Identity Verification = Trust ?

I took a brief hiatus from Second Life and blogging in general, and the next time I will follow blogger etiquette and post a "gone fishing" sign. It was kind of everyone who inquired politely about my well being, but when I got a worried email from my dad today saying in part ".. and there's no activity on the web. You OK?" I decided it was well past time to return. (And by the way, Dad - you've got mail.)

I had planned a detailed post about my experience with Burning Life, but as that event unfolded I lost most of my enthusiasm for it and all of what I wanted to say which was largely unfavorable. Instead, there have been a few things lingering in my head and they are more relevant as we approach the Virtual Worlds 2007 Conference and Expo. The first is Identity Verification and what it means. I know it's a relatively old topic in Second Life time, but it's weighed heavily on my mind since a recent interaction, so out it comes.

When Linden Lab first introduced the intent to deploy an identity verification system (IDV), I skimmed over it thinking it was akin to establishing a MPAA-like ratings system for content. If you have a rating system and intend to enforce it, you have to have some form of verification and that made sense. In fact, large portions of the initial Linden Lab reasoning in the first, second and third blog posts alluded to segmentation of and access to rated content.

I largely ignored the system and the beta trial as I have no need, desire or intent to explore the vastness of the Second Life Adult Content (defined as explicitly sexual or excessively violent). However, Robin Linden's blog post and a personal experience has made me rethink the true intent and extent of "verification".

Robin starts her post with an interesting statement:

Trust is the foundation of any community. And one cornerstone of trust is identity. You’ve got to know something about the person you are dealing with before you can trust them. Knowing who to trust in an online environment presents unique challenges. Traditionally Second Life users have based their trust on relationships built over time, and often on some basic verification such as ‘Payment Info on File’.

This is a subtle introduction to the underlying message, which is that the focus of the verification system to that of a "trust", not simply age identity.

The IDV system aims to deliver two things. First, for Residents, it gives them the chance to independently verify certain aspects of their identity (their name, age, location and sex for instance) if they choose to. This will help establish trust by removing a layer of anonymity for those they interact with. It’s much easier to trust someone who puts their name behind their words and actions.

The second benefit of the IDV system is to help land owners and content publishers be sure that minors do not get access to inappropriate material. ... ]

What is so interesting about these statements? It is an attempt to suggest that the institution of IDV will somehow introduce a new layer of "trust" into the community.

Anyone that has spent any reasonable amount of time participating in on line communities knows that trust has to be earned over time, it is not merely a factor of your name, age, sex, or location; it's about who you are and what you contribute in the context of the community. I would argue that if you start with a person's age, sex, location as a basis for trust you are more apt to be fooled or lulled into some false sense of security by a "verification" tag. Even worse, the methods by which Linden intends to execute this verification are weak, based on publicly available information and are fraught with opportunities to be scammed. If you want a good treatise on IDV and how it really translates to liability transfer and culpable deniability rather than trust, read Gwyn's post "I am who I am". I will summarize the key point: IDV does not assure your avatar is who you say you are, it merely indicates that the data you provide to Integrity matches data that is publicly available.

The impact of IDV hit me more directly in a recent group event. In the context of the group discussion, the leader suggested that it would be "of benefit" to the group if everyone introduced themselves, telling everyone what they do in Second Life and who they are and what they do in real life, over the voice system. It was the first time I'd seen such a request, and it was not a heavy handed "tell us or you're out", but it was presented in the context of the discussion as a perfectly reasonable request and expectation.

I shared my information, after which I was mildly amused that I was presented with five new friend requests. This was in balance with the sixth interaction which was a private IM from someone I had not met before. This person wanted me to restate my real name. I obliged and the reply was loosely "I don't trust people here and I fully endorse Linden's Identity Verification system. I need to know you are who you say you are. Here's my blog link, you can read it and friend me afterward if you think that is worthwhile." I wasn't sure how to respond, other than "Are you KIDDING me?" so thanks to me mum, I replied that I understood and have a nice day.

Of course I checked the individual's blog, which was actually a web site (when did every form of rendered html become a blog?) and from there I deduced that this was most likely this person's first online community experience. The trouble is, this person and many other "newbies" that read the Linden Lab posts on IDV believes that "verification" in the IDV acronym equates to trust and a new business utopia as described by Benjamin Duranske in this post . I can assure you, it does not.

Trust is critically important, but it is based on community interactions. If you are reading this, you are probably aware that for enterprise systems such as eBay and Amazon and even news and information sites, rating systems implemented to work within the community norms are successful. Ratings serve as their own form of verification. I don't know the eBay seller i_can_has_cheeseburger (fictional example) but they have executed 2,000 transactions over the last 12 months and have zero negative comments from buyers. Therefore, within the eBay community I *trust* them and will do business with them. Do I care about their age, sex, location?

Do the community norms of the Second Life population endorse anonymous third party systems even if they *promise* not to store any personally identifiable information? No, not so much. Second Lifers build trusted networks by participating in communities of practice (CoP). Without a generalized and publicly viewable rating system, an individual's contributions are locked within the confines of that CoP trusted network and cannot be exposed as an indicator of reputation and therefore implied trust.

In a short-sighted decision this spring, Linden Lab removed the rating system this year because "the ratings system has become less and less useful" when in fact it was merely poorly designed from both a technical architectural and a social architecture perspective. This decision to dump the rating system left the community without this critical tool. Linden suggested adopting other community systems - RatePoint, TrustNet, Ban Link, Sloog.org, Real Reputations, and SLicr - but not surprisingly, none have risen to the challenge because the community looks to Linden Lab to provide the basic tools to function as a community. Once the IDV system is in place, the community will have to keep looking.
Share Some Grace:

Dunbar's Number - Groups in Second Life

You've probably heard "Dunbar's number" tossed about recently with respect to social networks. I would venture that before social networks became the hot topic, Dunbar's number was referenced fewer than 150 times in any year since British anthropologist Robin I.M. Dunbar journaled it in 1992 (yes, his middle initials really are "I.M"). Today, there is probably at least one Dunbar meme running around - something like "What are 5 social networks in which you have more than 150 "friends"? (If someone knows of one, please drop a comment and share.)

Thanks to the evolution of snack sized media and information, the collective understanding of the Dunbar number is fueled by Gladwell, Watts, or Buchanan quotes, or even a Wikipedia snippet such as: "150 is the maximum number of people that can belong to group to maintain social relationships". These bits boil it down to a number and while technically correct, the implications of Dunbar's number are far more important that the absolute value and it is these that help us understand how we can improve social networking feature such as groups within Second Life.

Read Dunbar's famous paper "Co-Evolution of Neocortex Size, Group Size and Language In Humans", here. In case you don't, there are a few critical points (hint: these are crude notes, you really should read the paper):

• The derivation of the "Dunbar number" is based field studies on primate group behavior and Dunbar's hypothesis that there is a correlation between relative neocortex size and group size.
  
• Dunbar extrapolates from the measured primate data and the comparative size of the human cortex to reach a number of 147.8.
  
• Dunbar extends his analysis to cultural and historical data that reinforces the "average" number of 150 for group size to include armies, nomadic tribes, terrorists, etc.
• The number applies to groups with strong incentives to stay closely connected such as survival.
• In order to maintain group cohesion, 42% of a person's time must be spent performing "social grooming", else the tenants of unstructured trust will not hold and the group will lose cohesion and group "rules" will not be followed, etc. And a hint from Dunbar as to how to address that dilemma: " My suggestion, then, is that language evolved as a "cheap" form of social grooming, so enabling the ancestral humans to maintain the cohesion of the unusually large groups demanded by the particular conditions they faced at the time."

Christopher Allen has extended Dunbar's paper in a 2004 blog post describing why he thought there was a misunderstanding of Dunbar's ideas based on a preoccupation with the absolute. It's a worthwhile read, as is the rest of his Life With Alacrity blog. He delivered a more concise presentation of his argument at IT Conversations in 2006 called The Dunbar Number, and I encourage you to download the briefing and listen to the recording as I will reference here to give some background.

From a modern world perspective and using social network analysis, Chris Allen hypothesizes that that different group sizes impact a group's behavior and their choice of processes and tools. Based on empirical data from MMOG and online communities, he suggests that for non-survival groups, the equivalent Dunbar number falls somewhere between 60-90.

Allen argues that group dynamics have more than just the Dunbar number as a break point; three group size nodes emerge and Allen provides some insight into the group construct as it relates to size. Groups with too few people suffer from insufficient critical mass, experience group think, are unable to sustain conversation and the infamous "Echo Chamber" effect is evident. Read some of Eric Rice's "Echo Chamber" analysis regarding the failings of artificially small groups, aka elites. Overly large groups have far much too noise and cannot sustain an equal and unstructured trust. Cliques and inappropriate politics emerge and social contracts start to break down. From a Second Life perspective, an example of this might be the recent Second Citizen forum meltdown. Note that it's the group size that creates the breakdown of the cohesive bonds, not the "newbs". When group sizes grow beyond these normalized sizes, even the most senior members of the group can suffer the ill effects.

Allen also hypothesizes that there is a correlation between group size and the level of group satisfaction in an interesting double humped graph where satisfaction peaks at levels of 5-8 and 50-70, with a devastating chasm in the middle between 9-25 people.

So what does this all have to do with Second Life groups? You mean it's not obvious? One might assume that groups in Second Life should be the mechanism to allow people to communicate "easily" across virtual geography, to Dunbar's point about language (conversation) being a cheap way to meet the required 42% dosage of social grooming, they should be a relevant means by which the group can maintain cohesion. They might represent centers of affinity, and sub-cultures.

However, groups in Second Life aren't about group cohesion or social grooming, they are largely about announcements, group land, business updates and product releases - in other words, they are one-way push based communication channels. This is a critical need, but does not serve to build cohesion within the community. How many times have you seen someone chastised for chatting in a group IM? How often are the words "this is not the place for that discussion" or "this group is for announcements only - not chat", or my recent favorite, "no ones cares what you think"? This adopted use of the group function indicates that there are basic communication mechanisms missing with the Second Life platform that are necessary for cheap communication.

Groups in Second Life are often plagued with the "size matters" syndrome. How often have you heard an exuberant "my group passed 500 members"? The value of a 500 person group in Second Life is rarely more than an ego boost for the founding member, combined with some artificial strength in numbers false front. Groups of this size are effective in cases where there is a specific, goal oriented and tangible objective such as the Relay For Life, or to generate some short term flash mob behavior. And to Allen's point, groups of these size are destined to suffer from group dissatisfaction and disintegration. An example is the Live Music Enthusiasts group, aka LME. To a musician, LME offers the largest number of individuals to which to send notices for live performances, however this size is a bonus and a hindrance as it lacks moderation, the channel is far too noisy, and there is a general break down of the "social contract" - i.e. the group charter. As a result, small factions break off and form smaller groups.

This leads to the most debilitating group dysfunction, which is the limit of 25 groups. If you spend any amount if time in world, own group land, and/or have the audacity to have more than one interest, you spend your time juggling your group memberships, adding and leaving on a regular basis. This is not just frustrating, but does highlight a significant flaw in the platform services. The strength of community is the ability to support large numbers of subcultures and affinity groups, while still maintaining an overarching sense of the whole. This requires a set of tools that are accessible and useful for the uber-group interaction.

The most effective tools for large or uber-group interaction are discussion lists that are reputation-filtered, wikis or multi-author workspaces, public blogs and social networks. None of these work within the current world, but are necessary complements to maintain community cohesion. Linden failed to recognize this, even after the rash of complaints when many of the "official" Linden forum segments closed. The other forums that have gained audience are focused on maintaining their community, which tangentially relates to Second Life but does not serve to build community cohesion. The failings of Second Life groups is largely why I spend time on Twitter catching up within my selected group of Second Lifers.

I tried to do some analysis of the bugs associated with groups in Second Life via Jira, which is why this post sat gathering dust for a week. I've given up, but I'd love to hear your perspective on groups and what changes could/should be made to Second Life to improve or establish some basic group functions.

Update#1: I could not make this up. Just hours after I finished this post, I got a group notice that said the following:

Please do not use group chat for communication.

Update #2: Hikkup was so successful in the last post, let's use it again. Click the link and sound off, or better yet - follow the lead and use the comments. What changes could/should be made to Second Life to improve or establish group cohesion?

Share Some Grace:

Virtual Trust in Your Second Life

In my early discussions about the power of the Second Life platform, I discussed what I called "unmediated conversation". Unmediated, in this case, by the real life factors that influence our face to face human interactions. I argued that in a medium where you could be anything, the infamous three second "first impression" rule had to be violated in some way, allowing for a richer, more meaningful initial engagement that transcended appearance and therefore led to deeper relationships.

After all, in a place where one could be any shape, thing, sex, species, etc. why would we allow ourselves to draw conclusions about the person behind the pixels in a mere three seconds simply based on their virtual manifestation? Did I mention that I *assumed* all of this?

This week my good friend DrFran Babcock started to dispel some of the myths I'd formed in my own mind in her Mental Health Missives podcast. DrFran highlights a study by Kristine L. Nowak and Christian Rauh published in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication entitled "Choose your ‘buddy icon’ carefully: The influence of avatar androgyny, anthropomorphism and credibility in online interactions". The study hypothesis calls my "unmediated conversation" assertion to task:

The fact that we can separate the avatar from the behavior allows an exploration of the extent to which this reliance on visible information in the perception process is due to the lack of conscious control and the relative stability of the body. Perceivers know that the avatar is consciously chosen, easy to change, and not stable. Therefore, if people rely more on a person’s behavior than on the visual information (avatar) when online, it is likely that people rely on characteristics of the offline body due to its stability and the fact that it is beyond conscious control. However, if the characteristics of the avatar have a stronger effect on the online person perception process than behavior, this implies that people rely on visual characteristics for some other reason.

I know, read it again .. it will make sense. Where do academics learn to write? We digress.

The researchers conducted a survey and an experiment. The survey was used to determine how people perceive a group of 30 avatars in static context created from 3D models using Poser 5 for human and 3D Studio Max for the non-human avatars; those results were used to base the selection of a stimulus for the experiment. The participants evaluated the avatars in terms of their androgyny, anthropomorphism, credibility, homophily, attraction, and the likelihood they would choose them during an interaction. Here are the avatar mug shots.

As you can see there is a variety of human male and female as well as non-human avatars. It's not quite as diverse as that which we encounter in Second Life, but it representative set.

The results from the report Conclusion:

Avatars that were more anthropomorphic were perceived to be more attractive and credible, and people were more likely to choose to be represented by them. The strongest predictor of these variables, however, was the degree of masculinity or femininity (lack of androgyny) of an avatar. Further, those images with strong gender indications (either more masculine or more feminine) were perceived as more anthropomorphic than images (whether human or not) without strong indications of gender. These results also support the claim that people anthropomorphize anything they encounter (Reeves & Nass, 1996), even bottles and hammers, to some degree.

Further, while all images have some level of anthropomorphism, not all images are either feminine or masculine. Some images are both masculine and feminine and others are neither. All things being equal, more anthropomorphic or less androgynous avatars are more attractive, credible, and homophilous, perhaps because androgyny and low anthropomorphism increase uncertainty. These results are consistent with the suggestion that people have higher expectations of anthropomorphic avatars and that there will be consequences for violating these expectations (Garau et al., 2003; Slater & Steed, 2002). The results suggest that less androgynous (more masculine or feminine) avatars may also carry higher expectations.

Finally, it seems that the characteristics of an avatar may at times provide useful, and relatively accurate, information about the person it represents. Although a small percentage of subjects reported a preference for androgynous avatars, a majority reported a preference for avatars that were 'like' them, at least in terms of gender. This suggests that users may also want to match other characteristics such as hair color and race, perhaps sexual orientation, or even hobbies. This means that designers should continue to provide a wide variety of choices. This would not only increase user satisfaction, but could also provide useful information about people in online interactions. Finally, providing minorities, such as Hispanic and African Americans, choices of avatars that match their ethnicity or race may make them feel more comfortable and may also help to prevent marginalizing minorities and other traditionally disenfranchized groups in online environments by making them obvious, visible participants.

I know what you are thinking "So much for your unmediated conversation, Grace." Not so fast, notice that this study was conducted statically. In other words, there was little context nor was there interaction.

I strongly maintain that the three second first impression is largely influenced by the context of the interaction. For example, suppose you are wandering around Second Life and out of the blue you get an instant message from someone you don't know. "Hi Grace". (Yes, I know you aren't Grace, please play along.) What do you do? Do you respond quickly and openly? Do you check the avatar's profile, quickly scanning for hints? Do you just ignore it?

Now consider the next scenario. You teleport into a crowded live music venue where you know no one. Out of the morass, someone says "Hi Grace". Now what do you do? Do you react differently?

Finally, consider the following; you are wandering through the SL Botanical Gardens and you stumble upon an infinitely peaceful setting that is empty, minus a brightly colored dwarf dangling his feet in the water and whispering to the fish. He looks up and says "Hi Grace". Well?

This goes to the argument of whether virtual worlds have to be 3D. The answer is of course no, unless you want to capitalize on the immersive and contextual experience.

What do you think?
Share Some Grace:

A Room of One's Own

I work in new product development, and the first question we ask ourselves when evaluating a new product or service concept is: "What is the consumer job to be done?" or put differently, "What unfulfilled needs does this product meet?". The answers help shape the product concept and focus and naturally, when this question was posed to me about the Second Life platform, it peaked my interest. As part of the Kuurian Expedition, I led a round table discussion with Gwyneth Llewlyn on November 20th to seek out answers to this question directly from Second Life residents.

The round table was an interesting Second Life experience for me on a number of levels - not the least of which was trying to facilitate an open discussion with 15 participants without the luxury of using body language and basic human interaction cues. All in all I found it mentally exhausting and sometimes frustrating, but a good dialogue nonetheless.

I'd like to say we covered all the bases, but keeping 15 avatars on topic is challenging even under the best of circumstances. The detailed transcripts have been posted by SignPost Marvin on his site, so I am not going to do that here, but wanted to highlight just a few of the discussion points I found interesting.

A Room of One's Own
The title of this post was inspired by a comment made by my friend DrFran Babcock - an allusion to Virginia Woolf's essay entitled A Room of One's Own. The context of use was a *home* as an expressed need. In DrFran's words:

Yes, I have a sense of home here. There is a space to which I retreat when I need to. It's not a space so much as a space to be on my own and create... Like Virginia Woolf's A room of one's own.

DrFran's point of view resonated with me. I found that after a few weeks in Second Life, I was feeling a bit lost without a home. At that time, I met my now dear friend Micala Lumiere, who not only offered me a place to live on Mill Pond, but even more important, a community of which to be a part. Mill Pond is just one of many places that offer residents a chance to be part of a community, rather than be stuck randomly somewhere on the mainland. Micala has even provided people a haven in the Shakespeare and Company bookshop, adopting the "tumbleweed hotel" model made famous by George Whitman.

There are a few people such as Anshe Chung who have wagered that having a physical home in Second Life is an overwhelming need - the booming virtual real state business seems to indicate that is the case. On the other hand, the non-physical home seems to be what is most appealing to people.

SIDE NOTE: I've tried several ways to count the number of groups within Second Life, but the search result sets are constrained to 100 - if anyone has this number I'd really be interested. Nonetheless, it seems that shortly after their rezz day, people join some kind of a group.

Safety
I had not given any thought to the notion of safety as a need that Second Life can fulfill, and this was an interesting part of the discussion, especially as the news we often hear about online communities is the lack of safety.

Safety was most often described as safety from physical harm - the result of which is a willingness to participate more fully. Second Life thrives on participation so one might assume that meeting this need would be paramount to Linden Lab from a product management perspective.

To that end, we touched briefly on whether the CopyBot was a threat to people's safety - as it seems that perceived safety has a place within Second Life. The flight or fight reaction to the CopyBot most clearly indicated to me that safety is not only a need, it may be a lynchpin of the resiliency of the platform.

Do Avatars Have Needs?
This is a topic I wish I had pushed harder to explore; it is a point that intrigues me the most. At one point, a participant said:

I'm surprised by my avatar sometimes. ... It made me think about how more outgoing my avatar is than I am for example ....

This led me to wonder if there are a set of distinct needs that do not exist in the physical world, but become apparent in virtual spaces. As we assume an identity as an avatar, do we develop a new or complementary set of needs that must be met in order for our virtual existence to thrive? Do our human and avatar needs intersect?

Some participants were very clear that avatars do not have needs, I am less sure. In fact, I would argue that with the ability to extend ourselves into a new space, our needs increase accordingly.

I may hold another round table discussion on this topic alone.. once I can find that soap box.

Share Some Grace:

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and Second Life

As a follow up to this post, I'll be leading a round table discussion on Monday November 20th in Second Life with the Kuurian Expedition and some special guests. We'll discuss whether Second Life fulfills some basic humans needs, and are those needs met uniquely by the Second Life experience?

We will discuss as many perspectives as we can in an hour, from the anecdotal to the academic - using Maslow's hierarchy of needs as a point of reference.

If you'd like to join us, we are meeting on Micala Lumiere's beautiful Mill Pond at 1:30 PM SL (4:30 PM EST).
Share Some Grace: