There was a topic that came up in today's Metaversed meeting: separation of sub-worlds. Many people disagreed with the idea but I think it deserves consideration. Allow me to explain my view of such a separation.
Take a look at the global map. Zoom out until you can see the whole of it. What do you see? Practically nothing. A few blobs that are the continents and then a galaxy of dots. How is especially a newcomer supposed to make anything out of that? Where do you go? Where are you? Where do you find the things that you're interested in? You hear from word of mouth, you explore at random, going to whatever sim has more green dots. But let's say that you're not even a newbie anymore and you have heard so much about universities coming into SL and you want to explore that. How do you search for those sims? We could (and should) eventually improve search let's say by use of tagging. Good point, Lem Skall, but what use is then the global map and why not make it work for us? How about grouping sims that are strongly related into separate maps? After all, we do such grouping for files on our computers by using folders and directories. If only there were a planet Education, then I would know where to look for university sims. And there could be a planet Corporate, a planet Live Entertainment, even a planet Anshe Chung.
Besides, I know those corporate types would like to be away from the silly stuff like furries and red light districts. And live entertainment venues would like to be protected from inventive griefers and from enjoyable billboards of Naughty Knickers (yes, I actually saw that at a show I attended recently). Beats me why, because some of my best friends are furries, I think red light districts are exciting, and I even enjoy the occasional ads for knickers, can't say much for griefers though. And we would certainly hate to see corporations and live venues going away from our residential planets, we like having big buildings and big crowds next to our plots.
Sarcasm off now. Realistically speaking, the separation of sims is here already. More separation is inevitable. Corporations build on their own islands and not on the mainland. Educational institutions do that too and many of them are already grouped in a certain zone on the map. Once the server software will become open source, corporations and educational institutions will run their own servers and they will also want to organize themselves, with their own rules and their own governance system. For instance, identity verification, ban lists and security in general will be more stringent in corporate sims than in residential ones. It will probably be more efficient to implement security policies as a group with common ban lists (or trust ratings maybe) and a common identity verification protocol (like OpenID). Even common residents will want to organize themselves in groups, just see what the Metaverse Republic is trying to do. I am not saying that sims should be forced to join one group or another, but they should be given the choice to do so, assuming that the other members of the sims group will accept them.
Grouping of sims can also be implemented with just logical separation (tags for instance) and without physical separation on the map. It will happen one way or another. But let's use the map as a tool for this separation and let's break it down and re-structure it. What's in it for us, commoners? It will help not only sim owners to organize themselves, it will also help all the SL users. We will find places more easily. It will also be easier psychologically to expect certain rules to apply when entering different sub-worlds. I will know that my weapons will be disabled and that I may not be able to do much without an identity verification when I enter planet Corporate (and I may choose to just stay out). It will be also easier to be careful not to enter planet Red Light District when I am in my corporate avatar. Okay, sarcasm was back on in that last statement.
I wasn't even the one who asked the question about separation during today's meeting and I am sure that some people will agree with me. However, the balance seemed to be tipping towards those who disagreed in the meeting. I personally hope I was able to make the idea at least more acceptable.
Disclaimer: I am not an employee of IBM, never was an employee of IBM, and even if I will ever be an employee of IBM, the opinions expressed in this article are my own and in no way do they reflect the opinions of IBM.
This actually relates obliquely to my blog article today at http://slbizreview.com/2007/07/31/25-groups-limiting-social-integration.... where I propose that groups have more to do with the "social geography" of SL than sims do.
I agree that tagging would be a good option for search, in a big way! Right now we have such limited space to describe...anything. Text is cheap, and tagging and grouping enrich our landscape, so to speak!
Shava, I agree that your blog article (very interesting, btw!) is related. There has been a lot of talk about improving search in SL and yet most people relate that only to search tools based on words in names and descriptions. But taxonomy has the same end purpose and it is badly neglected in SL. My article addresses the taxonomy of the geographical map, your article addresses the taxonomy of the "social map".
Tagging is just as susceptible to abuse as any other kind of search, so it wouldn't come spam free, but i'd be all for it as well. Im not inclined to let LL or anyone else classify what my business/island is about and group it with others physically, but it would sure be nice to be able to find all the islands tagged as 'edu' for example..
Very good post Lem, thanks for doing this. This wasn't what i got at the meeting today at all :)
Ah, the old zoning issue... Linden Lab never wanted to implement it (ie. commercial areas, residential areas, leisure areas), so I guess it'll be up to us residents to do that and put some order in the chaos of SL urban planning!
Lem, I'm always amazed how people imagine -- falsely -- that SEARCH is "broken" -- which means it doesn't work for *them* I guess.
SEARCH is not broken. It works fine. If you type key words into it, you indeed get a very good start on finding what you are looking for. You can't really fuss too much about certain lots being in the first few places with SEX LINDENS MONEY BALLS etc in them -- too bad, it's no different than Google. Keep refining the words, and looking, click on stuff and explore.
In "real life on the Internet," so to speak, obviously people click and explore instantly and freely. When they get to SL and need to do that same thing, only now with their avatar as the exploring browser, they often get scared or freeze up or wonder if it's "ok to go there". And...they often do find red lines banning them.
Let's say you type in "university". Lots of universities in fact do keep group-only lands or aren't so open -- but then, hey, the educators need to use old-fashioned Internet techniques and make hubs or portals so that people can find them. It's a social world; people have to work at being found just as much as tekkies need to work at making a robust search.
I simply reject the idea that people can't find things with the existing search -- I have a whole infohub I developed with this in mind.
I would tend to agree with Nick that tagging is fraught even more with abuse and in the pond of SL, is all about lists of favourites that is very skewed.
The telehubs were in fact the best, most democratic, most open system to help people find things at least in the world of shopping.
Seriously, type in words to PLACES and GROUPS and CLASSIFIEDS for anything you like, and keep an open mind and click through it as you would on the Internet.
I don't understand the context of this subworlds, but it simply sounds like what it is: more country clubs, more filtration.
I think your from IBM..
Prok, you got me there. A search on the word University is not so bad after all. And you got me because it is what I used as my example for need of better search. But even the search for University has its problems. There are 92 results already, there will probably soon be a lot more of them and not that many of them will be real universities. And when MIT comes in they better use the word University in their description. But then what about searching for Corporate? Or what other words should I use?
Search by words works well for web pages with text. It does not work as well when the only text to be searched is the title and a short description that refer to something as complex as a sim. And by the way, the short description becomes the actual tags that we are talking about (and that is why the search for University works somehow). A well defined set of tags would help though at least in defining a commonly accepted classification.
And yet that is still not my main point, which is to use subworlds and maps as a physical taxonomy. Only as an analogy, some people need visual orientation, other people need verbal orientation. So some people need maps and others need verbal directions. We do not use only one of those systems, instead we offer both and they can be used based on personal preferences. In SL, we already have a global map in addition to (the ineffective) search but the map has become useless because it is chaotic and unwieldy. It is a taxonomy that has been neglected and that has great potential. Let's make it work.
A physical (as opposed to a logical) taxonomy of SL would also be in line with what Gwyn calls zoning. The two are somewhat independent and have different motivations (one is search, the other one is governance) but they can be made to work together. And zoning is inevitable, whether we like it or not. It is happening already. We are wary of having our world divided, but let's face it, it will happen, it will even have to happen, and we might as well start to talk about it and start to plan for it.
Robbert, you talking to me? You talking to ME? What kind of man uses a name like Daffodil?
Nah, lol, I guess you were talking to Prok.
Lem, gosh, Google is that way too, turning up sometimes MILLIONS of items which only relate to your search by a percentage value. I never hear you complain about that!
I've written a great deal on search, which is of course how SL will be pwned just as Google pwns stuff and why it is the subject of such fierce business -- and ideological -- struggle. Example:
http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2007/01/how_the_linden...
For example, some people might like to say that the more-or-less-working and democratic SEARCH is broken so that they can take control of it and have it reflect and deliver the world *their* way, which is something like a cross between an NPR radio broadcast on global warming and a Young People's Socialist League summer camp picnic, I guess -- all kinds of earnest, helpful types only doing useful educational sorts of things and planning things thoughtfully by bureaucratic central committee. Other people want to grab it and have it turn up their sex/casino/island villa offerings first so they can engage in slash-and-burn anarcho-capitalism that would make Snowcrash blush. But it has to serve all kinds of interests.
Subwords and maps will inevitably be a framework set up ideologically, and locking in certain kinds of paths to content. Obviously the YPSL will make sure that sex/casinos/evil capitalist McMansions are not sub-groupings; the Snowcrashers will make sure that silly tree-hugging recycling projects and feminist book clubs are put somewhere in a category called "Other". And that's why I have to point out that it is very political, and will be politically contested, and to claim that it is a value-neutral concept as merely a tekkie-designed structure is misleading.
When Meta Linden gets to making these sub-groups and their tags -- or whomever they assign to such a search -- it will end up looking like the Birkenstock-wearing NPR stuff that Daniel Linden frankly admits is the LL agenda.
It's like this overweening desire to paw at and control "Events". I've been through three years of battles over that, with some people like FlipperPA Peregrine trying to shut off all the *ingos and yard sales, as they represents sectors of the economy SLBoutique.com and other large inworld corporations can't control to their satisfaction -- and also represent mass taste that they find distasteful. What most people mean when they say they hate SEARCH is that they hate that it helps masses of people turn up things in mass taste they don't like, making it harder to find their less-desired high-brow content.
I wouldn't ever want to allow Gwyneth Llewelyn, lately of Neualtenberg and Neufreistadt, governance projects with decided political agendas inword and out -- or any SL political figure -- to be allowed to shape a list of search sub-heads.
No, the world isn't being divided, except in your mind, because of your powerful distaste for things you find either unacceptably politically incorrect or in mass taste. SEARCH is the democratic fiber that reaches across all the frontiers of Second Life and preserves the tissue of the one world, in a sense, despite many fleeing to islands and making private enclaves.
Again, the solution is for those interested in certain kinds of content -- say, promoting non-profit educational groups and universities -- to build up their vectors and create portals and easier-to-use information terminals (the ones at Info Island are terribly non-user-friendly). Rather than seeking to claw at and control everybody else's content you don't like and globalize the controls over it, work to build up the content you do like, and compete in the free marketplace.
http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2007/01/how_the_linden...
Prok, plenty of people complain about Google too and their search does need improvement. And that is why some people talk about the semantic web, for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_web.
Nobody said that tags or any type of classification or division would be centrally controlled or undemocratic. Tags are used democratically on so many systems, they are used even here on metaversed.com itself and I created the two tags that are assigned to this blog entry. A democratic system can and should be used for both the creation and the management of any classification on one hand and the use of that classsification on the other hand.
And I will argue that it is actually totalitarian to impose that everyone be part of the global collective instead of allowing groups to separate themselves from the collective and to create their own governance. As for myself, you may be confusing me with someone else, I haven't seen yet anything in SL that I thought of as politically incorrect or of unacceptable mass taste, with the exception that I too don't like a Kong on the water next to MY beach. I recognize however the fact that corporations and educational institutions are already creating a division of the world and that they will only push more in that direction, especially once the servers will be open. And I also recognize that there is a similar demand from the Neufreistadt's and the Metaverse Republics, even if I am not a member of either. And I for one think they have a right to do so.
I think the jury is still out on whether tags are democratic or whether they represent the faux democracy of mob rule. When I roll up to a site on the Internet and see one of those ridiculous tag clouds that look like this: ANIME all in big gigantic caps because it's popular with certain males with the time on their hands to push it up on the tag cloud; DATING or LOVE because it's popular with certain women with time on their hands to push it up, etc. -- I realize that it's hopeless. Tag clouds, like Wikipedia and Google itself, make pronounced views of some words which merely leads the mob to salivate and click on them like rats grabbing at shiny things. There's nothing really thoughtful or really genuinely reflected.
I don't know the latest theory on tags, whether taggers believe they are counteracting the Google effect by tags which they believe to be a folksonomy, or what they think is happening. I find myself simply not using tags because they are a cloud of unknowing.
Of course groups have to separate and create their own governance. But they don't get to inflict their sectarian will on the global -- and that's what is happening by sub groups. Somebody commandeering the sub-groups in the name of autonomous republics merely makes a Balkanization occur that can impede freedom of movement and the free flow of information, and their bid for freedom becomes and hobble of others. Surely these two opposing needs for the global and the local can be balanced.
So far, for example, when I look at Mahalo, for example, which I think was designed to try to respond to search-engine optimization skewing and Googlization, with a kind of horror, too, because all the sub-categories and "experts' pages" are all horribly sectarian and politically correct, respresenting the collective wisdom of geeks in Silicon value and their viewspoints and values.
I'm really puzzled, if you don't want Kong in the water on YOUR beach, what your point is -- whether you are merely abstractly continuing to root for the old Second Life "I get to do WTF I want on my land" ethos, while conceding you personally don't want it -- or what you are up to.
What am I up to? I guess that, partly out of ego and liking to hear myself talk and partly out of altruistic desire to do something good, I decided to propose an idea about something that I see as broken in SL.
Lem, you've been tagged ;)
--
"I'm not building a game. I'm building a new country."
-- Philip "Linden" Rosedale, interview to Wired, 2004-05-08