[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

# Re: Talker-ization of MOOs

- Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 12:16:44 PDT
- From:
- Cc: moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
- Content-Length: 2985
- Content-Type: text
- In-Reply-To: <v02110103abdcfcf6a051@[198.80.51.55]> from "cricket" at May 15, 95 05:43:54 am

    > Well, it's only a problem if the MOO has higher goals that just providing
    > the equivalent of a giant IRC channel. There are certainly ways to foster
    > more 'community' among your MOO users, which I think is what the original
    > writer was getting at here. It's something that's been a very important
    > (and often elusive) goal at the MOO I've tried to create (with lots of
    > help, of course!) over the last 11 months.
    >

    If the person designing/running a MOO does have a higher goal of
    fostering community, then we have a very serious question in regards
    to evaluation: how exactly do you determine whether or not you've
    assisted in building a sense of community/participation among your
    users (above and beyond the simple fact that you've enabled them
    to talk together in the first place by providing the MOO)?  I,
    personally, would be extremely hesitant to tie such an evaluation
    to the particular technologies within a given MOO and their
    relative use/non-use.  The people hanging out together in one room
    may be a tightly-bound community.  The people exploring every
    nook and cranny and trying out every last feature in the MOO
    could, perhaps, give a damn about each other.  The opposite could
    obviously also apply in both cases. (although I will note that
    most of my serious interactions with the people I consider part
    of my community tend to consist of hanging out in one room talking,
    preferably a room with a Guinness tap in one corner).

    For the original question, perhaps the approach that should be
    taken is not, 'how do I get users to start using what I'm providing,'
    but rather 'do the users need anything beyond what they've currently
    got available?'  If the answer to the second question is 'no', then
    it's probably not going to matter a great deal how wonderful what
    you create is; it's always going to have at least a minimal learning curve
    to adopt and already-satisfied customers are not likely to put out
    the effort.  If the answer is 'yes', then I'd say the followup
    questions are 'why' and 'what can I do about it?'

    In any event, the first step in approaching this question probably
    shouldn't be talking to the people on this list; in should be talking
    to your users and finding out what they want/need that you might
    be able to provide.  The tools that are most likely to succeed are
    those that your users ask for.

    > I'd like to see some discussion on this, since it interests me a lot (and
    > hopefully others) and since I think the sense of community that most MOOs
    > lack is something to be concerned about and analyzed.
    >

    I agree (a lot), and would also like to see more discussion on this
    topic.

    Jerry McDonough -- jmcd@info.Berkeley.EDU             |    (......)
    UCB Sch. of Lib. & Info. Studies                      |    \ *  * /
    "Tell him I've been too fucking busy.  Or vice versa."|    \  <>  /
                 -- Dorothy Parker, explaining a missed   |     \ -- /  SGNORMPF!!!
                    deadline                              |      ||||

Follow-Ups:

- Re: Talker-ization of MOOs

- From: sds@jazzie.com (Sean Shapira)

References:

- Re: Talker-ization of MOOs

- From: cricket@cybernetics.net (cricket)

- Prev: Re: Talker-ization of MOOs
- Next: Re: Talker-ization of MOOs
- Index: MOO-cows
- Thread: MOO-cows

Home | Subject Index | Thread Index