Rewarding Hot Spots (a.k.a. killing the voting stations)

I had really hoped that there would be more experimentation with the economy during the beta. I don't think the current system is perfect, in fact there are aspects of it that I don't like at all. I get the feeling that about half the people think as I do, that it could be improved, and the other half don't want anything to change because they are doing OK as it is.

It wouldn't have surprised me to have the economy all set to zero for the move to production, but of course a lot of nice builds would have been wiped out in the process. I suspect that the reason the Lindens haven't responded here is that they too are torn between the current system which is perhaps "good enough" and several proposals which *might* be better or on the other hand might be disasters. While such an event during the beta would be bad, it will be much worse as time goes on and real customers build up "equity" in the current system.

So, I have an idea... and while I have no idea how hard it would be to implement, it would sure be handy right about now.

Set the system up to support multiple (at least two) economies simultaneously. One could be the "production" economy, and the other could be the "test" economy. In this case, voting booths would continue to exist, but in a parallel economic universe the "hang time" statistics would be used instead. This would either reassure people that the new rules wouldn't wipe them out, or possibly prove that it would. of course in the test economy your balance could go negative with no ill effects, and your ability to buy things would continue to be based on your "production" bank account.

As an extension to this idea, it might even be possible to let users *choose* an economic system from a list. In this case the different rules would be used to encourage different behaviors. For example the person who builds an sells objects, but has no interest in owning land wouldn't have to be punished by the current system, nor would the person who *wants* to own land be penalized by the alternatives.

Multiple rule sets would allow a better comparison of what works and what doesn't. As users picked the rule set which worked best for them it would give everyone, both users and Lindens more confidence about making changes that would not be too disruptive.

Lots of really great thoughts in this thread. We're in the process of synthesizing all the feedback to help improve the design currently on the table. Did want to make a comment about the changing nature of Second Life and why evolutionary changes are going to be part of the world whether it’s six weeks post-beta or six years.

As suggested by the product name, Second Life’s ultimate goal is to create a large, vibrant virtual society – one built by its community members. The roadmap is sure to have twists and turns, unexpected surprises and even a few stumbles, but I think all of us (Lindens and Lifers) can see the glimmer on the horizon and the sense of possibility. As the community, technology and even the business of running Second Life matures, there will inevitably be changes and growth, much of which is driven by where we are along the roadmap. I think of it a bit like “unlocking” new content/levels in a more traditional game. For example, a handful of stable resident communities are necessary to “unlock” self-governance. Now that we have the former, we’re working on implementing the latter.

The evolution of navigation, traffic flow and helping residents monetize that traffic is similar. When Second Life was just a few dozen virtual acres (c’mon some of you remember those days), the world was a very different place with very different needs. Now that it is approaching 1,000 virtual acres, we are evolving the world to support the new types of play and interactions. Our commitment to the residents of Second Life is to always listen, to experiment with different ideas and to ensure that Second Life two years from now will be even better than the Second Life of today.

Hunter, thank you so much for responding.

Now let me tell everyone why this is just the BEST IDEA EVER.

1. No one in SL ever builds on anyone else's land.
2. No one ever builds above or below another person's build.
3. No one builds stuff that crosses parcels belonging to multiple owners.
   
4. And of course, the ONE BEST REASON why this idea is the AWESOMEST EVER...
   
   For every last build, the only possible way to look at it is to stand directly on the property it's built on.

I mean, it's not like you would need to let us demarcate our builds with huge, convex traffic analysis polygons with arbitrary numbers of vertices. It isn't like you would have to use a psycho-spatial system to determine what people are ACTUALLY looking at, so that the guy who built a pile of junk doesn't get credit for someone standing next to it while they fly their camera through a killer build 15 meters away. It isn't like everyone in Gray and Blue and Gibson and Darkwood and every other themed sim wouldn't get TOOOOOOTALLY jacked with this system.

Oh wait, it is, and the entire post up to this point is one long string of sarcasm. (Except where I thanked Hunter. We do like to feel like Linden Lab actually reads this stuff.)

BIG THUMBS DOWN.

Look... the voting booths handle every last issue here PERFECTLY. Just because a few people set up vote farms, and just because sometimes people vote for their friends (what a heinous crime, voting for your friends!), doesn't mean we should screw up the whole business with a new scheme that isn't even a tenth as accurate. A person sees a vote station next to my ship, they KNOW it's for my ship. Not for the ship next to mine, not for the ship on the ground below mine, not for the guy who owns the parcel of land I'm building over. They can fly their camera all around the ship from fifteen meters away if they want to, and then they can vote for it, all without having to move around physically. And you want to replace something as incredibly obvious as a vote station with some kind of wierd system that is going to try to second-guess everyone? I hope not!

Some have said "oh let's have it distributed like this and that, have group land ownership, etc. etc. etc." Sounds too much like socialism to me. The ship next to mine gets more votes than mine. Am I entitled to a slice of that extra action just because I'm in the same group? I don't think I am! If I want more votes I gotta improve my build or figure out how to attract more visitors.

Now if Linden Lab wants to build that system, fine, let us choose whether we want that or the vote stations for our builds. I don't want to be forced to use this system, which is clearly designed with the idea that there is only one way that people explore other builds, and that those builds are only on the owner's land.

Aren't the voting booths already a reward for hot spots?

If I have an event I get tons of votes compared to a non event day. If I hang out in Venice and work there, I have visits all night long and get more votes than a night I am not hanging in Venice.

Not only my booth, but everyone else's booth. So my work, or anyone else's work in Venice, helps the entire team. Which allows Venice to exist. This will not happen under the new proposed system.

Venice is a small theme, many of the members are also involved in other themes. If this new system was to be put into place, Venice would surely wither and die. Believe me, the fact that Venice is still standing AND growing is a tribute to Goddess Venus herself.

Still and again, putting the money issue aside (just for a second that is), this new system has the capacity to change SL down to it's social core. I don't know the effects, if any, of all our rants and raves here. Our fates are up to the Gods and Goddess of SL.

fen-

Nice post Huns! Nice to know the fellow Valens are representin'. I was all ready to be like: "What the heck are you talking about, have you even played SL?"

You hit it on the head. It seems like the new voting idea is very unpopular and we all know why. The theme sim is doomed if it happens.
Please, we need more voices if anyone out there hasn't posted but agrees, please post. The more voice the better.

Crow.

What was the original motivation for replacing the voting booth system in the first place?

That it would be less open to abuse and "vote farming"?

Are we certain that any system we bring in to replace it would be less open to such manipulation?

That's just the point, isn't it, preventing vote farming. Kind of like amputating some flesh on the off chance it might become infected, when antibiotics would be more appropriate. How many people vote farm anyway? I think I've seen two of those in the entire time I've been playing. The VAAAAST majority of players don't do that kind of thing.

Lindens, you want to capture traffic? Fine, but why reinvent the wheel? Use the vast spatial analysis algorithms present in the human brains that wander your world by proxy. That's going to tell you what people are actually doing.



p.s. Hey CrowCatcher!

To echo Hunter, thank you all so much for helping think about this issue. Here is a quick poll to help me focus my thoughts next week:

1) Do you enjoy having to visit spots that you think are worth a vote every day in order to ensure that the owner gets her bonus?

2) Do you think that it is a problem that someone can vote for 50 or more stations in an evening and overwhelm the effects of individuals who vote for one or two pieces of content that they really like?

3) Would you enjoy being to select some number of locations or objects (say 5) as your favorites, that stay your favorites until you change them, so that you wouldn't have to vote for the hippo statue every day?

4) Conversely, would you enjoy having a limited number "unfavorites" that indicate that you really don't like something until you change them (and that have some effect on the owner of the object/land)?

Thanks!
Cory

Favorites and unfavorites would be great. Unfavorites in particular would fill a need that goes unfilled right now.

I enjoy visiting my friends but they are sometimes not there. If I see they are not there I keep going and still vote for them if I like the build. Under the new system the place where I stop and look would get rewarded and not my "friend".



Do people really vote for 50 stations? Im wondering how accurate this statement is. Seems a little like hype to push away from the vote stations. Can we get some real numbers please?



5 is too few. The world gets bigger every day. 10 is better. Sure that whould make things easy but what if lmy favorite is gone tomorrow? Seems limiting. Although the vote booths are evil I like that they take more effort than this suggestion.



I don't like this. I think it has potential for greifing. What would be the effect? To negate other votes? To take money away from the owner? What exactly is the proposal here?

1 - Yes, otherwise I wouldn't do it. I like visiting.

2 - I agree with Mis here. Also, what is stopping anyone from voting on as many booths as they wish? Then you are saying that my 50 votes are not as valuable as some body else's 3 votes.

3. I think if I have to travel to vote it makes the vote more valuable. At least you really see what you are voting on as opposed to a friend asking you to vote for them blindly. They might have just a box on their land. If they still just have a box now, at least you have to travel to that box. And traveling around is half the fun in SL. How are you supposed to get abducted by aliens if you hang in your house all day?


4. This is very bad. First, once again, Mis is right, it is a great griefer tool. This could take out an entire theme in no time. Second, this could be a way to suppress ART. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't have a right to exist. Man, what a world that would be then... I would be Queen damn it, QUEEN!

fen-

1) Do you enjoy having to visit spots that you think are worth a vote every day in order to ensure that the owner gets her bonus?

No, its a chore. I'd rather visit people than places. The new proposed change doesn't fix this either, although I think it is an improvement in some respects (but not others).

2) Do you think that it is a problem that someone can vote for 50 or more stations in an evening and overwhelm the effects of individuals who vote for one or two pieces of content that they really like?

Yes, but I don't think there is ANY way to stop people from voting for their friends and those "friendship" votes will inevitably overwhelm the voting in ALL other categories. Which leads me to conclude that the whole system could be dramatically simplified by an up or down vote on individuals without having the categories at all. To do categories properly, you would need several more categories than currently exists. I came up with 8 or so.

3) Would you enjoy being to select some number of locations or objects (say 5) as your favorites, that stay your favorites until you change them, so that you wouldn't have to vote for the hippo statue every day?

Yes, but I would PREFER having a default expiration period on ALL voting (based on which way you go for item 2). A vote should last for a week, or a month, and then revert to neutral unless renewed. I should be able to vote for anyone in ANY category just by selecting their name from any list (calling cards, IMs from them, or any object or land they own). For that matter I should be able to vote for someone by just knowing their name and typing it in if none of the above methods are handy. I should be able to create a calling card (or call it rolodex etc) for anyone for my OWN convenience. The privacy issue of sending them IMs or seeing them online should be separate from the convenience of having a list of names. There should be NO REWARD for having a long list of names. I've never understood this one.

4) Conversely, would you enjoy having a limited number "unfavorites" that indicate that you really don't like something until you change them (and that have some effect on the owner of the object/land)?

I just don't grasp why the building votes are different than all the others. I'd prefer a unified system of up, down or neutral in all categories (or preferably just lump everything together). For eye-sore objects voting down the owners might eventually be effective, but contacting Linden for abusive situations would always be preferable.

Thanks for the feedback, keep it coming !

As an aside, I'm sure everyone understands this, but I want to clarify an aspect of voting stations:

Money for voting stations comes from a fixed total pool that gets divided up between residents who receive votes, so residents who vote for many voting stations every day force an arms race that require other residents to do the same. Also, I'll get statistics on voting patterns (I don't have that information at home) but on Thursday there were over 1200 votes from 336 users online, so conservatively, that's 3.5 votes per user per night. Given that some users don't vote on any given night, that means that there are defintely some users voting a lot.

Also, another question:

5) How many of you actuallly use the building and avatar ratings to indicate whether or not you like a resident's creations/avatars versus how many default to positive ratings unless really provoked?

Cory

I only tend to use the building rateing if I am at somones building that I know. I use the avatar rating frequently as, I can see the person who I am talking to when I rate them.

thats far from 50



I almost never neg someone unless they really have it coming. I dislike that you cant neg them if you see a build and not them. Building ratings are difficult to give on the fly unless an av is wearing their creations... but then there's the question of did they build or buy them?

Im much more apt to give ratings for appearance and attitude. I do give building based on seeing good work.

I vote irregularly, if somhaving to visit spots that you think are worth a vote every day in order to ething catches my interest or a friend asks me to.
[/b]
Not really; if they want to go around and vote like that, more power to them. I don't care much one way or another about the voting system.

I think it would; it'd encourage me and other non-voters to throw their support behind a build.

Yes, though the effects would have to be nerfed enough to make them detrimental but not fatal in the hands of griefers.

I do. I give a lot more negative ratings than most people.

Yet another question:

6) How many of you know that you can rate any owner and any creatore of objects by clicking edit, clicking more to expand the edit dialog, going to the general tab (so that you can see the owner and creator), clicking profile to see their profile, and the clicking rate to get to the rate dialog?

7) How many of you would appreciate that being simpler and more obvious ?

um no and yet I should and well DUH! Yes please simpler!

5) How many of you actuallly use the building and avatar ratings to indicate whether or not you like a resident's creations/avatars versus how many default to positive ratings unless really provoked?

I default to positive. I rate my friends positive. I rate stranger positive after they have rated me (and no, I don't ask them to do this). I do all this to be polite. I find it all tedious though. My first 30 minutes in SL are always like visiting H&R Block

6) How many of you know that you can rate any owner and any creatore of objects by clicking edit, clicking more to expand the edit dialog, going to the general tab (so that you can see the owner and creator), clicking profile to see their profile, and the clicking rate to get to the rate dialog?

Yep, someone showed me that a few weeks ago and I promptly forgot it. I'd like a RATE slice to show up on the pie when i click an object. Within that dialog could be all the various choices (if we have to have them).


7) How many of you would appreciate that being simpler and more obvious ?

Uh-huh.

No, I don't. While I do like rewarding people for making good places, going around clicking on voting stations is a little tedious. I don't think the number of times anyone votes is a problem, but I don't think the votes should all count the same. The value of votes should be based on how many times a day a person votes. If I vote for 50 stations and someone else only votes for one, then each of my votes should only count for 1/50th of their one vote. I would like this. There are places I think deserve votes that I do not vote for often because they are rather far away and I do not take the time to go there. I would like it even better if the number was not fixed, but increasing the number I selected would decrease how much my selections count. I would not use "unfavorites". In general, I do not think anyone should be penalized just because I do not like what they make. I give people positive building and avatar ratings when I see something they have done that impresses me, otherwise I leave them neutral. I think of these ratings as my judgement of their skills in these areas. Even if my opinion of their ability is accurate, they should not be punished just for lacking skill. However, if they insist on making things that are annoying or inconsiderate, I think the negative rating should be for behavior. I knew this is possible and I have done it a few times. However, I do tend to rate people through their avatars instead of this way. Yes, that would be good.

Responding to Cory's newest question...

Yes! That would be awesome.. Stick it in the Pie Menu! Like some sort or new option that you could put Pay and Rate under (since it seems to be full), so that you can have it for both objects and avatars.

1) no

2) yes

3) ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!!

4) I don't want this feature. I agree with Mis on this. Plus i feel that there isn't a need for this anyway. think about it. if your not on anyones favorite list, then that should be punishment enough. you don't like something, don't put it on your favorite list.

5) I try to be fair. but i end up giving out positive ratings exclusively, unless provoked.

6) I know, and I do.

7) I would appreciate it.

1) I enjoy flying my area and seeing builds progress or change and voting them. I also get sidetracked a lot flying out of my area, stop and look and vote.

2) Not really if they want to take the time.

3) Nope, I think people should physically (?) see the site to vote.

4) No way

5) I do

6) I do

7) Seems fine the way it is.

Hmmmm, I said "I do" to Cory twice, does that mean we are married now?

Let me start by saying that I'm new. Take my opinions witha grain of salt. However, I have participated in an MMORPG before that I eventually left because of the bad economy.

I don't really like the original plan. I specifically bought land in a fairly remote location because I'm not much of a socialite.

Also, I have to agree with Jake Cellardoor. My plan right now is to build and script. I don't want to be "forced" to travel and/or socialize in order to survive in SL.





Not particularly. I'm not mucha of a traveller OR a socialite.



For this, I like Tweke's idea. Give each Av a specific number of "voting points" each day. Everything they vote on each day gets a percentage of their total points. (Allow multiple votes, though, so I can give one build twice the points of another build.)



Yes, but I want more than 5, and the votes that I "cast" this way should be part of the points system from #2.



That could be useful, be easily abused. I think (as stated before) that if it were implemented, it should be impactful, but not fatal. Any of these votes that I use should also use part of my "points pool", so that if I thumbs-up my friends and thumbs-down my "enemies", my friends get less benefit. That should help ensure that I only do this to people that are REALLY doing something that gripes me.



I almost never give building ratings, because when I'm rating a person they're almost never near any of their builds. I only rate personality on people I've actually talked to long enough to have an opinion. I rate Av based on my real opinion.

So far, I haven't met anyone annoying or obnoxious enough to rate negative, but I have certainly "non-rated" a lot of people.



No, I didn't know that. Hadn't bothered to try editing other people's property.



Yes, definitely.


Finally, I second the vote that the rewards system for calling cards be discarded. People keep walking up to me and swapping calling cards without even saying "Hi!". It's annoying. I've started arranging calling cards in folders, and I have a folder named "Other", which is all the people that I don't even know, and certainly won't ever IM. I feel guilty about the idea of dumping all of these, because I know the people rely on this for their income. And most of them are still carrying my card (I hope).

Well, that's my L$0.02. Take it for what it's worth.

--
Grim

Tweke has the best idea I've seen so far regarding the "voting list" idea. It's the simplest solution that solves the problem - you get to vote as much as you want, but you will be careful about who you vote for, because the more you vote, the less each vote weighs. That way, social butterflies don't dominate the polls. It forces everyone to decide on a trade-off between how many people to vote for and how much each "votee" will get. People who don't vote a lot will get more weight, which means that builders will have to compete for their attention, rather than getting on the "in list" of voting rotaries.

Perhaps a 1:1 ratio isn't the best though... if you vote for two places instead of one, they only get .5 each. Maybe something a little more relaxed is in order, like two votes and each gets .9, three votes and each gets .8, etc.

I am NOT in favor of negative voting lists. This encourages what certain radio show hosts refer to as "A-holery." I've seen what happens in other online communities - people get together and gang up on someone they don't like. Hell, I've seen it HERE, someone got gang-downrated because a certain group didn't like his apartment building. It is enough that builds perceived to be low in quality will not get as many votes. At most, perhaps a system where negative votes serve as a feedback system, notifying the owner that they are getting negative votes without subtracting from the positive vote rewards.

Anyway, I hope you guys over at Linden Lab are not still bent on forcing us to work under an algorithm that tries to guess what we like. Voting lists are better.