% of land holders in sl

asking a simple question is better than wild irrational speculation.from: /invalid_link.html





how i got 12.8%:


· Each month, Linden offers a $US reward to the 2% of landowners who receive the most dwell - in proportion to the dwell their properties received. In August of 2004, US$2,308 was distributed to 36 landowners.
from: /16/ff/23421/1.html

April had 73 di awards.
from: /3/82/45416/1.html

x = total number of land holders
73 / x = 2 / 100
x = 73 * ( 100 / 2 )
x = 3650

total population = 28471
from: http://secondlife.com/

3560 / 28471 = .128201 - 12.8201 %

ookook

*Shrugs*. Still sounds like monkey math to me.

Why? Because instead of Robin Linden getting on and saying "Out of 28,000 subscribers, 3,360, or 12 percent, own land" she says "sounds about right Stone" -- with an airy, offhanded, even insiderish kind of tone (do only your best friends call you "Stone" for short LOL).

I guess I'm still not convinced LOL. I'm like that. Because I think it's a numbers the Lindens just don't want to give out, and don't want to be exact about. Because it's the number the use to generate land with. So it's a Holy Grail kind of secret. They'd rather be secretive with it to protect their proprietary information.

Robin has been wrong before. Example: when Ayalah Hope expressed dismay that there weren't more telehubs up north in the new continent area, Robin answered by saying that "2/3 of the players in a forum pole said they didn't want telehubs" as if this was a reason for there not being a telehub.

Huh?

But then 2 weeks later, there WAS a telehub put in Hyles lol. Ayalah even has a big mall there now on the boardwalk, as do I LOL. So much for Robin's belief that there were no more telehubs and that 2/3 of the people in a skewed poll who didn't want telehubs were going to influence the Lindens.

Robin is the former VP of marketing. Now she's in charge of something like community liaison. So rather than look at numbers of new subscribers and the total number of land owners, she might be looking at different things these days? I dunno. I often find that ask 6 Lindens a question, get 6 answers. They aren't the tight, corporate, ship of state you might think LOL.

Therefore, I"m going to keep asking this question, because the number given out sounds too low to me.

I don't have to be putting any tinfoil hats on though Stoneself.

I quite realize that in fact Robin may have given her blessing to this interpretation of the statement:

that two percent of ALL landowners get the price, not two-percent who have the most dwell.

Well, I'll help clarify that by asking the question.

I hope to assure you in this frank discussion that I don't have a problem facing the facts. If a Linden can come on and say ""Out of 28,000 subscribers, 3,360, or 12 percent, own land" -- I'll believe I have the facts. Instead, what I have is a somewhat vague and cryptic statement -- it could be half of what the real number is.

It's not really important for me to be right about this "Stone" -- your need to be right is far, far, FAR greater. So be smug and be right if you like, it's fine.

Meanwhile, I'll keep asking questions.

How the fuck can prokofy argue mathematical formulas?

WHY DON'T YOU MAKE SENSE MISTER PROKOFY.

LF

the mind boggles...

Because they could be out of date?

Because the sentences could be interpreted two different ways?

Look at my question in the Hotline to the Lindens.

YOUR INTERPRETATION MAKES NO SENSE.

I think the key word in this statement is the word "the." Because of it stating "...the 2% of landowners who receive the most dwell..." and not "...2% of landowners who receive the most dwell..." it is very clear that it is the top 2% of ALL landowners based on how much dwell they earn. If you read it only as what the words say, then there is no other to interrupt it.

I think Robin didn't have the exact number right in front of her, but she has a rough estimate of what the numbers are. That is I think what she meant with her response. It seems that you have an idea in you head Prok, and the facts are lining up with what you said, therefore you don't want to believe it. If I am wrong, so be it. I am just calling what I see.

The "the" is exactly what makes it ambiguous:


• Each month, Linden offers a $US reward to the 2% of landowners who receive the most dwell - in proportion to the dwell their properties received.

or

• Each month, Linden offers a $US reward to the 2% of landowners who receive the most dwell - in proportion to the dwell their properties received.

Which is it? I merely ask the question.

The first one.

I guess I still don't see it... it seems to me that both those statements are the same thing. I guess we can wait to see what Robin, or another Linden says, but I do see where you are getting your idea from....

Gricean Maxims

Maxim of Quality:

* TRUTH
* Do not say what you believe to be false.
* Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

Maxim of Quantity:

* INFORMATION
* Make your contribution as informative as is required for the current purposes of the exchange.
* Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

Maxim of Relation:

* RELEVANCE
* Be relevant.

Maxim of Manner:

* CLARITY
* Avoid obscurity of expression.
* Avoid ambiguity.
* Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).
* Be orderly.

I don't abide by your maxims, they have no authority.

My post was indeed brief, and indeed sought clarity.

It's precisely because that Linden statement admits to 2 interpretations that I continue honestly to ask this question.

You seem to imply that this is some kind of word game, of the type played on this forum often, but it isn't.

they aren't rules. they are descriptions of how most people communicate.

even the devil can quote scripture

:nickers:: umm, last time I checked math hasnt changed and if it has, why didnt anyone tell me?!?!?!

Stone.. wanna go for a beer sometime? I know some great ingame clubs hehehe

Not really. Not because you say so. Who are you? I made up a list of forum rules, too. The kind of rules you haven't covered. Look in general.

OHHHHH you made up FORUM RULES... Pardon us your highnny!

Oh wait..yup up at the top... " Second Life Forums > Discussion Forums > Land and the Economy > % of land holders in sl " Hmm weird someone forgot to inform the Linden Labs!!!!!!!!!

Quick TO THE BAT CAVE... send a Emerg. Message to Linden LABS!!! POK-a-Hontas has taken over the FORUMS..everyone RUN!!!!!!!!

not because i said so.

i'm this guy who took a bunch of linguistics from a bunch of linguistics experts called professors.

paul grice came up with the gricean maxims (even though he was a philosopher and not a linguist).

they are widely understood in linguistics. the maxims inform much of what's known as pragmatics.

again, these aren't rules. they are descriptions of what most people do. you might considering doing these things a little more often; it might make you a little more comprehensible.

It's ambiguous? I don't see ambiguity at all. It is 2% of landowners... and they chose that specific 2% according to their dwell. 2% of landowners selected by av height or number of forum posting is still going to be the same number of landowners, just not the same landowners. The number won't change just because the selection critiera does. I just don't understand how you still don't get it.

Well, guess what? I'm someone who took linguists from a bunch of linguistics experts called professors, too? And I am *far from* impressed.

I recognized those maxims weren't yours -- they were clearly labeled as Gricean, not HisGracian LOL. But they aren't true just because you quote them, either LOL.

Pragmatics may or may not be relevant to this board -- have you obtained a consenus on this? I don't think so.

Excuse me, but they are rules. They are not what "most people do" by a LONG FUCKING SHOT. You might try being a little more humble, and little more "gracious," and a little less condescending -- and just a tad more analytical.

I tend to prefer to be *comprehendable* not "comprehensible" -- a world used more by tekkies for specific situations -- comprehendable is more commonly used -- you could have used "comprehensive but you must have meant to say "comprehendable," i.e. understandable).

Like I said, I'm unimpressed.

The irony... it tastes like burning.

What don't you get about this? There are two possible interpretations and it would be good to get clear answers.

The sentence admits for two interpretations.

It can definitely mean one thing or another thing.

It can mean "2 percent of all landowners in the game as a whole".

OR it can mean "2 percent of the landowners who got the most dwell."

"The landowners who got the most dwell" is a SUBSET of the LARGER GROUP "a list of of all landowners." Every landowner might get some dwell. But only a short list of landowners get the most dwell, and of these, two percent only are selected with the VERY most dwell.


The list of those who got the most dwell is not the entire list of landowners. I'd like to hear what they meant..

Well, that's something new.

Ursula, you're quick. You beat me to it.

It does taste like burning.

Poor Ralphie.

Sorry I'll have to deprive you of the smug satisfaction that comes with a typical forum game of "gotcha". I didn't use swear words about him, or to his face in calling him names. That's what that statement was about in the other thread. Rather, I used swear words to indicate my utterly strong conviction that his "maxims" -- they're called "maxims" for Christ's sake!!!! -- are not "what most people do" but what *some* people may wish to aspire to. For him to pass them off as "pragmaticism" and what "most people do" is a terrible sleight of hand.

The self-satisfaction and smugness one sees here....it truly boggles the mind.

pragmatics might clarify your confusion about what was said.

you're the only who seems confused. under ordinary pragmatics as most people use english, it's pretty clear what was said.

fyi:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=comprehensible&x=0&y=0
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=comprehendible
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=comprehendable&x=16&y=11

they aren't rules. at least most linguists don't think so. there's evidence that they are used by more normal humans through out the world. the nature v. nurture question hasn't been answered yet.