be near the top, unless there are just not alot of results. I see these parcels all over the results. Why? If the parcel is relevant, why does its size matter? We went through this with the alleged parcel size bias, a larger parcel doesn't make it more relevant for any given search. If you are looking for dining rooms it does. A 512 would not have enough prims for one of mine with the food all rezzed. And I have 40+. This will always be a problem, a 512 parcel could have 117 dining related products on it, but you score very well for dining sets, dining tables, dining furniture and dining chairs. I personally wouldn't want to find your parcel at the top if I was just searching for dining as I'd be looking for virtual restaurants and diners. However with the range of products you have, you should be near the top if I'm looking for dining furniture, and it looks as if you are.

Medhue Simoni wrote: Yep, Pam! This is exactly what I see. Any parcel below 1000 m should not even be able to be near the top, unless there are just not alot of results. I see these parcels all over the results. Why? If the parcel is relevant, why does its size matter? We went through this with the alleged parcel size bias, a larger parcel doesn't make it more relevant for any given search.

Aquarius Paravane wrote: Land Search People who are looking for "real estate " do so based on price, prims and square meters. The name of the parcel is not required and not useful. It must be possible to initiate a land search without a search string. The behavior of the left hand search fields and top bar for land search is strange - inputs in one have unexpected consequences in the other. I don't have time to work through this in detail. If I try to delete the search string and search without it, it just comes back again. The sale and rent radio buttons change settings without being clicked. The right answer is probably to have one set of controls and input fields rather than two. Like the V 1 search user interface. You are right about modes, I agree with you, it's not obvious that you can enter search without using a search term but if you just click the magnifying glass next to the search window then you can use events, destination guide and real estate without the need for a search term and then in real estate you can set your land sizes. This isn't, to me anyway, intuitive, but it does work.

Darrius Gothly wrote: Pussycat Catnap wrote: Ann Otoole wrote: Relevance looks great. Some people will need to adjust their "SEO Strategies" though. The best strategy is to not try to cheat/game the system IMHO. Yep, at least hopefully. If you want to be the top shoe store in SL now, start making and selling actual shoes. (replace shoe with whatever is fitting to a given place). This is a sentiment I hear all the time .. and yet has all the proof of Santa Claus. Here's the v1.x search for "shoe" http://search.secondlife.com/client_search.php?q=shoe&mat=3&m=y&start=0 What are the top results? Stilletos at Shoe Fly Shoes MARTINO Women Shoes & Men Footwear,Shoes.Stilettos . ! YOSHIMO~SHOES MAINSTORE BIKER BOOTS SHOES ... iNEDIT - Boots, Shoes & Clothes for Men & Women. Fashion ... Do I need to go on? They are all shoe stores or stores that sell enough shoes to include the word in the name of their store. It's this "conventional wisdom" (a euphemism for oft-repeated BS) that has caused people to turn away from what is actually a useful tool, to treat it as a useless tool, and to spit vitriol at it over and over again .. without actual proof. If your store isn't in Search, find a way to get it there. If it is in Search, then keep doing what you've been doing. But claiming that the people that show up in Search for the word "shoe" are not shoe stores is just flat out wrong. Darius you've been in enough discussions on search where people have exemplified the flaws to know that it wasn't working anywhere near as well as it should. The argument was generally why the hell is that irrelevant looking parcel ranking above relevant parcels. Whether new search is going to change we don't really know, but there were issues with search that people have been complaining about since it changed and you've been in those discussions and despaired at the results too.

Pamela Galli wrote: Glad some see improvements in relevancy. Here is what I see: *************** For DINING: * first is a 480 parcel with some food for sale but no dining sets, traffic is 11. * Second is Leatherback Turtle Nesting Site, Surf & Dining in Costa Rica. Nice but no dining sets for sale, just a dining place with 4 tables. A lot of big turtles tho. * Third is a 512 parcel with another tiny store owned by the same person as #1. Question: I can't find my store with 50 dining sets listed. Why am I paying for a 60,000 sq m dining set parcel??? I see you around seventh for dining, for dining tables second, for dining chairs third.for dining sets first. Pamela Galli wrote: for PREFAB * 1st is a place that sells 13 skyboxes on a homestead. (Search says full sim but it is a homestead.) traffic 333 * 2nd sells 13 houses on a 2832 sq m parcel and has traffic of 44. Question: I am ranked FAR below these. Why am I paying for two full regions (128,000 sq m) for my 30+ prefabs? If this is more relevant then I need to rethink paying tier on four sims of prefabs and furnishings. Well at least the places above you sell prefabs! I have no idea how this or the old relevancy system works, but the results are for prefabs and you're still in the top twenty so not doing that badly.

Ishtara Rothschild wrote: Ciaran Laval wrote: ... the old **bleep**-a-Hoop tavern ... This inane censorship is often unintentionally funny. Your tier dollars at work. Thanks, I didn't even notice that!!!! Yes it's absurd.

I saw what you did there Darkie hehe I thought I was reading the scripting forum too!

Void Singer wrote: removing them properly can still be done from the estate manages console (for private estates) Not always, I couldn't remove them that way.

Pamela Galli wrote: To me at least, asking that RL info be on file has nothing to do with whether or not someone would be a good customer, especially if you are asking for it in order to sell on the marketplace, for example. It's not about being elite, it's about being accountable. People become accountable when they cash in or cash out, there's a money trail right back to the person cashing out, you can't cash out without being accountable.

You do realise that people who buy Linden dollars from third party exchanges because Linden Lab can't service them don't have payment info on file? You do realise that alts will often get money passed to them from a main who is PIOF. If you want to restrict yourself to PIOF fill your boots, you restrict your reach.