Second Life, SL, Linden, LindeX, SLurl, and Linden Lab are all trademarks of Linden Research, Inc.
Ratings and SLander
Recently Alanna Dion wrote on her blog about one of the burgeoning number of third-party websites offering the chance to “rate” fellow citizens of Second Life. Ratings as native to the SL system have been marked for death by Linden Labs as being too much of a system drain.
The end result is that a plethora of systems have sprung up using a plethora of business models, some more ethical than others.
Her story revolved around one particular site, Shawn Altman’s Real (ha!) Reputations, where it is free to comment on someone (automagically adding them to the system, please note); but, if you wish to respond, opt out, or delete slanderous comments, you have to pay.
She thinks -– especially after the conversation she posted with the dismissive Mr Altman -– that it stinks of extortion racket. So do I.
And what happens to the poor sods that cannot afford to pay? Well, they could indulge in tit-for-tat commentary. But the fact of the matter is that Mr Altman’s protestations about neutrality and what Real Reputations should be used for are going to be a far cry from what RR and all other ratings systems are and will be used for.
Linden Labs’ ratings system resulted in people “gaming” the system with alts to bloat their ratings. There were “rating parties” where people gathered and swapped L$25 between them as they boosted ratings to ludicrous levels. Malicious users would cheerfully slap their current enemy with negative ratings and think it Lindens well spent. Methinks Mr Altman is far too trusting in the milk of human kindness and rationality!
There may be a plethora of systems, but eventually the well-designed ones will survive where the rest are destroyed by griefers (Profky Neva please note), collapse under the flaws of their systems, or be exposed as scams.
Actually, let’s consider the model for a ratings site. First, you need to remember that the most likely first users will be the egomaniacs, the kooks, the toadies and the vengeful.
Rule #1: If they’re not subscribed, you can’t rate them.
Rule #2: You have to subscribe in order to rate people.
Corollary: If you’re gonna dish it out, you have to take it.
All of which is screaming common sense! Here’s another: The system keeps statistics on how many times you rate, how you rate etc. and identifies you accordingly. That way, anyone on the receiving end has a pretty good idea of just how valuable your vote is; being labelled a Toady, Suck-Up, Bully or Slut will hopefully act as a curb on potential abusers. I’ve even got perfect names for the system: Pecking Order, SLander (duh), Slaps & Bennies, Bouquets & Brickbats, or a raft of other possibilities. But setting up a system with a cute name is not the problem.
The problem, of course, is not so much making money off the human need for a pecking order, but the fact that people are happy to accept the relatively low-value ratings figures and other people’s opinions in lieu of their own perceptions. And, as Benjamin Disraeli famously declared, “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.”
Posted in Second Life (News,Op-Ed) by Martien Pontecorvo 18/04/07 10:41 AM Tags: human nature, ratings, second life
Comment
Last: | Next: Avatars Having Nightmares about Electric Sheep
