Tag: Communications and LL

SL9B and mixed messages

Posted on by Inara Pey

It’s now a week since Linden Lab gave, somewhat abruptly, the news that they’ll (for this year at least) not be involved in organising SLB celebrations, and reactions continue to rumble on. I say “this year at least”, because the negative response to the announcement on the official forums was enough to draw official comment from the Lab, which began:

Having seen the feedback in this thread and elsewhere about the plan for SL9B celebrations, we wanted to elaborate a bit about why we’ve decided to focus on promoting numerous events hosted by the community this year, rather than hosting a centralized celebration as we have in the past. [My emphasis.]

While it is likely that LL won’t reverse the decision with the passage of time, that they have qualified it is reason enough for me to extend the same courtesy.

Opinions are fairly split on the approach. Tateru and Hamlet Au appear broadly supportive of the issue – although Tateru does admit to having something of a centralised clearing-house of four sims to provide an anchor for celebrations across the grid when organising SL3B. Others remain convinced that in not having a central point for builds and at least some events rather does take the shine off of things. Crap Mariner has analysed the state of play on the Grid as a whole, and come up with an approach that, while not without one or two issues, has much merit.

For my part, I still remain of the opinion that the lack of some in-world focal-point, supported by Linden Lab in terms of region provisioning, is to be lamented. Again, it doesn’t have to be a bucketful of sims lagged-out from here to kingdom-come (although I didn’t find lag at SL8B to be anywhere near the nightmare of SL7B).

More to the point, there is the way in which the announcement has been handled – something that Gianna Borgnine raised during last week’s Metareality podcast. However the announcement is enthusiastically dressed-up by Linden Lab, it still comes down to it being a further step in their withdrawal from active participation within Second Life more than it is about “giving back” or “returning” anything to the community as a whole.

If I’m completely honest, in this regard, the blog post shouldn’t really have been a surprise at all; over the last twelve months we’ve seen Linden Lab gradually withdrawing from active involvement in Second Life as they seek to shift their operating paradigm away from being the provider of a virtual world to the supplier of a platform and a richly diverse box of tools. Truth be told even further, there’s actually nothing wrong with the approach, providing it is done consistently and openly. There is nothing wrong with the company stepping back in this way, cries of the “gamification” of SL notwithstanding (anyway, since when has the provisioning of tools many in the community have been demanding for years become a matter of “gamification”?).

The problem is, as Gianna laments in the Metareality podcast, in the matter of mixed messages that LL seem to be sending out at every turn. Let’s face it; back at the beginning of March, Rod Humble was blogging:

I will be kicking off another monthly roundtable (probably Monday) to chat about getting that family/frontier feel back with an eye to some area-like project, although some of the early ideas (like you get to pick a prefixed last name after you are a resident for say six months) can also be chatted about. [My emphasis]

OK – so granted there is something of a caveat there (“with an eye to some area-like project”), but the fact remains that a huge part and parcel of the “family/frontier” feel to Second Life was the sense that Lab or user, we were all sharing in the adventure.

Yet here we are, barely a month on, and the Lab is pretty much saying, “OK, guys. You’re on your own.” However you look at it, the two messages simply don’t chime together very well; particularly given the SLB announcement comes at the 11th hour in terms of the community mobilising itself and organising anything of any decently scaled event suitable to mark the event before June hits us (and sorry, I don’t count “birthday parties” held in clubs across the grid as being “decent scaled” events).

Again, I have no problem with LL pulling out of direct involvement in the organisation of SLB – it would just be nice if they a) were open about their aims for managing the platform and the kind of relationship they wish to have with the community, and b) actually took steps to make announcements like this in sufficient time for the community as a whole to respond and fill the void.

Here, as a slight aside, is where Crap’s observations on LEA have merit to a degree. The LEA is arguably here for the benefit of the community as a whole, and it has a large cache of regions; so if any single organisation is in a position to step forward and provide at least the space for some form of in-world focal point for celebrations, they are something of a logical choice. Of course, that they have the land doesn’t automatically mean that it is there for the taking – many LEA activities are planned months in advance and regions are heavily booked. But – had LL given sufficient lead-time as to their decision to say “not this year, folks”, then something most likely could have been done.

And is it yet too late, as Crap asks, for the LEA not to step in and say that for some of their regions (again four or six should do), they will be pushing back the calendar in order to make an emergency provision for SL9B?

But, to come back to the focus: in the Metareality podcast mention is made of the LL / user relationship being somewhat spousal in nature, and while the notion is a little pooh-poohed in the broadcast, the fact is that this is pretty much – rightly or wrongly – how the relationship has been perceived by many in the user community (I’ve made mention of it myself in the past). While it may in some ways seem a conceit on our (the users’) part to consider it so (LL is, and always has been in the business of making money first and foremost, rather than being a “partner”) – the fact of the matter is that the company itself promoted this “partnership” idea for years; so we can actually be hardly blamed for toeing (or is that Tao-ing?) the corporate line. As such, if the honeymoon is over (if you’ll pardon the pun), it would be nice for the Lab to come out and say so cleanly and clearly.

As to SL9B itself, it’s fair to say that as noted, the announcement has stirred up commentary on SL and LL covering both sides of the coin. How things turn out in a little under two months’ time remains to be seen. But given the lateness of the hour at which the renouncement of LL’s involvement in any capacity other than advertising was made, I still can’t help but feel that this year the theme may well turn out to be more one of “if only” than anything else.

My thanks to Tateru for pointing out my little faux-pas in missing a couple of words at the start :). 

LL: reaching out creatively

Posted on by Inara Pey

Back in the mists of time, I wrote several pieces centred on Linden Lab, one of which in particular, Business, Collaboration and Creative Growth, focused on the Lab’s relationship with the pool of talent it has at its fingertips: the user base.

In that piece, I bullet-pointed a number of ways in which engagement with the community could directly help market and promote Second Life as a whole, noting in closing:

“In short, Linden Lab needs to start collaborating with the user community once more and thinking more holistically about their product. Doing so isn’t going to solve all of SL’s woes (would it were that easy); but it will represent a major step in the right direction.”

Well, it appears that at least some of the holistic thinking is taking hold at the Lab, as the SL website log-in / splash page has been quietly undergoing an overhaul of late.

For a good while, the screen comprised a series of images that fell somewhat short of enticing – if not outright ugly. Perhaps the most famous of these was the “vampire in a snowstorm” image.

Camp-ire: the vampire-in-a-snowstorm log-in page image

Several commentators took LL to task over the images selection – which could at the time best be described as “vapid” – and earlier this year things started improving, with crisper images of avatars appearing, together with picture credits.

Now LL have gone the extra mile and not only engaged with some of best photographers and artists in SL to produce some really outstanding images for the log-in screen, they would appear to have started working on a theme-based approach to advertising SL through the splash page – the current theme being music. I caught sight of the new pages while browsing Strawberry Singh’s blog, but got sidetracked away from the new art by things like Havok sub-licencing and Marketplace updates, which became the focus of recent blog posts.

Strawberry is one of a number of SL artists who were asked by LL to produce music-themed images a few weeks ago, the other being Harlow Heslop, Miaa Rebane, siXX Yangtz and Harper Beresford, and Ivoni Miles. The results are simply spectacular.

Strawberry Singh’s SL log-in page artwork, featuring herself and Prad Prathivi

All of the images capture the heart of music entertainment in SL in all its diverse forms, with Strawberry’s in particular hinting at more – friendship and relationships. This is a fresh move from Linden Lab in combining user-generated images on a thematic basis to help promote SL and it is one to be applauded – and one I hope we’ll see more of – for how better to capture the rich diversity of Second Life other than by working with those intimately involved with it?

With efforts like this, it would be nice to see some kind of Destination Guide tie-in as well: perhaps with a special sub-category of “What’s Hot” appearing on the log-in screen carrying information on locations directly related to the image theme: in this case, a list of the currently hot live music venues in SL.

Harlow Heslop’s evocative image

After all, if music is being used to promote SL – then it makes sense for LL to provide the follow-through and help those drawn to SL as a result of the theme to actually  connect with the in-world music scene – or whatever the chosen promotional theme is.

Of course, this isn’t the first time LL have sought to work with members of the community, and it would be unfair to cast it as such. But given the way in which LL has been perceived to be retreating from direct engagement with the community over the last few years – a perception they have contributed in no small part themselves – this move is to be commended. Hopefully, it’ll be the first step along the way to the Lab working more directly with members of the user community to better promote SL and reach out to potential users. Certainly, there are many powerful tools that can be used in this regard – such as machinima, something I’ve again discussed elsewhere – and the talent to leverage those tools is rich within SL itself. I’ve little doubt that were this talent to be harnessed, the results would be beyond anything LL have themselves been able to produce using this incredible medium.

In the meantime, credit and thanks must go to Strawberry, Harlow and the other contributors to the artwork for their time and effort. So why not take a look at their work for yourself? (Remember you’ll have to log-out of the SL website in order to display the log-in / splash page and see the images.)

With thanks to Strawberry Singh.

Marketplace listing errors: LL needs to speak up

Posted on by Inara Pey

Update April 1st: LL issue revised DD migration deadline and updates on JIRAs related to Marketplace issues. 

For the last several days, there has been a serious issue with the SL Marketplace. I’ve reported, with updates, on the matter – as have others. The problem, which as I’ve noted in my original blog post, includes:

  • Listings on Marketplace stores do not match the actual items
  • Incorrect merchant attribution (products from Merchant X listed as belonging to Merchant Y, despite appearing in Merchant X’s store)
  • Products from one merchant appearing in stores belonging to other merchants
  • Items incorrectly priced
  • Incorrect ratings assigned to products (G-rated items appearing as Adult, etc.).

Note that a full list of JIRA on Marketplace issues is also available via Sera Lok and Sassy Romano.

Advice and feedback from the Lab on the issue has been sporadic at best. On the plus side, we have had a welcome apology for errors in the support team relating to the issue. However, feedback within the forum thread on the issues has otherwise been restricted to an attempt to provide advice on the issue which unfortunately, it doesn’t appear to work. Elsewhere, feedback has been restricted to a brief Grid Status page remark.

And therein lies a problem: many are completely unaware that there is an issue. As a result, we’re starting to see:

  •  Rising levels of accusations of “theft” among merchants as they come across what appears to be their own goods being listed by others
  • Well-intentioned customers raising concerns of product theft with merchants when they see incorrectly listed items
  • Growing concerns and confusion being voice through various product support groups in-world.

Linden Lab are somewhat caught between a rock and a hard place here. They are obviously trying to resolve the situation as quickly as possible, and in a manner that won’t in itself lead to further issues and problems: hence why calls to suspend the Marketplace appear to have gone unanswered. We simply do not know the extent of the issue and it would appear that there are at least as many merchants unaffected by the problem (such as myself) as there are merchants impacted by it. Therefore, it is entirely possible that were LL to suspend the Marketplace, the resultant uproar might be even greater than the upset the issue itself is causing.

However, LL do need to be more proactive in communicating the issue – not all merchants routinely read the Merchant’s forum and not everyone reads the Grid Status pages (unless there is something very noticeable “going wrong” in-world, such as teleports failing, rezzing issues, etc). Hence why the levels of misunderstanding are growing.

If the issue cannot be easily resolved – and this would appear to be the case, then more direct communication on the matter  – via e-mail, through all available channels such as the Land and Business blog, etc., would appear to be of an increasing necessity. The e-mail / blog post doesn’t need to delve into specifics but should at least outline the problem and indicate that the Lab is actively seeking to resolve the issue. Doing so would ensure merchants are informed, and potentially go a long way to stemming accusations of “theft” and / or fear of “copybotting”.

On a broader front, being seen to provide information would also help stem the rising tide of anger being directed at the Lab over this issue. Alongside the calls to suspend the Marketplace have also been calls to roll back the Marketplace database to a prior to this problem arising. There are more than likely practical reasons as to why this cannot be done; however, by not acknowledging such calls and at least outlining why a roll back cannot be done – or why there needs to be further investigation prior to committing to a roll-back if it turns out the idea is feasible – would again so much to lessen the resentment that  customers are feeling towards the Lab at this point in time.

It is again in situations like this where Linden Lab do themselves no favours, something I’ve recently touched upon. There are times when silence simply doesn’t work – yet all too frequently, silence is the main tool the Lab uses in dealing with a situation. It’s also an approach that reinforces the negative attitude many people feel towards the Lab, justified or otherwise.

Linden Lab has channels of communication open to it – and where e-mail is concerned, it’s not as if they’ve not used that channel to reach out to merchants in the past. Given the fact that even now, three days after the initial problem was first noticed, some people are still only just finding out about the problem – and in some cases leaping to the wrong conclusion – an advisory posted to the blog and / or e-mailed to merchants would seem to be a practical step to take, particularly as we are now facing the weekend with absolutely no indication as to whether the matter will be resolved sooner rather than later.

Related Links

Communications: It isn’t always the Lab

Posted on by Inara Pey

I’ve been somewhat critical towards Linden Lab were their overall approach to communications is concerned – although I’ve tried to temper my critiques with practical suggestions as to how things might be improved. I also hope that I’m not backward in coming forward to acknowledge those times when they do go out of their way to make the effort – such as with Oz standing front-and-centre regarding the recent TPV Policy changes.

However, when it comes to communications and impressions, the Lab is only one side of the coin. Whether we like it or not, we, as users can be as much to blame for the poor state of communications; we are quick and loud to anger when the Lab errs – or more particularly – is perceived to have erred, and we are equally slow to forgive.

I give emphasis to the concept of perception deliberately here. While there are times when taking the Lab to task may be justified, equally there are times when it is automatically assumed that whatever has happened, the Lab has acted with malice aforethought in a deliberate attempt to nefariously ruin the Second Life experience. Often in these circumstances, even the presentation of the most reasoned argument to the contrary will not prevent such views being publicly repeated to the point where the act of repetition itself establishes them as “fact”.

This was recently brought home to me once again by three inter-related incidents relating to a single code change that impacted a very specific use-case for RLV.  In all three, which included a wider exchange I had with someone in Tateru’s blog wherein the claim was again made that LL is a malicious entity, people were insistent that the code change was nothing less that “obvious” proof that LL were attempting to deliberately “break” RLV – and any evidence to the contrary was summarily dismissed.

It mattered not that the code change in question was a) limited in impact (one specific use of RLV restricted to two RC channels on the main grid); b) rolled back by Linden Lab at the earliest opportunity following a JIRA being raised; and that c) even if the underpinning issue itself couldn’t be fixed by LL, Marine Kelley (RLV’s creator) reported that it could be circumvented from within RLV. So the issue as a whole was hardly going to “break” RLV; nevertheless, people had made up their minds, and no discussion to the contrary would be heard  – even after the code change itself had been rolled back.

It’s a similar story with the mesh parametric deformer, where rumours are circulating that LL is trying to “kill” the project simply because they do not appear to be working on it; rumours that recently prompted Oz to comment on matters. Here the assumption is that  because Qarl released an alpha version of the code in January but it has yet to appear in the official SL Viewer, then LL must be trying to stop the project. That in the intervening months Qarl himself has been soliciting feedback from the community and refining the code, and has made further releases – any of which could have been adversely impacted by LL taking the code and developing it themselves – makes little difference to those who see LL’s lack of activity on the project as being somehow malicious.

I’ve dealt with the whole “LL is malicious” nonsense in both the recent and not-so-recent past, and I’m not going to re-harsh what I’ve said on those occasions now.  While it is right and proper to be critical of LL when the company does demonstrate poor judgement, it is also fair to say that there is also an onus on many within the community to stop treating every action or comment from Linden Lab as being adversarial in nature and / or intent.

Communications run both ways. While the onus is, as I’ve commented before, very much on LL needing to take the initial steps and start focusing as a company on more open and pro-active communications directly with the user community as a whole; it is equally important that we be prepared to lay aside subjective prejudices and preconceptions and make the effort to meet them half-way. Because if we don’t, then frankly, communications in either direction are liable to remain as dysfunctional as they’ve ever been.

Why LL fail to help themselves

Posted on by Inara Pey

The leaping-off point for this blog post is Rod Humble’s announcement about his promised round table, due to commence this week, as posted on his profile feed. To whit:

Hey folks, as I mentioned to some of you over the weekend I am going to do the next roundtable stuff in private one on one’s rather than as a free for all. That makes it more low key and doesnt turn it into something which is contentious. Thanks for all the feedback.

On the one hand, the reaction might seem understandable; the response to the news that last names won’t be making a return was massively negative which was itself pretty negatively voiced. That it wouldn’t go down well is hardly  surprising given the number of people supporting the move either via blogs, blog comments, on his own profile field, the SL forums and other forums (some of which Rod Humble himself frequents) or directly on the associated JIRA.

However, the backlash shouldn’t have been unexpected. Indeed, from the preamble in Rodvik’s post on the matter, it would seem he was aware that it was going to hurt, hence delaying the actual bad news until a good way into the post itself.

But this is no reason to suddenly shut-up shop when it comes to further discussions on SL and what might or might not happen. Yet that is precisely what has happened. When I read the profile post, I was struck by two things:

  • No details as to how people might engage are present in the profile post
  • Rod indicates that he has already spoken to some people on the matter over the weekend.

While the latter could simply be as a result of Rod responding to questions people fired at him on the subject of the forthcoming discussions rather than being anything deeper or more significant – taken together, and again, given the way LL has tended to operate in the past – does raise questions as to whether a “star chamber” for the discussion has already been formed, which itself could feed feelings of exclusion – and such feelings are never a good thing to present to a former audience.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose

The decision to remove the discussion from more open participation is also a little sad, as it stands testimony to the old adage that the more things change; the more things remain the same. A lot has changed for the better within and around the Lab over the last 15 months. Looking back at a some suggestions I made last March, it’s interesting to see how some have indirectly been implemented, although not as I’d imagined a year ago, admittedly. We’ve seen improvements in many areas and attempts to get major technical issues under control and / or improved.

Unfortunately for the Lab, we’re a contrary lot. As such, we find it easy to overlook the positive (or even view it with a degree of fear and loathing) and continue to focus on the negative. As such, the removal of this discussion to some unspecified medium involving a select few is going to reinforce the negative attitude many feel towards LL.

When it comes to the matter of Last Names in particular, LL actually have no-one but themselves to blame, because the bottom line is, they bungled the issue from the moment Rod posted on the matter at the end of last year – a move that placed them in an impossible situation. In doing so, they once again fell victim to their own massively misplaced management of on-going communications with the user community as a whole.

Again this isn’t new nor surprising. God knows I’ve been hammering away (rather pointlessly it sometimes feels) on the subject of broader Lab / user communications that I sometimes think this blog reads like a scratched record.

And while it is true that repetition doesn’t necessarily make a point any more valid than the first time it was mentioned, the fact of the matter is that LL’s track record when it comes to what I call “corporate-level” communications pretty much speaks for itself. I’m also far from alone in this; others have also long been trumpeting the need for better, more focused communications from Linden Lab. In this, I’d take time out to point you to Ciaran Laval’s excellent piece on why, when it comes to the “shared experience” of Second Life (itself a source of recent controversy), it behoves LL well to actually lead the sharing itself.

So, rather than repeat myself yet again, I’ll attempt to put it in a forthright nutshell: Rod, Lab, get a bloody grip and for heaven’s sake start engaging with us through constructive, on-going communications through your own open channels. Like the blog. 

Carry the message; don’t hand the baton elsewhere or hide it up your collective jumpers through “closed door” discussions. At that does is put us in the FIC of things.

At the same time, please understand the scattergun approach doesn’t work – the last names situation should amply demonstrate that most effectively. In pumping out blog posts (with comments disabled), then shoving people off to the forums before making profile feed posts, all that again happened is that corporately, LL shot off yet another toe in falsely setting expectations.

Obviously, the flip side of this is that if LL attempt to listen to everyone, no matter how carefully they tread or in what format, they are going to end-up pissing-off someone. After all, as has been said often enough, ask 10 users for their views on X or Y and you’ll get ten different answers. Multiple that by just a few hundred impassioned users, and the chances are you’re going to take a right royal kicking from some quarter or other…

But again, this doesn’t necessitate slipping informal discussions behind closed doors. The risk of setting false expectations is one that can be handled by simply and clearly caveating such discussions with the fact that they are explorations of ideas, and that they don’t automatically equate to any promise on LL’s part to implement anything coming out of the discussions. This may not result in everyone being happy – but conversely, it could end up with more than a few happy faces and a renewed feeling of involvement if the outcome of such a discussion lead to LL realising that X or Y could actually be implemented and then doing so.

As it is, by making closing-off this discussion – whether as a result of a realisation that they “got it wrong” in the first place when it comes to last names or not – comes across as “evidence” that the Lab is no longer willing to engage with the user community, but rather hand down edicts from upon high.

Muddying

Certainly, it adds to the overall muddying of the waters that has been so much a problem where attempts at communication have been made. Again, with due respect to Rod Humble – who has, in many respects been more of a communicator than his predecessors – that he himself chooses so many different channels for engagement leads to confusion.

In this, there is a very thin line, admittedly; there is absolutely nothing wrong with using profile feeds, Twitter and other forums with which to broadly engage with users – as long as the content of the communication is balanced and accurately reflected back where it should be: through LL’s own blog channels. But time and again, this isn’t the case – just about anything else but the blog is used.

Again, LL don’t help themselves when they do blog – and promptly close-off comments. While no-one likes negative feedback – and sadly (dons her own tin hat and hides under the desk to continue typing) we SL users can be a pretty negative lot when it does come to giving feedback, even when it comes to what might otherwise be regarded as good news) – the truth is that shutting down channels of response simply enhances the feeling that you “don’t want to know”.

There’s a further knock-on effect to all this, because it means that where LL employees do make the effort – almost pleadingly so – for people to give the Lab a chance, their requests are met with a degree of derision that isn’t really called for.

Of course, this doesn’t mean one-to-one conversations don’t have their use. But it does come down to a matter of balance – and right now, things are decidedly lop-sided. Again, this creates issues wherein even when an individual from the Lab is speaking with the best of intentions on their part and the full weight of the Lab’s management behind them – their words are dismissed simply because (in many cases) the Lab’s performance as a corporate entity where communications is concerned has been so lax, people naturally distrust what is being said.

Which brings me to a final point in this rambling. In announcing the round table, one of the things Rod stated was that:

Conversations with many old Lindens and Residents have led me to conclude that we have lost something of the old frontier feel.  Like we were exploring the world together …

Yes, “we” and “together” – these were key to the old frontier spirit within SL. It’s somewhat ironic then, that in actually taking up the discussion Rod has, for many that might have wanted to participate, opted to remove the “we” from the equation.

Circles

When it comes to the matter of broader communications and engagement with the community as a whole LL do face something of a vicious circle of achieving engagement while facing negativity and suspicion. However, it is a circle that can only be broken by LL itself. The company needs to bring focus to its efforts to communicate and start being consistent in its approach. It needs to take the lead and – while things may initially hurt in terms of potential feedback – be front-and-centre about things and stop:

  • Stuffing items away in forum threads because they aren’t deemed to be “of interest”  – it smacks of evasion. If the company has something to say that has the potential to impact the community, it should say so openly, and allow individuals to determine how it may / may not affect them
  • Going out and vociferously using other channels at the expense of their direct channels (blogs)  – it dilutes the message and leads to confusion. Use other channels by all means, but use them to support your central channel, not instead of
  • Determining that things need to be closed-off simply because what is being said isn’t what you want to hear  – it blurs issues and raises suspicions. Stand by what you’ve said and accept the fact that you’re not going to please all the people all the time and that criticism isn’t something to be afraid of

Obviously, any change in approach on the part of the Lab – were it to happen – isn’t immediately going to be met with cheers and flag-waving. But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be tried; given enough time and a more focused, structured and pro-active approach to communications and engagement will yield more benefits than problems.

Of blogs and blogging

Posted on by Inara Pey

Over the last couple of days, I’ve had the opportunity to re-visit LL’s recent call to bloggers through commenting on a couple of fellow blogger’s posts on the subject – namely Mariis’ Explorations and Nalates Urriah. Mariis and I are pretty much on the same page on things – as our exchange demonstrates; Nalates admits herself perplexed as to the derisive reaction of some bloggers (and I count myself among them), and I’ve attempted to provide explanation which actually formed the basis of what I’m about to say here.

These exchanges have been part of a wider cogitation on the matter, and as such, I’d like to put a further alternative idea to Linden Lab on the matter of working with the blogging community. I’ll leave it to TPTB at LL (assuming they’re still reading this blog!) to decide on the usefulness / applicability of the idea. In putting it forward, I’ll also state that I’ve little doubt the broad thrust of what I’m outlining here may well have been stated elsewhere and well ahead of me – so I apologise to those that have raised it first if I’m repeating things.

The idea is this: rather than seek to solicit blog posts on an exclusive basis, LL should perhaps consider looking to reprint suitable blog articles within their own web space. This may well be slightly more labour-intensive for them (although given by their own admission they do have staff routinely perusing and reading blogs, so the overhead shouldn’t be that big an issue) – but there would be significant benefits, in particular:

  • They show that they are willing to work on a more collaborative basis with the community
  • They are free to cherry-pick that articles they wish to reproduce in their pages without let or hindrance, and free from controversial “public” submission guidelines
  • The official blogs stand to get fresh content
  • They don’t directly impact on indvidual bloggers’ freedom to cover SL or their ability to enjoy the drect benefit of having their own words appearing on their own pages.

Such an approach stands to generate a lot of goodwill from the blogging community. For a start, who would not feel somewhat flattered upon the receipt of an e-mail from LL requesting permission to reprint an article that has taken time and effort to put together? The e-mail needn’t be too hard to put together either; I’d suggest something like: “Dear X, we recently read your blog article on Y and found it to be both informative and entertaining. We would like to reproduce it in under the Guest Blogger section of our website. You will of course receive full credit for the work, together with a link to your own website. If you are happy for us to include your article in our pages, please reply to this e-mail within Z days, together with a 3-sentence biography relating to yourself. We will, of course, inform you when we do reprint the article”. Or words to that effect. I think it fair to say that such an e-mail would give a person quite a feeling of recognition / involvement.

It would also give LL the freedom to reproduce articles they like and which fit their overall requirements. Any concerns relating to wording, etc., could be taken care of through the use of a disclaimer printed ahead of the article, vis: “The views and opinions in the following piece are those of the named author. They do not represent the views or opinion of Linden Research Inc., its employees or agents.”  (or again, something similar). Granted, it’s not 100% watertight, but given LL are retaining a free hand in selecting the items they might wish to reproduce, one suspects contentious or deliberately controversial articles are not going to be among their likely candidates for reprinting.

And on the matter of exclusivity itself: would LL really be losing out to any great degree in foregoing the requirement? I actually don’t think so. I rather suspect (and with respect to all) that, with the exception of a handful of high-profile blogs, LL has a much broader potential readership in the form of the entire SL community bouncing in and out of their website via individual Dashboards than the majority of bloggers enjoy on an individual basis. As such, LL aren’t likely to miss out that much because some have read the article ahead of it appearing in the official website.

All-in-all, and subject to my not having missed something in the equation, this would seem to be a win / win situation for all concerned. Linden Lab get to freshen-up their own blogs and are seen to be positively connecting with the community; bloggers get to keep on doing what they do best without diverting their attention away from directly nurturing their own blogs, whilst also having the freedom to turn out posts that might well be suited to being picked-up by the Lab.