One of the most interesting pieces of information in any SL topic is what are the users are thinking? That is a difficult question to answer. Because I log chat when I’m in meetings and use it as a reference later when I write a meeting synopsis I can look back and see what was being said at the event. So, I have the chat from the event Future of SL conducted by Saffia Widdershins and Jessica Lyon.
The event was in voice. So, if you are interested in the meeting’s subject content, this is the wrong post for you. See: Jessica’s Future of SL Event at SL11B and Video Jessica’s SL11B Event. This is about the users and their chat during the meeting.
I am interested in what people are thinking about SL1.0 and SL2.0. Hamlet is running a poll: Survey: Will Linden Lab’s Upcoming Virtual World Change How You Use Second Life Now? The poll is still in progress. Jump over and add your information. (I voted.)
I also want to point out that other chat logs people may post may be slightly different than mine. I was at the far right of the bleachers. So, I think those at the far left were outside chat range. You may also see some chat repeated. The repeats are from the chat repeaters used to extend chat range. So, if logs vary from person to person and seem odd, remember there are some unique things going on.
The chat shows quite a range of opinions. I decided to group them into various categories. Positive, negative, and neutral are obvious choices. I framed my consideration of them as in regard to SL2.0 and the Lab. Of course some won’t fit in those groups and I added some more as you’ll see below and in the graph above.
The more inscrutable category is Insane. I framed insane as out of touch with reality. The people demonstrated in their comments a lack of understanding technology and business and allowed that to create an emotional charge.
Some of the comments bring up some things I hadn’t thought of. Some were just interesting. I’ll have more comments along with the examples.
During the event I was too busy typing to pay attention to chat. So, I missed how what people were saying related to what Jessica was saying.
As I went through the chat log tabulating and classifying the comments I started go brain-dead about halfway through. So, about the 30 minute mark I stopped tabulating. Looking through the remaining half of the chat log it stays pretty consistent with the first half. So, what Jessica was saying wasn’t having much effect on the wackadooles.
The Chat Log Count graph is misleading. It does show fairly accurately the proportion of negative versus positive comments. But in examining the chat log I found that the negative uninformed comments all came from just five or six people.
The positive and informed comments came from a large number of people.
I think the difference in the number of people and the number of times they were commenting tells us something. What exactly is debatable. I think the uninformed people were having a much stronger emotional reaction and thus were driven to comment more often. I’ve noticed that those people losing arguments or who’s points re being defeated tend to talk more and faster. The informed people seem to be taking things in stride and be less emotional.
The informed and positive people asked a few times why the negative/uninformed people were angry. I was glad to find it wasn’t just my perception that those people were angry.
I also found a couple of the angry and uninformed people exhibiting a high degree of hubris or arrogance. I suppose which depends on what you infer to their comments. I suspect the angry are completely oblivious to how erroneous their presuppositions are. Of course to them that’s the way the world looks. Sad.
An interesting point is that the number of positive comments is so low. I think people that are informed made less positive statements because they are aware of how little we know. We honestly can’t say how great new building tools will be because we have no clue. So, being rational informed we just don’t make a comment.
Overall I found my review of the chat log a positive experience. There are more informed and rational people participating than there are wackadoodles. That is a good thing. On the downside, the wackadoodles are far more vocal. But that seems to be true in real life too.