Comments on: Forbes Associated Press: Peeping Tom Linden is Watching You http://alphavilleherald.com/2006/04/forbes_peeping_.html Always Fairly Unbalanced Tue, 04 Oct 2016 13:18:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Matthias http://alphavilleherald.com/2006/04/forbes_peeping_.html/comment-page-1#comment-42472 Matthias Tue, 11 Apr 2006 12:54:13 +0000 http://localhost/wp_2/?p=1988#comment-42472 Only 80%, Uri? That still seems low to me when you make it that inclusive. You could also easily by that logic pull in any clothing - it's to make your avatar sexier. Same with skins, hair, etc. If you look at it that way, it would be very near 100% (normal furniture and some scripts being the only exceptions). Only 80%, Uri? That still seems low to me when you make it that inclusive. You could also easily by that logic pull in any clothing – it’s to make your avatar sexier. Same with skins, hair, etc. If you look at it that way, it would be very near 100% (normal furniture and some scripts being the only exceptions).

]]> By: Urizenus http://alphavilleherald.com/2006/04/forbes_peeping_.html/comment-page-1#comment-42471 Urizenus Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:11:17 +0000 http://localhost/wp_2/?p=1988#comment-42471 Yeah, 100K users seems optimistic if anything, in spite of the gazzillion accounts. I changed this from a Forbes story to an Associated Press story, since I'm not sure if the story originated with Forbes -- it just happens to be where I found it first. Since then it has appeared in...well.. a gazzillion places. Regarding the 30% naughty transactions figure that the Lindens are giving out, it seems low. All they can really keep track of are the things they *know* are used for sexual purposes (and then probably only for the well known toymakers)and they have no idea about the money changing hands outside of the game. You know, for those 1337 webcammers that get $50 a pop, or for the out of game trists that are organized in game. Then too, how much would people spend on skins and tats and fancy duds if they weren't using those accessories to improve their online sex lives. If you include transactions that are not for sex toys but rather for stuff that wires your cyberlife, well it wouldn't shock me to hear that 80% of the economy is about that. Yeah, 100K users seems optimistic if anything, in spite of the gazzillion accounts. I changed this from a Forbes story to an Associated Press story, since I’m not sure if the story originated with Forbes — it just happens to be where I found it first. Since then it has appeared in…well.. a gazzillion places.

Regarding the 30% naughty transactions figure that the Lindens are giving out, it seems low. All they can really keep track of are the things they *know* are used for sexual purposes (and then probably only for the well known toymakers)and they have no idea about the money changing hands outside of the game. You know, for those 1337 webcammers that get $50 a pop, or for the out of game trists that are organized in game. Then too, how much would people spend on skins and tats and fancy duds if they weren’t using those accessories to improve their online sex lives. If you include transactions that are not for sex toys but rather for stuff that wires your cyberlife, well it wouldn’t shock me to hear that 80% of the economy is about that.

]]> By: ren reynolds http://alphavilleherald.com/2006/04/forbes_peeping_.html/comment-page-1#comment-42470 ren reynolds Tue, 11 Apr 2006 08:21:45 +0000 http://localhost/wp_2/?p=1988#comment-42470 Dibbs. And thanks for the original link. “centers around adult encounters” it’s ‘centered on’ not ‘around’. >"which has about 100,000 users" >>Hmm, if you consider 176,280 to be 100,000, then I guess they're correct, but otherwise, they're quite a bit off, and have been for ages. The article says ‘users’. 176,whatever is ‘residents’ which I take to be accounts, which I take to include alt’s, one person with several alt’s is one user – if those assumptions are correct then ‘about 100,000’ seems a fair guess – did LL publish some actual user figures and I missed it? Dibbs. And thanks for the original link.

“centers around adult encounters” it’s ‘centered on’ not ‘around’.

>”which has about 100,000 users”
>>Hmm, if you consider 176,280 to be 100,000, then I guess they’re correct, but otherwise, they’re quite a bit off, and have been for ages.

The article says ‘users’. 176,whatever is ‘residents’ which I take to be accounts, which I take to include alt’s, one person with several alt’s is one user – if those assumptions are correct then ‘about 100,000’ seems a fair guess – did LL publish some actual user figures and I missed it?

]]> By: Tony Walsh http://alphavilleherald.com/2006/04/forbes_peeping_.html/comment-page-1#comment-42469 Tony Walsh Sun, 09 Apr 2006 20:15:57 +0000 http://localhost/wp_2/?p=1988#comment-42469 I'd love to know where Forbes got that percentage. Probably the reporter just wasn't paying attention to the context of the statistic. Based on the population number cited, at least part of the facts were collected late last year. On a side-note, it seems fewer mainstream media outlets are doing their fact-checking duty these days. I'm guessing Forbes didn't cross-check this story with LL for accuracy before it was published. I’d love to know where Forbes got that percentage. Probably the reporter just wasn’t paying attention to the context of the statistic. Based on the population number cited, at least part of the facts were collected late last year.

On a side-note, it seems fewer mainstream media outlets are doing their fact-checking duty these days. I’m guessing Forbes didn’t cross-check this story with LL for accuracy before it was published.

]]> By: Matthias http://alphavilleherald.com/2006/04/forbes_peeping_.html/comment-page-1#comment-42468 Matthias Sun, 09 Apr 2006 19:24:38 +0000 http://localhost/wp_2/?p=1988#comment-42468 Yet another innacuracy: "which has about 100,000 users" Hmm, if you consider 176,280 to be 100,000, then I guess they're correct, but otherwise, they're quite a bit off, and have been for ages. Yet another innacuracy:

“which has about 100,000 users”

Hmm, if you consider 176,280 to be 100,000, then I guess they’re correct, but otherwise, they’re quite a bit off, and have been for ages.

]]> By: Prokofy Neva http://alphavilleherald.com/2006/04/forbes_peeping_.html/comment-page-1#comment-42467 Prokofy Neva Sun, 09 Apr 2006 16:00:01 +0000 http://localhost/wp_2/?p=1988#comment-42467 I think the Lindens probably wouldn't actually have to do any real-time human peeping. They could probably just load up their server-statistic scrapers to have the names of the most famous pose-ball makers and to fire off any time one of those creators' scripts executed, something simple like that. I think what's more likely tho is that the estimate that there's 1/3 of the economy as "the naughty economy" has merely been garbled. I'd have to disagree that 1/3 of the economy is that, though, but they'd know better. It appears to me that clothing sales are the lion's share; then land; then other content. I think the Lindens probably wouldn’t actually have to do any real-time human peeping. They could probably just load up their server-statistic scrapers to have the names of the most famous pose-ball makers and to fire off any time one of those creators’ scripts executed, something simple like that. I think what’s more likely tho is that the estimate that there’s 1/3 of the economy as “the naughty economy” has merely been garbled. I’d have to disagree that 1/3 of the economy is that, though, but they’d know better. It appears to me that clothing sales are the lion’s share; then land; then other content.

]]>