Economy Announcement: Removal of Traffic Incentives

My prediction is that sometime in the not too distant future, stipends tied to basic or free accounts will go bye-bye. The economic Linden has already said that stipends aren't needed to drive the economy.

As far as restructuring the premium stipend. Regardless of what some people claim, opening a premium account during the time that a $500 stipend is part of the package is no guarantee that the stipend will continue forever anymore than it's a guarantee that the tier rates will remain the same.

Hopefully, new members will have some start-up funds.

Since we don't know how many premium accounts there are, it's difficult to evaluate what impact those "created Lindens" have on the economy. If the account is deemed by the Lindens to be negligable, then nothing will change - so long as it remains so.

If the Lindens decide that the premium stipend have a negative impact on the economy then they could do a couple of things:

- eliminate the stipend or cut it back (much screaming commences)
- raise tier fees and buy the $L off the Lindex, instead of printing it.
- eliminate or cut back stipend and lower tier fees.

I'm sure there are other options, but those are the ones that come to mind first. The second option has a couple of problems built in. First is that currently, the stipend $L costs LL nothing except its impact on the economy - tier goes to operating expenses. Second is that the amount of $L premium owners would receive would have to be pegged to some USD value - which would be passed on as the market value of $L each week/month. Sometimes you'd get $450, sometimes $523, etc.

I lived in northern Germany for several years and I had the pleasure of traveling through Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands. Their concept of PG would start lynch mobs in Kansas (where I was born).

I agree, it would save a lot of blather if we could just get a definition or list. And it would start so many more threads.

I am referring to popularity and traffic... not to incentives for popularity and traffic. Basing popularity on traffic isn't the best method of determining the quality of a location's content or the events provided. Not in *my* opinion anyway. Camping farms seem to gain the most traffic... and what benefit to the community do they have? Why buy L$ when you can have an alt afk camping?

Camping farms may very well contribute to the devaluation of the L$ due to the lack of need to buy L$. The anti-idlers out there allow for 4 clients (viewers) to be open. So, with 4 avatars logged in and camping in chairs that pay out L$3/10min, that individual can make L$12,096 per week if those avatars camp 24/7. That equates to approximately USD$40/week, or about USD160/mo.

That breaks down to approximately USD$40/month for every alt camping 24/7 that is not going into the purchase of L$. THIS is what may be causing the L$ purchase slowdown which would massively devaluate the L$.

The devaluation of the L$ is the reason cited for removing traffic incentives. The popularity ratings being based on traffic are the reason camping farms exist. Camping farms may very well be the real reason behind the rapid devaluation of the L$. Hence the reason cited for removing the incentive.

It's all interconnected.

It's still a useful measure for others. If you're interested in renting a shop, you check the traffic to see how busy the location is. If I was buying a piece of land for commercial purposes, I'd check the traffic around it. If you logged in and saw few sales, you'd have a look at traffic to see if they were coming and not buying, or just not coming.

Of course, adding your items to SLB and SLX will also increase your sales... and if you advertise cheaper prices in-world... your traffic as well. So for a retail shop... the traffic rating doesn't always mean better sales.

If they do that I'll be selling my land as quickly as possible to tier down to Basic before the land crash... because it's only the stipend that makes owning rather than renting even vaguely sane.

The only screaming would be from Linden Labs as their income plummeted and they backpedalled like the devil to come up with a way to re-enroll all the Premium accounts.

I am interested in hearing why you feel this way.

Thread title is 'Economy Announcement: Removal of Traffic Incentives'.
No, but it's the best way of determining popularity.
If you mention "camping farms" in a message to me again I will be forced to go and invent a way to knife you in the face over the Internet.

No, really, I'm sure I've pointed out about ten times in this thread that camping and dwell payments are only indirectly related at best any more, and that eliminating dwell shed by Basic accounts would eliminate even that link. I'm sure you must have read at least one message where I make that point by now. So... please... let's not bring that into the loop, OK?

Eliminating dwell rather than fixing what it measures is just another one of Linden Lab's great "we're just going to do shit without testing it" blunders, it's right up there with the Base 64 screwup and the current animation permission problems.

Yeah. It does indeed put a lot of the power in the hands of LL... but then, if they're the ones making the grants, they have the right to decided the parameters of who and why. Although it's a judgement call, maybe in this instance it's a pretty easy one. In fact, thought just occurred to me:

Just as in RL, allow groups/sims to APPLY for the grants. Act on such applications with all due speed (ie, don't set them on a back burner). Check out the sim/group. Is it visibly content rich? Is the group active? Are they contributing to Second Life? Yes, yes, yes, GRANTED! If not, politely decline and be honest-- give suggestions for improvement. Yeah, it requires a couple of man-hours, but that's business for you.

I think the grant application would work, because otherwise not only does LL have to make the judgement call, but they have to figure out who is worthy-- from memory and chance observation.

Of course, there will be a lot of clowns with no content or effort who will try to abuse the system by placing unwarranted applications. That could be stopped by charging L500 to make application... refunded if granted. The earnest groups won't mind that fee, and it will deter the others from wasting money and time.

That would actually probably work... and put the incentive funds where they belonged in the first place-- with content rich, active people.

Or... maybe incentive "payments" aren't needed at all. Maybe LL can just grant credit toward land fees for those who work to give something back to SL in content and activities. Whatever the method, the idea is to encourage people to promote SL through exemplary effort.

That's a great idea - as long as LL doesn't end up with 20,000 grant applications in their inbox... :-/

- Jon

In other words if you're not one of the people who are going to be effected by the Removal of Traffic Incentives it's useful. But in a thread about Removal of traffic Incentives it's irrelevant.
I use a scripted counter that gives me actual warm avatar figures rather than relative popularity rankings for that.

In this case Siggy, I would question the way you did it. You basically ignored and broke forum rules to supposedly "make a point". (Considering other posts I've seen, I don't really buy the claim that you were just making a social statement). And you did so at least two messages in a row. Giving a blatant example of profanity to make the statement, "Our culture is different than yours" was neither necessary... or valid. Because no matter how your country operates (and divsersity IS the spice of life), this forum operates on PG13 basis.

You're entitled to defend your position. So am I. But there are forum rules involved in doing so and when someone crosses that line, personal opinion/habits/likes/dislikes take a back seat to basic user requirements for posting.

Yes it is.



The subway has a lot of people that go there... but it isn't the most popular place for those that do. Traffic is a headcount... doesn't necessarily reflect what's *in* the head of the counted.



Camping farms. Seriously... you seem even more wound up than I am... and I am pretty tweaky sometimes. You and I should take the same relaxation meditation seminar.



I've read your posts... and I disagree with you. If you look at the popular places list... a good number of those locations are camping farms (oops... said it again). And as I stated before, camping farms (damn... I slipped) slow down the purchase of L$, which lowers it's value. The lowering value is why they removed the dwell incentives.

Remove the [censored] farms and the sale of L$ will probably speed up a bit... this causing it to gain value.



It's basic economics... eliminating it may be the fix.

They could be one and the same person. And not everyone can make a scripted counter.

It's relevant because you were talking about the utility of the number just as a number. I was pointing out some of it's uses.

That's what they were doing... and that didn't work. The concept was abused with camping chairs, sex clubs, fake Yard Sales etc. And that's what was being attacked.



Can't argue there. I've have the same questions myself.




One perpetual question I have... since everyday users can see these things (just as we saw them coming when event support was phased out)... why can't Linden Lab and avoid taking the wrong step? I really hate to say it, but I think since Ebay invested some $8 mil in LL... a lot of focus has been transferred from the Grand Experiment and customer welfare to paying stockholders and the corporate bottom line. But an employer once told me: "Don't worry about the money. Worry about making the customers happy-- and the money will follow."

There is no doubt that a company can be self-serving and bottom-line oriented and make a killing fast-- and if all one cares about is money, hey, so be it. But me, I think life is more important than stacks of green paper. I think people come first, concepts come first, goals come first. And so long as I have all the food I can eat and go to a movie without worrying about whether I can afford it... what good does accumulating more money do? Money is great-- but what do they say about the love of money...

Love people instead. The money will follow. Elf Clan didn't grow by focusing on how to divest people of every last dime. And because we put people first, we have never been short on necessary funds. Not once.

4096 square meters of group owned land on Noonkkot: cost over L$12000 to purchase (and only because the group pooled our First Land), plus US$25 per month in tier and at least US$6 for a premium account to hold it. The L$2000 a month will at least pay off the purchases in six months, and over a year with a yearly premium it's still US$30.50 a month for that 4096.

4096 square meters of group owned land in Raccoon valley: Costs US$20 a month in rent. Plus I get better terraform limits, and I actually talk to my landlady occasionally (it's not the distant and unapproachable Governer Linden).

4096 square meters in LostFurest dAlliez: US$25 a month in rent, plus I get better terraform limits, a responsive landlady, and a prim bonus.

Buying is already $5-10 a month more than renting. If I can sell the land after a year, I can maybe break even in the buy-vs-rent sweeps, but only because we pooled First Land.

Without the stipend, that's L$12000 + US$31 a month. Even if I get the L$12000 back, it's still half as much again as I'm paying... so it's only rational to try and get that money out before everyone else comes to the same conclusion.

$500 is quite a lot. And not everybody is a "group," Wayfinder.

I like the way the Foundation for Rich Content is doing it. Why bother having the Lindens give wads of money to people they want to, when this is already being done by this FFRC group, and can be done by others as well?

I would also point out that the people running clubs are giving something to SL in terms of content and activities.

coco

Guess I'll add that to my collection of open source scripts in my store. Oh, and if(llListFindList(seen_today, [agent_name]) == -1) seen_today += agent_name;.
I was talking about its utility in the context of this discussion. I'm sure it's useful for the people competing for the top spot, too. But for the overwhelming majority of the people effected by the removal of the incentives, it's meaningless.

This is exactly what I will be doing with the houses I'm building. I'm setting them up on my land, primarily so people can go see for themselves after seeing them on SLB and SLX. My business model isn't based on inworld sales from visitors to my land.

I'm curious how you figure this. Certainly, the people doing the camping aren't buying the L$. But it has to come from somewhere. The person providing it either has to buy it, or receive it as payments from people who buy it.

- Jon

That's why Linden Labs eliminated the telehubs. There's no "subway" in Second Life any more.

It doesn't matter one frigging fraction of a Linden whether the camping farms are abusing the system now, because unless LL has actually tried other alternatives before eliminating ttraffic payments there is no viable argument that eliminating traffic payments was necessary or desirable. You can't say "we had to do X, even if it causes Y amount of damage" if you have options A, B, and C and you haven't tried them.
If you eliminate it, you can't test other fixes, so you will never know whether eliminating it was necessary. THAT is basic economics. What Linden Labs did was "simpleton economics".

Well some "earnest" individuals wouldn't mind either. And one week's stipend is within everyone's reach, if you want something enough. Would it seem like a lot if the potential reward was (large figure picked at random) $100k?

Cheers for that, I'd prefer to know the actual number of avatars

There are a few people who have stored up a rather insane qualtity of L$. If you take a look at the Sell L$ page, it tells you the quantity and the price of what is already up for sale. The cash is already out there... but the slower exchange of it due to the availability of camping chairs. If you can sit an alt in a camping chair 24/7... or even while you are at work... you don't need to spend USD on L$. At this point, I think enough people have figured that out for it to be effecting the economy.

And like I mentioned before... 4 alts running 24/7 on a single PC will earn someone over L$12,000 per week. Who needs to buy L$ when you can camp it?

Hmm... I've too many Aussie friends in RL and have gotten used to it I guess. Depends too much on context and intent. I still love watching my friends from the UK roll their eyes anytime someone refers to a "fanny pack". =)

What LL intends today may change as they uncover problems or better ideas tomorrow. I'd rather have them adaptable than locked into a mindset that refused to change. The cyncal side of me pretty much reads 'promise' as 'intent' unless contractually signed and notorized.

Anyway, I just don't think that there *IS* an acceptable alternative to dwell, and that fostering dependence upon Linden subsidies is encouraging folks to adhere to certain behaviors because they're more profitable... why throw away good money by experimenting with other models of re-imbursement?

Take Starax's magic wand for example. He's created a 'play anywhere, anytime, with nearly anyone' kind of game. I think these kinds of really engaging and fun ideas would be more prevalent if folks weren't so wrapped up in raking in dwell.

And, as to your ideas: Rewarding "known" content providers... while I'd love to have a bunch of 'secret shoppers' running around handing out reward subsidies... that kind of arbitrary system will be shackled with human bias and lamented as unfair by anyone that gets left out, resulting in some non-trivial amount of resentment. Judging the merit of content is just not a business that Linden Labs should be in. (and vote boxes were the ill-conceived predecessor to dwell... let's not step backwards!

I'm not sure that I buy your point about dwell-income dependent people actually promoting SecondLife to non-SecondLife people... any more so than anyone else in Secondlife does. If recruiting outsiders matters to Linden Labs, then reward the recruitment directly (which they do for new premium member referalls). Most dwell income types seem to be marketing themselves to people already in SecondLife.


Well, Teal, (my home), is likewise a refuge/haven from such areas as well.

Sadly sex sells... and it's not just a problem with SecondLife, but much of the internet and real life. It's a matter of how well its hidden. If folks only knew the kinds of stuff running along the backbones of the internet next to their harmless joke emails.

I'm not saying that makes it all okay... but humans are just meat and bone animals with baser instincts and drives. Society imposes behavioral rules that punish us from rutting in public... but the rules in SecondLife are a little different than RL. It's inevitable that in an open content environment that much of what appears will be catering to the lowest common denominator. With or without dwell income.

But sex is only one desire of many, there will always be markets for other things.

--
Down with the sex trade... Go Genderless!
Prop: 1306
Name: 3 body types: Male, Female, Other
http://secondlife.com/vote/index.php?get_id=1306