Linden Lab - Please Raise Your Grok Factor

In October 2008 I wrote a post about the Linden Lab changes to the Open Space sim policies and pricing.  At that time there was JIRA fury (this remains the most-voted issue on JIRA by an order of magnitude), blog posts, open letters, flickr groups, berets, protests and micro-hysteria about the changes to the Second Life Ecosystem.  The post was about how closely Linden Lab was emulating John Sutter and his fateful demise.

Based on my observations at the time, I was convinced that the highest risk to Second Life was a rampant and deep misunderstanding of the cultural tenants of Second Life and a wholesale disregard for the gifts the Lab had been bestowed - a healthy, passionate, engaged consumer base the likes of which most "beta" companies only dream about.

Since then, my time in Second Life has moved from blissful experiential to ethnographic in nature.  I find myself acutely aware of things such as policy changes, customer support, as well as search and affiliate marketing.  There are nuggets of insight buried within each of these.

I think a lot about strategy and entertain my gray matter with Gedanken exercises to see if I can understand what Linden Lab might be thinking but I also pay equal attention to their direct actions and interactions with current Residents.

Based on recent observations - the development of Viewer 2.0 with its epically failed search, the events unfolding with the open source community and third party developers, the poor customer support,  the unannounced release of a new Terms of Service combined with the Policy on Third-Party Viewers and the recently outspoken T Linden, I am equally convinced of what I wrote over a year ago.

This in fact, is the crux of Linden's on-going problem. They are grokless, generally lacking so much of an inkling of their resident base, their passions, their normally predictably irrational behavior. They continue to miss the obvious, launching missiles at unarmed nations, killing off their own tin soldiers in an on-going series of blundering friendly fire.

This general lack of awareness will be the demise of the virtual world of Second Life, not some up-and-comer in the virtual world space, but Linden Lab will in fact run themselves out of business because they have not, or can not, tap into the richness of their standing army of residents.

The challenge of crossing the chasm and cashing in on a gold rush is having actionable insights.

Actionable insight has two parts:
1) tangible data of which I believe the Lab has more than plenty,
and what's equally if not more important:
2) the SL Resident "Grok Factor" (from Oxford grok: "to understand intuitively or by empathy; to establish rapport with" ) of which they appear to have so little.

I emphasized the word appear because of all people I would have guessed that Mark Kingdon, (M Linden) might understand this very notion because in 2005 he wrote this for ClickZ:

When a company thinks about how to present its brand online (whatever interactive medium it chooses), it must start with a clear understanding of the problem it's solving. Then it needs to dig into its target user's needs, wants, desires, and behaviors. They'll move beyond understanding the customer to having empathy for her.

Dictionary.com defines empathy as the "identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives." Understanding is a rational activity; empathy is an emotional one. It's not just about listening or seeing, it's about touching, feeling, and experiencing. With empathy, an experience designer can create something truly exceptional. True empathy is what separates ordinary experiences from exceptional ones.

The $17 billion spent globally on getting smart about customers doesn't buy empathy. Sure, it provides critical facts, figures, and insights about the target. It's a very necessary starting point. But true empathy is earned. How can you build empathy for your target?

• Live their lives. Visit their homes, read their magazines, eat their food, and drive their cars.
  
• Feel their feelings. Imagine their challenges in life; figure out what gives them joy.
  
• Find their motives. Understand their online behaviors and actions: What motivates them? What are they looking for in the experience?

Let me repeat and emphasize one part of that extract.

But true empathy is earned.

Mark, I agree with you completely.  But this is precisely where I am stuck with the Lab. You seem to have no grok factor; your earnings are low.

You don't grok by analyzing numbers, or from an academic treatment, or from exchanging rafts of email.  You grok by living, feeling and finding via appreciative inquiry.   Appreciative Inquiry is a particular way of asking questions and envisioning the future that fosters positive relationships and builds on the basic goodness in a person, a situation, or an organization. In so doing, it enhances a system's capacity for collaboration and change.  Appreciative inquiry would have been a great way to pursue the recent Terms of Service and Third Party Viewer Policy changes.

I believe Residents of your Second Life ecosystem are ready for change despite the "no one likes change" mantra, but critical collaboration and change requires understanding where you are (data) as well as understanding and appreciating who and how you are (the Grok Factor) in order to move forward.

John Sutter, despite being a brilliant business man, didn't understand this and his fate is well documented. You know it; right now is the time to start living it.

Please raise your Grok Factor. 


The following is the rest of my initial 2008 post about John Sutter, much of which stands today.

Linden has (had?) captured that which most fledgling businesses only dream. No, it's not Electric Sheep. I'm referring to a passionate consumer base that is willing to pay shockingly large sums of real cash on a regular basis. We used to call those "subscriptions" but since that's become a forbidden word in the new media vernacular, we pretend like paying tier for virtual land is somehow akin to an investment. In some cases it is an investment, but for the most part it's a payment for the privilege of access to content.

So let's review what Linden has at their disposal: paying, passionate and prolific content consumers and creators. Isn't that the equivalent of Social Media Nirvana?

What is that you say? Linden Lab is a virtual world builder, not a Social Media company! Oh, that would explain it. Everyone knows there are few easy and vibrant Social Media business models; there's far more gold in those virtual hills!

But we know the end-game here, it is the very same that plagued the California gold rushers intent to find fortune among limited resources. But who profited from the gold rush? Anyone that could leverage the irrationality of those seeking fortune profited mightily. Prostitutes made a healthy wage, as did general store owners, saloons and bankers. However, very few of the one(s) that discovered gold.

I liken Linden Lab to John Sutter. You remember Sutter, right? John Sutter was a wealthy land developer and it was at his mill where James Marshall first discovered gold in 1848. Now Sutter could not immediately profit from the discovery, since he didn't own the mineral rights on the land on which the gold was found. Those rights still belonged to the Culluma Indians and while Sutter fought a losing battle to keep interloping miners off his mill site and obtain the mineral rights, the gold rush boomed and busted and the once wealthy land developer died a poor man. To summarize:

Instead of becoming a wealthy man from the precious gold that was discovered at his mill, Sutter's domain was ruined when the Gold Rush hit. His employees deserted the Fort for riches in the foothills, leaving crops to rot in the field and abandoning businesses. He was swindled by unscrupulous partners. His cattle wandered off or were slaughtered by hungry miners, and squatters took over much of his land. He went broke and ended up near Washington, D.C., trying to convince the government to reimburse him for his losses caused by the Gold Rush. His attempts for compensation failed, and he ironically died a poor man in Pennsylvania. Source

Does this sound vaguely familiar? John Sutter - a man of resources, wealth and business savvy - missed the largest opportunity afforded to him because he lost sight of what was right in front of him. Why? Because he tried to protect his current thinking, his ownership, his existing business model instead of adapting to the situation that was rather difficult to ignore.

Sutter was a real estate developer. Did he erect the boom towns? No.
He had farms, cattle and labor. Did he feed or supply the miners? No.

John Sutter put his time, attention and wealth of resources into that which he was comfortable, and as a result he missed the gold rush, quite possibly the largest financial opportunity for which he was uniquely qualified to leverage.

Ironic, isn't it?

M Linden, meet John Sutter.
Share Some Grace:

Second Life Copyright Conundrum

The internet is a copy machine. At its most foundational level, it copies every action, every character, every thought we make while we ride upon it.
- Kevin Kelly

If you read just one blog post today, skip this one and go read Kevin Kelly's pseudo blog post at The Technium entitled "Better Than Free"; then please come back for some context. [Kudos and hat tip to Malburns for the link]

A friend recently sent me a tweet inquiring as to my opinion about this post by Tateru Nino regarding the on-going allegations, outrage and uproar about content "theft" in Second Life. I was loathe to get into the debate, but was subsequently motivated by Ziggy Quirk who makes a lengthy YouTube plea:

"Why would anyone walk into a store and spend 400 or 500 Linden on a dress, if they can get a dress of similar quality for free or very cheap from a reseller?"

According to the laws of the United States under title 17, of the U.S. Code, copyright affords the creator protection from gainful reproduction of their creations. Apparently there are creators in Second Life that believe Linden Lab is responsible for enforcing that protection whether it be through technical Digital Rights Management (DRM) solutions, or through intervention and police action. I find this ironic and humorous but regardless of my personal opinion, there are larger issues at hand in this world of digital emergence where every 1 and 0 can be, and is copied.

Today's bits have no inherent value. Like the pennies you leave at the cafe, they take up space and are not worth the price of transport. Yes, I mean Ziggy Quirk's teddy bear is intrinsically worth nothing and it does not matter how many hours she spent crafting it, in the space of time approaching zero, it can and will be copied. Copyright does not protect you from copying. The second half of the copyright is the gainful part; technically you are protected from gainful reproduction but that protection occurs if *you* decide to take action to uphold your own rights. This is where the mysteries of the DMCA and attendant legal proceedings get murky, and generate urban myth. You must file a DCMA infringement notice to the letter of the law. Note in the Linden Lab policy it states very clearly:

When a valid DMCA notification is received, the service provider responds under this process by taking down the offending content.

See the word "valid"? This is the first gate, invalid requests do not even require a response. If you file an invalid DCMA notice, you aren't going to get a red-lined copy back like you did in the 3rd grade. I am sure there must be some poor schmuck with the job title "DCMA Infringement Allegation Validator", sitting in a dimly lit room next to a gigantic shredder with In-A-Gadda-Da-Vita playing softly in the background. If you want to shine a little light in his day, go get a template to follow and follow the technicalities precisely but modify it to your specification situation; this is no time to be careless.

From the Linden Lab policy, the notification must:

1. Identify in sufficient detail the copyrighted work that you believe has been infringed upon (i.e., describe the work that you own).
2. Identify the in-world item that you claim is infringing on your copyright, and provide information reasonably sufficient to locate the item in-world. For example "The allegedly infringing work I am referring to is located on the map area labeled 'Freelon, 104,30,56'."
3. Provide a reasonably sufficient method of contacting you; phone number and email address would be preferred.
4. (Optional) Provide information, if possible, sufficient to permit us to notify the user(s) who posted the content that allegedly contains infringing material. You may also provide screenshots or other materials that are helpful to identify the works in question. (This is for identification only, not to "prove" substantive claims.)
5. Include the following statement: "I have good faith belief that the use of the copyrighted materials described above and contained on the service is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or by protection of law."
6. Include the following statement: "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
7. Sign the paper (sic) [You have to include a real or digital signature.]

If your notice has all of those elements, then it should be valid. If it misses any of those elements, it will very likely be rejected, forcing you to refile your notice and causing a delay in getting resolution. A good overview of how to write an effective DMCA notice is here. Note that it costs nothing to file a DMCA. However, you are liable for damages for false claims, so be careful if you try to allege an infringement unless you are certain. There are plenty of resources available to individuals that have the wherewithal to pursue them. If you want to walk through specific details and examples, head over to Chilling Effects; it is primarily focused on web sites, but it has very helpful information.

IMPORTANT NOTE: I am not a lawyer and nothing in this post is to be taken as legal advice, counsel or otherwise . This it is based upon my personal research into copyright law and the DMCA, it is not to be taken as legal truth. If you have a question about these issues, please consult an attorney.

So filing a DMCA notification just the first step, it's easy to stumble and therefore equally easy to understand why there are so many claims from the Second Life community that "I filed a DMCA notice and Linden Lab never responded!". There is no requirement to respond to an invalid allegation, and it is not in the interest of Linden Lab or the community for valid notifications to be ignored.

That is the DMCA story, which doesn't really address Ziggy's question about copyright infringement. But realistically, her question isn't *about* copyright, it's about the dynamics of an emerging marketplace. I would argue that even if if all copyright violators were stopped (a certain impossibility) that her question would still exist because 1s and 0s have no value outside the context of the experience. The fact that anyone pays anything for virtual goods is not about tangible value, it's about the intangible human elements that we so often forget, or have failed to truly recognize.

Ziggy's bear is worthless, however, bear experience and culture has value, real value that can be translated to the marketplace so that people will actually pay potentially more and more often for her bear than for a copy. There are many other components that make up a valuable offering that can and will thrive in a virtual marketplace, and Kevin Kelly lays out a few in his article that resonate well within the Second Life culture. I'm assuming you followed the directions and have read Kevin's post, so I'm going to just dash in starting from "What is it that can't be copied?" Perhaps the most convincing example, trust.

There are a number of qualities that can't be copied. Consider "trust." Trust cannot be copied. You can't purchase it. Trust must be earned, over time. It cannot be downloaded. Or faked. Or counterfeited (at least for long). If everything else is equal, you'll always prefer to deal with someone you can trust. So trust is an intangible that has increasing value in a copy saturated world.

I've blogged before about trust in the context of Identity Verification, but in this case trust means the very essence that powers an on line interaction. I would argue that trust is the very thing that drives every social network and certainly every successful transaction. In Second Life, we have very few externally visible trust indicators such as e-Bay rankings, so we ultimately rely on word of mouth, recommendations by friends and previous encounters. The problem with trust is that it's so .. esoteric. It requires a significant up front investment which is why many of the brick and mortar companies fail in Second Life, but trust alone will not answer Ziggy's question.

There is an air of "do it or else" about Ziggy's plea. Do something, Linden Lab, or else Second Life will become a deserted digital content wasteland. There are accounts of individuals leaving the Second Life platform "because" of this situation, and in the short term there may be some disruptions to the economy but I don't believe that any sort of short term fix will actually stabilize the situation. If these virtual economies are to remain vibrant, then the forces that make the human transactions so compelling must take more of a center stage. To answer the questions, one must tap into the essence of human to human exchange which requires some new thinking about "sales".

The answer to Ziggy's question is a conundrum, and a powerful one at that.

People will buy from true content creators that create experiences and give away single elements of their creations ..for free.

I am not suggesting creators "give away the store", but rather rethink what constitutes their creation beyond a logically linked set of bits. We are in an experience economy, whereby people will expect products to extend beyond the shrink wrap and encompass a multi-dimensional existence - striking emotion, connection, meaning - and thereby attendant loyalty. I am not talking mere brand loyalty, but loyalty to the ideal, the atmosphere, the energy that surrounds the mere bits. To build this type of offering, creators must build on the intangibles, earn trust, build community, raise the bar and stretch the canvas in new ways.

Fortunately Kevin lays out "eight generatives, better than free".

1. Immediacy
2. Personalization
3. Interpretation
4. Authenticity
5. Accessibility
6. Embodiment
7. Patronage
8. Findability

Take a look at each in the context of Second Life's marketplace, and you will find some creators that are already embracing this framework, and doing so very well. A personal favorite is Kriss Lehmann and his Straylight Botanical Gardens. Let's look at what Kriss does within Kevin's framework; I think he hits on at least six, and probably seven of the eight points.

Kriss ...

• uses subscribe-o-matic instead of a group for updates, which provides a sense of immediacy on new product offerings. [Side note - subscribe-o-matic is an extraordinary product, if you are a business owner I urge you to check it out. This is not a paid advertisement, just good advice]
• offers products with permissions that allow people to modify (personalize) his content within suitable constraints. He fairly sets a price differentiation fo this allowance.
• offers products are uniquely authentic and innovative within a market (landscape and plants) that was largely dominated by a couple of big players, most notably the Heart Garden Centre . You might find sculpties running rampant around the grid, but you can differentiate a Straylight product without much difficulty.
  
• creates an experience and rich atmosphere at Straylight that emphasizes his products in context, rather than just a storefront. People go to Straylight, just for a walk and may ultimately stumble upon a "must have" resulting from the experience.
  
• leverages the enormous Second Life flickr community to make his products not only findable, but desireable and an important element to a community of photographers hungry for rich, colorful open spaces and seductive nooks. How many flickr images do you see of fairies lounging around the Heart Garden Centre?

I don't think Kriss offers any "tangible" product for free (yet). If he does, please let me know. But what he does offer is a rich product offering, the experience is free, the community is free the access to relevant information on product releases, all free. There is no doubt that Kriss' landscaping products are powerfully creative, but put them side by side the fantasy plants at Heart Centre instead of in Straylight, and I'm not sure the product differentiation would be that great. It's the entire package that makes Straylight Botanical more compelling.

So my answer to Ziggy, is ..

Without intangibles, there is no reason someone would spend more money to buy a original over a reproduction. The intangibles are not out of reach, but may require that content creators reach beyond their individual craft, collaborate and develop community. And, if all the current content creators leave Second Life, there will be another wave standing by to take their place. The motivations for content creation are as diverse as the opportunity to fundamentally change the ways we asses value in the digital landscape .. it's an interesting time indeed but we are no where near the wasteland.
Share Some Grace:

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: