Short Essay on Community Demographics,With Apologies

I know I've been very "textual" in the feedback forums lately, much probably painful to read by some folks at the hub of Second Life over the last two weeks. For this, my deepest apologies, accompanied by renewed faith that the message IS that important.

I simply don't know where else to put this thread, since I don't think it really fits anywhere else, and at least I have some idea that new threads in these feedback forums ARE getting attention these days...so here goes...

This time, I don't bring facts, or even an old fart's experience-based observation....What I DO bring are two words...

Paradigm Shift (BBP and ABP)

For the first handful of years, Before The Big Push (BBP), the SL community was more than likely over 75% composed of programmers, graphics artists, networking wizards and computer scientists, riding the front edge of a growing wave of technical innovation.
In those days, bugs in the UI, databases, network and ancillary resources were largely viewed by the community as electronic aberrations that were more nuisance and intellectual novelty than anything else (NOT to diminish the impact on the creators/marketers then anymore than now)...The language of community was binary, hexadecimal, bandwidth, pixelation, front end, back end, top end, etc etc etc
All one needed to do to assuage complaints was to offer up so-called geek-speak, nudge nudge, wink wink, we've all been there and done that, got the Silicon Valley t-shirt...just the nature of technology in development, hehe

Then came The Big Push. During this time, PR and promise of things to come greased the ramp, and suddenly within a couple of months, subscribed accounts shot up from ~600k to 1M+...and here's the catch...yes, TBP brought in a whole new crop of BBP-like customers, but along with that came the ABP (After The Big Push) Society...yes, now we have (my money says...) manifold times less-techie users over number of tech wizards that are ACTIVE Second Lifers now aboard, and the majority will be like me...some years of contact/wrestling with a PC/Mac of various generations, and some years of internet travel, and some time in other more-restrictive forms of MMOG/MMORPG under their belt.

Yes, there are quite a few of us in the ABP Generation that have SOME degree of backgrounding in CS/tech, but here's where the demographic shifted. The ABP Generation, which now constitutes a remarkable percentage (anybody have numbers?) of the community DO NOT VIEW SECOND LIFE AS A PROGRAMMING CHALLENGE FOR US TO SOLVE, DO NOT VIEW THE NETWORK SERVER ISSUES AS OUR PROBLEM, AND TAKE LITTLE IF ANY REASSURANCE FROM GEEK-SPEAK (which I believe largely we view as an affront to our intelligence/common sense).

Herein lies the problem...The community itself (the residents and a select number of Lindens who, in spite of their environment, REALLY DO GET IT) has adjusted very smoothly, and the large majority of active BBP residents have managed to integrate perfectly with ABP residents. Had they not done so, I would not still be here, it is the mentoring/advice and friendship of the veteran SL-ers that brought me along to the point where I could begin to understand.

Meanwhile back at the SL-ranch (Linden Lab), unfortunately, the grannies who make the global policy decisions appear to still be firmly entrenched in their complacent bastions of tradition, treating problems and customers in their traditional "brothers-in-arms against the common foe program" manner....having failed to do anything strategically in the year before The Big Push, or much since then, that wasn't transparently reactionary, and counter-proactionary.

I believe that a fundamental change in philosophy is overdue in San Francisco on at least one street, by at least 1.5 years. And that the change must begin with a paradigm shift of the most fundamental kind, in the boardroom and customer-relations view of what the Second Life community truly "is" in the epoch of Second Life, ABP...

Second Life has become what they advertised it would become, plain and simply, a loose society of people (not keyboarders) driving pixelated fantasy versions of our selves around in what is a life-simulation...the product is no longer the program, it is the experience! And as with any life, if the planet begins to suck too badly, and society becomes rotten at its core...well, in the virtual sense, avatars WILL begin taking their own lives to avoid the days of Armageddon that will surely follow.

Indeed there is a huge paradigm shift, and you are so right that the second wave needs a different type of communication. I went over to the new continent the other day, just for curiosity, and was struck by how different it was. People were creating and doing their thing, but without the technical perfectionism that has become typical in the Old World.

There was a club owner, unselfconscious in a color changing silk, and her friend, a man still in the newbie avatar. Their club was not much more than a big box in front of a road, with boxy little buildings on either side. By old mainland standards it was humble... and I decided this was cool, they're doing their own thing without waiting for someone to grant permission, and without feeling they have to match some professional-level standard before they're allowed to act.

Okay it's run-on sentence time... *laughs* it's 2:21 a.m. for me and I'd better call it a day... but you're right about the difference of the new... maybe we'll be lucky and be saved by newbies. I'm tempted to get a new alt and disappear into the new just for the freedom of it.

I think some of the griping that goes on these days is oldbies and midbies killing ourselves with boredom. Blah. It's self-imposed.

I find the basic thrust of your missive to make sense, and some anecdotal travels bear it out. But - and I have a big But - that above quote is telling: just what DO you base your premise on? Have you gotten to know tens of thousands of ABP people? Is there even any way to ascertain skill levels, basic approaches to SL, and all the attached enculturations in this mass influx of people?

I agree that your assessment probably is more true than not, but just what is it that you base it all upon - a hunch? A gut feeling?

Best,
EC

Hmmm, both a fair and difficult inquiry. Thank you.

If we do not digress into a diatribe on *just who* the active accounts are (please, no), the active community is probably defined as number of accounts logged in within the last 60 days, I don't remember the actual number, but between 1.5 and 2 million active accounts. Given that I set the BBP/ABP number at 600,000 then everything over that number I accept as being ABP. 1.5million minus 0.6 million is 0.9 million, and ABP active accounts now represent at least 60 percent of the active accounts...higher than that when/if one takes into consideration account attrition and the fact that the active accounts total is higher than 1.5 million.

Do I have contact with tens of thousands of ABP people?

No. However, if you take a moment to pull up my profile, you will see that my group lists and interests reflect a fairly eclectic/broad view of SL interests and activities, across mainland, private estates, hobbies, and enterprises. You will also note that the nature of those involvements does take me into large group settings, where one only needs look, listen, and understand the very sort of cues that are discussed by Brenda in Post #2. Additionally, you will note that I am a resident in an island estate of some size, and that I am socially active there, as well. As a consequence of that, I DO get involved in pointing up, discussing, and monitoring life there, as well. And, without hesitation, and with no disgruntlement, it is a fair assessment that my home community IS undergoing the same sort of transition/paradigm shift in terms of both community identity and property management.

Is my premise based on a gut level feeling?

You bet. I am, as you can see, a during-the-push October child, and my Friend List, in its fully-functional state, is heavy with folks with similar birthdates. Note that I did ask if anyone DOES have some kind of demographic numbers. I know of at least one demographic research group that has a poll base of 1000 members (sorry, Andy, no gratuitous plugs here), and am hoping we really can answer this one.

What I do know, and all one needs do is generally read the blog responses to techie notes and here in the forums, to know that there is a sweep of sorts toward questions/issues/concerns being expressed in NON-geek-speak, which does seem to correlate, at least loosely, with more recent SL birthdays. To a large extent, my thoughts are based on reasonable extension of likely events, though, wouldn't you think?

Most importantly, if there are Lindens reading this, they MUST certainly view the definition of "significant" or "remarkable" with much more gravity than might even we, accepting lower percentages as relevant to this perception, and take them even more seriously.

I do think your observation is pretty much accurate. I'm an ABP er. I don't work in any directly tech related field, but am not computer illiterate. I understand how my computer works, how the OSis SUPPOSED to work , and can maintain and upgrade my machine myself. But I don't view my computer as anything more than an appliance that I use for certain things, like my TV or DVR. I'm sure in the begining SL was dominated by the "Silicon Heads", as a new and fairly innovative technology. But as word got out more people who may still be computer savvy, but also grounded in other areas began to come in, probably make the world a little less antiseptic. Now besides the builders and scripters, in came the artists and entrepeneurs, and scam artists as well.So now the world is a little nicer looking, and there is an economy consisting of more than just real estate, and building scripting. But , since everyone inworld can do something, who you going to seel to? Whatever skill you don't posses you patronize a fellow resident, but the customer base is still limited, especially since at that point there most likely are a lot of people who can do everything and don't have to use anyone else's services. So now the Big Push comes in, and in come all sorts of people, Artists, musicians, Techs, Philosophers, Doctor , Lawyers, Indian Chiefs............and importantly, just plain consumers. (Raises Hand). So now the stage is set fo SL to become what the Providers may have dreant it to be (At least before they decided to take the Corporate Money and retire to an Island somewhere).
What does all this mean? I have no idea. Just that we all have an idea what we want SL to be for us, and we can make it that to a certain extent. But we can't invalidate someone else's vision of it, be they a NASA Computer Engineer, or a Bored Houswife in RL. Lately it seems that there are some who question others qualifications to be here, qualify their existence based on talent and "contribution", even some who are suspiscious of others motives for logging on in general. There is room for everyone in Second Life. Even the dork living in his Mom's basement.

I'll agree with this sentiment...


...and in fact add that such frustrations as detailed in P.O.L. show that the paradigm has shifted. A lot of us 'oldies' know how to get around the oddities inherent in SL--whether it's because we've been here a long time or have some tech knowledge or whatever.

Example: When you can't teleport, start removing attachments. Generally, if you remove a couple of high-prim attachments, you can teleport again. How many people know this? How many people do it? Let's just say that 99% of the time when people mention the inability to teleport...I still can.

anyone who lived through 1.7 better know that hehe

That was the old slogan - "Save Prims, TP naked! "

(even though was the attachments, esp the scripted ones that were the culprits)


----------------------------------------------------------
back to the main thread discussion - not refering to Kenn
----------------------------------------------------------


The Social/ Non techinical people have been around the duration too - Its just the Proportion of Social people has grown at a much faster rate. From a minority in the begining to a definite Majority today.

And when the technical marginalize the Social players wants with no attempt to be diplomatic they come off as extremely condescending. And most dont realize it.

Thank you!...it IS very important that everyone, not just the more-social/casual-less-techie be listening and struggling to use shared language...and before I forget...Thank you @ Kenn...just goes to prove that one never stops learning...or being a Newbie, too (/me furiously scratching down "what to do when TP appears borked" note to self)

Yes. I hope I never stop being a newbie, when that happens the game is over.

It's a cliche but it's true.

Parsimony, a very well written and thought out piece. I am, as you have probably seen, a fan of the longer, more thought out post. I think such posts can provide LL with an insight into the mind of SLians and help them in developing strategy and improving their support.

I have chosen two paragraphs which I think are very important for LL to take note of and consider the importance of. Through out corporate history "The Icarus Paradox" (1) has seen so many companies fall into the trap of overconfidence and complacency, where success actually leads to failure, as the initially factors for success become the catalyst for failure. Like life in SL where we need to learn, grow and mature into our AVs, companies must go through the same process of maturity.

LL are "pioneers" they brought to market a new and exiting product. LL's major strength has been their technological capacity. However pioneers can get carried away with their inventions and start to pursue technological nirvana. In this strategic model customers can seen as an "unsophisticated nuisance". A potential solution to this and one of the main gripes on the forum "introduction of new features before fixing existing flaws" could be addressed through the temporary de-coupling of development and renewal activities from established operations. This of course has resource implications.

However, without servicing your existing customer base LL risk loosing the support of their biggest fans. More importantly LL is currently very much in a monopolistic situation. Should a competitor release a similar platform with improved stability customers, especially ABP customers may very well jump ship.

I would recommend that the strategists at LL read and take head of the essay below and hope that Phil has not flown too close to the sun already

(1) Miller D., 2004. The Icarus Paradox: How Exceptional Companies Bring About their Own Downfall. The Strategy reader. Edited by Susan Segal-Horn. Second Edition. pp 461-476. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 1-4051-2687-6

Pars....VERY well thought out and interesting post and the comments have been excellent too.

The "Icarus Paradox" has been a theme in literature ["Stories" for you technical people] since literature began. The Greeks called it "hubris". It was a Common theme in Greek tragedy and figures prominently in the works of Homer, Sophocles and others. Like most aspects of human nature, its use is widespread in Shakespeare's works as well. It is basically a stubborn and unreasonable pride which leads to the downfall of the tragic protoganist, as it did with Icarus.

Whether LL will fall victim to it is too early to say. From my own, unique perspective, I THINK that better performance [I know its not there for many people, but the system IS working better for me], better "help," better two way communication between customers and LL, and other issues, it SEEMS that LL may have successfully avoided this. At least I HOPE so!!

A prime example of the hubris is the "Big Push" which happened despite the shrill and Cassandra-like* warnings of many. The FLOOD of free accounts has created and is still creating problems which could bring about SL's and LL's downfall. [e.g. poor grid performance, the child porn issue among others] I may be naive, but I really thing they [LL] are starting to listen.

I'm one of the "Casual/social" users, so I often don't see the big picture and really don't understand a lot of the technical details. One thing that is VERY helpful in this forum is that several technical minded people have taken the time to explain things to me, and to others, in language we can understand. This is a good thing.

Pars...and the other posters...where do you see us, as a community of SLers going from here?

*Cassandra was the daughter of the Priam, the King of Troy in the Illiad. She warned of the fall of Troy, if the Trojans kept on doing stupid things, like letting the Trojan horse inside the gates of the city. She was ignored and Troy was sacked and burned.

By the way, I started SL in January of this year, so I am definitely after the Big Push. I am aware of the warnings I speak of only anecdotally.

Uhh.. this "technical person" calls it "literature" as well.

As for "hubris", I see it and call it fairly often (thought I had here, too, but I can't seem to find the posts atm). Yes, 6/6/6 was definitely the "height of hubris", but there are so many peaks where it can be found that it's like searching for Everest in the Himalayas.

Where do we go from here? Only two choices, really. Suck it up and ride it out, or jump off to safety. Sooner or later, there WILL be another choice, and if it executes even marginally better than LL/SL has, there's going to be some serious and regular white-knuckle moments in the Community and also at Linden Lab.

Competition is good, though.

Talarus, I am quite sure youhave referred to hubris in a previous post somewhere.

You know...we don't always agree on things but I really appreciate the intelligence of your postings and the fact that youhave often used non technical language to explain technical things to me and other casual/social people.

I think you hit the target in your comment about competition. It will happen sooner or later and then it will be very, very interesting.

May I say first that I am FLOORED by the type of responses I've been getting to this thread, and humbled by the company I stand in at this place and moment. I am printing and reading Bodger's cited article (thanks a thousand times for that citation!), and I am going to notecard a proactive Linden with the reference as well as this thread.

I've got most of a response to your question, Susanne, but I am compelled to read, both to broaden my horizons and I want to be fully-equipped for continuing participation, LOL.

First, let me say that Danny Miller's paper/article in Business Horizons should be required reading for any of us who hope to contribute to the continued growth and vitality of Second Life.

Susanne, after reading the article, and all of the comments here, my conclusion is this:

Linden as a vital, viable company may be at a crossroads. I believe now that it is their responsibility to self-assess, find the underlying causes of their management shortfalls, and turn it around. Bodger has given them the mirror by which to start, and we can only hope that "the right folks" are reading these threads, and that they are not so close to the sun as to be blinded already to which other directions they still could fly. We can only give them tools...a mirror, advice, signs of the times, etc.

We are not in the boardroom, nor are we on the executive board. We do not have the power to do more than be heard, and I have faith that is the case.

It is incredibly eerie to see the signs coming out of the blogs, and from the kinds of feedback we do get, and to see how well they actually do match with Danny Miller's models of the four types of destructive momentum.

I'd really enjoy, once we've all gotten a chance to read up, having a round table...my theory is that the self-described (Linden Tao) decentralized management style, all while in one building, continues to extend into the VP/CO collaborations and their departmental interactions, as well, and that this has empowered ALL FOUR types of trajectories that Miller discusses to coexist to varying degrees. I believe that all one needs do is contrast the profiles of Phil, Robin, Cory and the others we do hear from, and look at the written and operational materials they distribute for our consumption...and compare the darker side of those, as I perceive to be 'my disappointments', to see strong threads of behavior linked to AT LEAST three of the corporate dooms Miller explains.

So, with full intention of continuing to expand, with everyone's participation, this discussion, my belief, Susanne, is that as SL-ers all we can do is continue to provide thoughtful, reasonably (in my case only, you guys are SUPERstars!) intelligent criticism and counsel...while waiting for events and decisions beyond our control to play out... and if no changes are made, I predict either death by suicide or eventual starvation by competition for Second Life.

Very astute observation...

TechnoGeek ratio has definitely shifted since The Big Push.

I certainly see the need for a 'corporate voice' that speaks clearly and simply to the majority of users... but it would be very sad to lose the more geek-friendly insights and informative language we traditionally get. It's like there should be "User" and "Power-User" sides to each release.

For example: "We're making a huge change to the (whatever) part of SecondLife to try to fight a specific type of lag. The change has been planned, tested and is ready for roll-out, even so, some problems may result. Your patience during this transition is very much appreciated. Here's what we're changing and why: (lots of geekspeak)"

Anyway, I wouldn't want secondlife to be just for geeks... or just for non-geeks.
It's definitely more interesting with both.

Touche' and I agree completely, except for requiring that the geekspeak not be given more weight than the non-tech...equal time (if it requires a LOT of geek-speak to explain, experience tells me it was too much to roll out in one mod anyway [J/K] )!

That was a very interesting post and followups, Parsimony. To summarize the argument:

TBP = The Big Push, BBP before, ABP after. ABP demographics are now closer to real life, and techs are no longer the majority. Techs are somewhat forgiving of buggy environment, non-tech users far less so. LL has a tech background, communication is generally at tech-level, and as a result today's average user feels that his needs are being ignored. Conclusion: focus heavily on robustness, and greatly improve non-tech customer relations.

I hope that's roughly right. Assuming it is, then I agree with your premise of course, and also with your expressed goals, but differ on your conclusions. There is a better, more practical, and safer way to achieve what you want. I'll get to that via Rusty's post. (And I'll leave the issue of safety unexplained for now.)

Good post, and it highlights that there is a multiplicity of types of people in SL.

At the very least there are two types on the technical side of the community --- the amateur-level general geek, and the professional-level technologist. To these we have to add at least a couple of entirely non-technical users --- individuals who are here for the socio-cultural interaction alone, and business users who are here as employees of companies who have brought their corporate image to SL. Both of the latter have enjoyed a very large demographic gain in Parsimony's ABP era.

However, while examples like the above are useful, it's not really an accurate way of describing the SL demographic, because people aren't really susceptible to simple pigeonholing. Instead:

- The technical abilities of people span a continuous spectrum.
- They very often have a combination of technical, socio-cultural and business interests.
- Their requirements are not static, but depend on what they are doing at any given time.

And this is where Parsimony's observation about requirements breaks down. Let me illustrate this by way of personal example.

I have a highly technical background, yet I spend a substantial amount of my SL time doing the rounds of live musicians' concerts, a wonderful cultural phenomenon which I think has a great future. I don't have a business interest of any kind in SL, indeed my wallet is draining from supporting musicians, but in principle I could have had that as well.

And this is the point from the above: despite being pigeon-holed as technical, I have zero tolerance for anything that destroys the immersion of being present at a musician's performance. Like for Parsimony's ABP people, SL must "just work" when I'm at a concert, and I really don't care for technical excuses, even though I know the reasons well.

So that's the first issue: the need for robustness is not a pre/post TBP thing at all.

Instead, I would suggest that the need for robustness is primarily a matter of how destructive bugs are to two different things, virtual immersion and resource loss.

Nobody wants to lose items or work, that's a given, and it crosses all boundaries: anyone who thinks that ubergeeks are tolerant of losing scripts or objects is highly mistaken.

As regards immersion, the more socio-cultural uses to which SL is put, the greater the demands for robustness to preserve the immersiveness of the virtual world. In this respect then yes, Parsimony's conclusion that robustness has become more important ABP is correct, but only because there was no illusion to be broken when you're building a house or working on a script, NOT because the user happened to be technical. The need for greater robustness results from a combination of more immersive activities to break these days, and more people affected, not because the tech/consumer ratio has dropped.

And now we come to customer relations.

Everyone agrees that there are many different types of users, indeed probably as many as there are residents. The problem with your suggestion (ie. more non-tech CR from LL) is that it can hope to satisfy only one particular slice of the population. Unless you are happy with soothing platitudes that cover everybody and say nothing, then LL cannot hope to engage in meaningful and extended dialogue with every special interest group. While I'm certainly not against polite messages such as the one in Rusty's example, do they actually help? Well, perhaps minimally, but it all smacks of corporate gloss to me.

Here is an alternative.

With very very few exceptions, you'll find that every socio-cultural or business group has one or more members who are more savvy than the rest. Savvy in their technical background, in their understanding of their group's needs, in their ability to blog or forum-post about issues and gather information, and in many other ways. Those people are superbly placed to understand the troubles that beset SL, and to communicate what is going on to the rest of their community in ways that are highly relevant and not platitudes.

I suggest that ways be found to harness that potential --- in effect to distribute the role of customer relations into the communities that form SL.

How? I have lots of ideas, but I'll close this message here to see what you think so far.

Morg.

I would say so.
I'm a BBP techie (I'm a proud and happy nerd) and while, yes, I do agree that something needs to be done about stability, I can slog through it and deal with it and patiently wait for a patch.
I'm not happy with the system (FPS at 12, ping > 500, slow logins, etc.) but I file bug reports and move on because I enjoy what the system CAN do. Nowhere else--save my own MUCK--can I do the kinds of things I can do in SL.

No where.

I agree with your point, sufficiently that I'll respond now, and process again for finer nuances when my head isn't quite so muddled. I didn't mean to imply a dichotomy, only that I believe there has been a substantial shift in the mean levels, across the population (your continuous scale(s)), back toward the middle from the earlier mean




Agreed.





This is actually at the crux of my original and ongoing desire to create and participate in this discussion...much more so than issues of actual or product quality. My goal here is to foster understanding and discussion about the challenges to, and solutions for problems with, customer relations.

You and I (heck, anyone who views any aspect of Second Life as more valuable or profound than Grand Theft Auto) understand, viscerally, and with some heroic level of pragmatism AND humor, that the SL platform in its entirety is a work in progress, and that we all do play some continuing role as beta testers albeit on the primary active grid.

I continue to contend that the extent to which loyal customers complain, and the tone of their complaints, is not driven primarily by the quality of the product, even when that DOES become a larger concern for more of us/them. What I believe DOES affect the frequency, gravity, and level of frustration, is the extent to which the provider (in this case, LL) make customer-RELEVANT responses to the customer.

I believe (didn't say 'know') that, at its core, Linden Lab and their folks both need and want us to be happy, and to stay that way as much as possible. I also believe that the majority of residents who continue to log in after 30, 60 and more days want the same, and want to see Second Life truly realize its potential.

I agree there will always always be in SL, as you point out so well, a nearly-perfect heterogeneity of profiles/skill levels...pick any single variable or set of variables...all the more reason that Linden is far-better served to continually tailor its communication in whatever ways possible to accomodate the maximum numbers in its client-base.

There WILL be times that the best, most succinct explanations will be the more highly-technical, moreso in this type setting, and for those, I have faith that we do want to see those coming from folks like Cory and his dedicated geekazoids.

I simply posit that there is something in human nature (though this be an unevenviable trait) that makes us believe that, in a polite society, when we are in a room with a group of people that all speak the same language, it is ((unnatural)/strikethrough and replace) completely anti-social not to make an effort to either: a)talk in professional-speak first, then explain what we said, and what it means, to the rest of the room; b) start and end the conversation in laymans terms so that all may participate to their potential in the conversation, or c)take the conversation out on the terrace...

Persisting in forcing the direction of public conversation (v.v. Town Meetings and the Official Blog postings) into language forms and channels that only a select subset of the folks in the room can speak/understand, without taking time out for polite explanation/consideration for the rest of the room...well, it is almost a certainty that the choice and actions to do so WILL be received, and responded to, by those excluded, in one of these ways: 1)the speakers don't care that noone else understands; 2)the language was intentionally chosen to exclude the participation of the less-knowledgeable; 3)input from the less-knowledgeable is considered irrelevant and unwelcome.

At professional conventions, where language and expertise are on parity, this works. But IF you are going to run a successful client-service, client-based company, that is going to mark it's progress in clientele recruitment, and is going to market itself to a diversity of backgrounds, as Linden Lab has CLEARLY chosen...well, your primary responsibility must be sustaining the satisfaction of the clientele both in product quality AND customer relations/satisfaction...and your (self-imposed) chosen language is not "programmer", but "DIVERSITY."

So, yes, your point is well taken about needing whoever is doing the communicating to be intimately knowledgeable about the platform. However, I view the greater imperitive to be, for any company, then need for the PR/talking heads of the company to be intimately knowledgeable about the composition and needs of the clientele. And finally, that any static definition is largely useless over time...at the moment, THIS is the greatest problem LL has...they have not evolved as they have driven their customer base to evolve. Also, the push toward increasing automation of customer-originating product complaints should NEVER be timed to coincide with overcoming major obstacles in customer relations...immediate receipt of a machine-generated acknowledgement is not going to alleviate client's concerns about their inability to obtain customer service. Again, the original gripe was lack of human contact...automated CR does nothing to fix this, and will again engender and reinforce the perception that the customer's concerns are not considered worthy of human intervention

Parsimony, I'm fairly certain that you're not calling for LL to issue more "smoothing platitudes" as I called them earlier. Indeed, while a few might appreciate the latter, I feel fairly certain that the majority would consider them nothing short of insults to the customer base.

I hold that view from experience in a couple of gaming worlds, in which the Customer Relations people were supremely expert at issuing very polite, slick, and prompt responses to queries and complaints ... all of which said effectively nothing at all.

It was insulting to everyone except the fanboys, who of course saw only perfection in every corporate utterence. For everyone else with an minimally analytic mind, it was clear that CR had been tasked with keeping people happy by making them appear to be in the feedback loop. **APPEAR**, only.

So, I'm assuming that you don't mean that kind of CR communication at all. But what then do you mean?

If an issue is a global and technical one, like lag, then the only meaningful comments LL can make about it to non-technical people are of the form "We are working on XXX to reduce lag", where XXX is some work area label that the non-technical people won't understand anyway. How many times can LL tell you that same thing without you getting frustrated, as in my example of CR in my old gaming worlds?

The problem isn't LL's. The problem is that the issue (lag) is a technical one, and no communication about it can ever be non-technical and still meaningful. Ungenerously but accurately, the problem belongs to the non-technical person in question, because she seeks feedback on an area which isn't in her competence to understand. Unless of course she is happy with platitudes ...

I think there's a fundamental problem of domain mismatch here.

While throwing more money at CR to keep the masses placated is certainly a very accepted approach in the industry, using that same money to make the infrastructure more robust would have the same effect, and I know which I would prefer.

Morg.

That continues to sound like customer-elitism, and of a sort that I believe nearly everyone personally resents, and the sort of observation that just serves to further widen the chasm between the two groups...in the dark recesses of time-freeze where resistence to progress is still securely ensconced. This is precisely what is the problem...Domain Mismatch is not even currently-acceptable, or even understandable, common English, though one can find it in a dictionary of terms, certainly. Based upon my previous work with databases, in collaboration with programmers who understood the value of fully-empowered TWO way conversation, Domain Mismatch = Can't put square pegs in round holes...I may be jumping to conclusions, and hope I am...but it seems to me that you are saying that anyone who is not using Second Life (your round hole...because you were here first?) as a fully-certified programmer must be a square peg, and if we don't fit round holes of the size the BBP fits, then we are completely wrong to even try to fit in here???

It is never one customer's (yes, customer) right or prerogative to presume to know what anyone else expects or requires from anything,in such a manner as to discount that point of view out of hand, as "out of domain"...that is precisely the dogma used by anti-progressive doctrines, in the face of impending change...especially when that change is neither adequately prepared for by (nor beneficial to) the entrenched traditionalist.

What IS an 'appropriate' definition of the clientele...the provider is the one that chose the clientele, and the provider is the one that recruited the domain, yes? Therefore, THEY, and not any subsector of the clientele, establish that defiinition...and when they went out in the latter half of 2006 and pushed for a large, eclectic population, with promise of NOT a dynamic programming/design platform, but a fully-ready virtual world that included such options, they rendered the CS/programmer base more-obsolete/less-relevant, not us.

When you put forth your user agreement as a "Terms of Service" you are implicitly and succinctly acknowledging that you ARE providing a service, not a platform (either software or hardware)...platform get EULA's right? Therefore, you are what you eat, so to speak, and Linden chose to make us, the client base, their currency, not us...I don't care what my current or future level of expertise is...if a company is prepared to offer themselves up as a "service", then service IS what they are compelled to provide, and not just to a chosen few, but to all.

Also, in a dynamic, evolving, successful corporation/company, it will never be a question of throwing sufficient amounts of a company's money in one direction versus the other. IF they are not able to fund and staff both full-bore development AND full-bore customer-friendly CR, then the reality is not that the domain is wrong, but that the company is understaffed and underfunded! More tragically, as Danny Miller seemed to suggest, they quite possibly have allowed an environment to enrich wherein development is allowed to run amok, following the Pioneering vector, to unfortunate the exclusion of sound fiscal and resource management.

My impression, perhaps in error, is that the terms of service only govern illegal/harmful use of the software. Once the code became open-source, Linden diminishes its ability to define the software as their product, though it did start that way...so, again, evolution without adaptation...which is completely impossible if you buy into either one or the other.

Come on Parsimony, you can do better than that.

In another thread, you accused someone of moving discussions out of the sphere of reason by employing irrefutable assassination. And now you're brandishing the label "elitism" to do almost the same thing. Let's bring it back to the realm of reason.

If an issue is technical, and that area of technology is outside of one's expertise, then any explanation involving it will be at least partly unintelligible.

Even though I am a scientist/engineer, science and engineering is a *collosal* area, and 99% of it is completely beyond my understanding. Should I go around shouting "Elitists!!!" at all those experts whose fields I don't understand? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. The fault is mine, if I try to understand their fields without the knowledge and terminology that underpins them.

And it should be said that the opposite holds true as well. 99% of those scientist/engineers wouldn't understand my area fully either if they dived in at the deep end. It's nicely balanced. Indeed, it would be sheer coincidence if I understood your own professional area. Why do you think then that you should be able to automatically comprehend LL's technical issues, just through effective rewording?

So, I am at a total loss why you think that non-techs are somehow being disadvantaged here. In a world where any given individual can comprehend only a miniscule fraction of the current areas of extertise, lack of understanding is the norm.

Of course it is possible to strip away unnecessary facts to make explanations more approachable, and that's done all the time in explanations involving technology. But explanations that are dumbed right down to exclude any technical concepts are by definition no longer explaining them, and you end up with empty platitudes.

Is that what you really want?

Morg.

The domain is chosen by the topic of discourse.

If the issue is lag, then the domain of discourse includes networking, rendering, sim loading, architecture scalability, scripting ... actually, pretty much every aspect of SL technology affects lag, and indeed even many aspects of your own machinery have an impact on it.

Morg.