A Smarter Look At SecondLife?

Everyone has been up in arms about numbers related to SecondLife - most notably Clay Shirky, who in my opinion hasn't brought anything new to the mindshare than more readers and buzz because 'Clay Shirky said...'. And that, of course, brought all the amateur statisticians and standard deviants out of the woodwork, because everyone has something to say when they have nothing to risk.

Yesterday, I read 'A Second Look At SecondLife' which carries quite a few good points in it. Some notable quotes:

...I've never been one who felt that arguments about cultural change could be reduced to counting things.

I certainly agree that we should be concerned if the press's interest in Second Life is fueled by inflated numbers but I also recognize that these numbers give only a partial indication of the level and kinds of investments people make in these worlds, that Second Life may have cultural importance even for people who have never been there because it embodies a particular model of civic participation and cultural production...

...If nothing else, the ability to scan through text quickly gives it an efficiency that will not be replaced by more "technically advanced" solutions which are more time consuming to produce and to consume. I am pretty sure that the value of the web/net lies in asynchronous communications and that real time interactions -- whether we are talking 3d or skype -- will always represent a special class of uses which competes not with the web but with other teleconferencing technologies. Most of us will find uses for virtual worlds one of these days; most of us will not "live" there nor will we conduct most of our business there...

...I respect what Shirky is doing here in questioning the numbers. I just want to push us to ask deeper questions about the criteria we use to measure the value of Second Life.

As I wrote last time, "Second Life isn't interesting to me because of how many people go there; it's interesting because of what they do when they get there."

A very thoughtful article, and while I may not agree completely with parts of it (unsurprising), I do recommend 'A Second Look At SecondLife' for reading not just because of the article - but the comments.

I suppose some people find value by counting their fingers - something which I have never comprehended - but I've always found value to be an elusive quality which is rarely seen in large numbers - perhaps because of things which are explained in statistics, or perhaps each of us perceives value within a certain spectrum. Why is it that I can look at a car and like it, and another person not? And why does it matter how many people like one or the other.

The answer, of course, is related to marketing. Some people - perhaps a large number- will participate in something because others perceive value in it. Some will participate because they find value in it. Marketers fall largely into the first category; marketing is about perception and sometimes creating need where none exists, which would mean creating the illusion of value to create value.

Suddenly we're back where we're started with numbers. But those numbers are about creating need where none exist, which create the illusion of positive or negative value to create positive or negative value.

It just depends on when you want to step off the rollercoaster. The trouble is when you try to get off before it stops.