Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

chapter_5 [2009/11/18 17:47]
randy
chapter_5 [2009/12/01 14:22] (current)
randy
Line 1: Line 1:
===== Planning Your System's Design ===== ===== Planning Your System's Design =====
-Part one of this book: Chapters 1 through 5 were //theory//- a comprehensive description of the graphical grammar and the tools needed to conceptualize reputation systems. The remaining chapters will put all of that theory into //practice//. We will describe how to define the requirements for a reputation model, design web interfaces for the gathering of user evaluations, provide patterns for the display and utilization of reputation, and provide advice on implementation, testing, tuning, and understanding community effects on your system.+Part one of this book: Chapters 1 through 4 were //theory//-a comprehensive description of the graphical grammar and the tools needed to conceptualize reputation systems. The remaining chapters will put all of that theory into //practice//. We will describe how to define the requirements for a reputation model, design web interfaces for the gathering of user evaluations, provide patterns for the display and utilization of reputation, and provide advice on implementation, testing, tuning, and understanding community effects on your system.
-Every reputation system starts as an idea from copying a competitors model or doing something innovative. In our experience, that initial design motivation usually ignores the most important questions that should be asked before rushing into such a long-term commitment.+Every reputation system starts as an idea from copying a competitor's model or doing something innovative. In our experience, that initial design motivation usually ignores the most important questions that should be asked before rushing into such a long-term commitment.
Line 29: Line 29:
=== What Are Your Goals? === === What Are Your Goals? ===
-Marney Beard was a longtime design and project manager at Sun Microsystems, and she had a wonderful guideline for participating in any team endeavor. Marney would say "It's all right to //start// selfish. As long as you don't //end// there." (This advice was actually first given by Marney to her kids, but it turns out to be equally useful in the compromise-laden world of product development.)+Marney Beard was a longtime design and project manager at Sun Microsystems, and she had a wonderful guideline for participating in any team endeavor. Marney would say “It's all right to //start// selfish. As long as you don't //end// there.(This advice was actually first given by Marney to her kids, but it turns out to be equally useful in the compromise-laden world of product development.)
So, following Marney's excellent advice, we encourage you to-for a moment-take a very self-centered view of your plans for a rich reputation system for your web site. Yes, ultimately, your system will be a balance between your goals, your community's desires, and the tolerances and motivations of everyone who visits the site. But-for now-let's just talk about //you//. So, following Marney's excellent advice, we encourage you to-for a moment-take a very self-centered view of your plans for a rich reputation system for your web site. Yes, ultimately, your system will be a balance between your goals, your community's desires, and the tolerances and motivations of everyone who visits the site. But-for now-let's just talk about //you//.
Line 49: Line 49:
  * Have subscribed to at least one of your site's available data feeds   * Have subscribed to at least one of your site's available data feeds
List adapted from http://blog.webanalyticsdemystified.com/weblog/2006/12/how-do-you-calculate-engagement-part-i.html List adapted from http://blog.webanalyticsdemystified.com/weblog/2006/12/how-do-you-calculate-engagement-part-i.html
-This list is definitely skewed toward an advertiser's or a content publisher's view of engagement on the Web. It's also loaded with subjective measures. (For example, what constitutes a "long" session? Which content is "critical"?) But that's fine. We want subjective-at this point, we can tailor our reputation approach to achieve exactly what we hope to get out of it.+This list is definitely skewed toward an advertiser's or a content publisher's view of engagement on the Web. It's also loaded with subjective measures. (For example, what constitutes a “long” session? Which content is “critical” ?) But that's fine. We want subjective-at this point, we can tailor our reputation approach to achieve exactly what we hope to get out of it.
So what would be a good set of metrics to determine community engagement on your site? Again, the best answer to that question //for you// will be intimately tied to the goals that you're trying to achieve. So what would be a good set of metrics to determine community engagement on your site? Again, the best answer to that question //for you// will be intimately tied to the goals that you're trying to achieve.
Line 56: Line 56:
  * The average length of time it takes for a newbie to become a regular contributor   * The average length of time it takes for a newbie to become a regular contributor
  * Multiple community crossover-if your members are part of many communities, how do they interact with your site? Flickr photos? Twittering? Etc.?   * Multiple community crossover-if your members are part of many communities, how do they interact with your site? Flickr photos? Twittering? Etc.?
-  * The number of both giving actions and receiving actions-for example, posters give (advice, knowledge, etc.); readers receive+  * The number of both giving actions and receiving actions-for example, posters give (advice, knowledge, etc.); readers receive. (For example, see <html><a href="#Figure_5-1">Figure_5-1</a>&nbsp;</html>.)
  * Community participation in tending and policing the community to keep it a nice place (for example, users who report content as spam, who edit a wiki for better layout, etc.)   * Community participation in tending and policing the community to keep it a nice place (for example, users who report content as spam, who edit a wiki for better layout, etc.)
List adapted from http://www.horsepigcow.com/2007/10/03/metrics-for-healthy-communities/ List adapted from http://www.horsepigcow.com/2007/10/03/metrics-for-healthy-communities/
Line 64: Line 64:
<html><a name="Figure_5-1"><center></html>// Figure_5-1: No matter how you measure it, Bernadette e. is one active and engaged Yelper. //<html></center></a></html> <html><a name="Figure_5-1"><center></html>// Figure_5-1: No matter how you measure it, Bernadette e. is one active and engaged Yelper. //<html></center></a></html>
-<html><center><img width="80%" src="http://buildingreputation.com/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=Ch06-EngagedYelpUser.png"/></center></html>+<html><center><img width="80%" src="http://buildingreputation.com/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=Figure_5-1.png"/></center></html>
-<note tip>+<box blue 75% round>
** Speaking of Metrics… ** ** Speaking of Metrics… **
-Later, in <html><a href="/doku.php?id=Chapter_9">Chapter_9</a>&nbsp;</html>, we'll ask you to evaluate your site's performance against the goals that you define in this chapter. Of course, that exercise will be much more effective if you can compare actual data from before and after the rollout of your reputation system.+Later, in <html><a href="/doku.php?id=Chapter_9">Chapter_9</a>&nbsp;</html>, we'll ask you to evaluate your site's performance against the goals that you define in this chapter. Of course, that exercise will be much more effective if you can compare actual data from before and after the roll-out of your reputation system.
To be able to make that comparison, you will need to anticipate the metrics that will help you evaluate the system's performance; to make sure //now// that your site or application is configured to provide that data; and to ensure that the data is being appropriately logged and saved for the time when you'll need it for decision making, tweaking, and tuning of your system. To be able to make that comparison, you will need to anticipate the metrics that will help you evaluate the system's performance; to make sure //now// that your site or application is configured to provide that data; and to ensure that the data is being appropriately logged and saved for the time when you'll need it for decision making, tweaking, and tuning of your system.
Line 75: Line 75:
After all, there's nothing quite like setting out to do a before-and-after comparison only to realize that you weren't keeping proper data //before//… After all, there's nothing quite like setting out to do a before-and-after comparison only to realize that you weren't keeping proper data //before//…
-</note>+</box>
== Establishing Loyalty == == Establishing Loyalty ==
-Perhaps you're interested in building brand loyalty among your site's visitors, establishing a relationship with them that extends beyond the boundaries of one visit or session. Yahoo! Fantasy Sports employs a fun reputation system, enhanced with nicely illustrated trophies for achieving milestones (such as a winning season in a league) for various sports.+Perhaps you're interested in building brand loyalty among your site's visitors, establishing a relationship with them that extends beyond the boundaries of one visit or session. Yahoo! Fantasy Sports employs a fun reputation system, <html><a href="#Figure_5-2">Figure_5-2</a>&nbsp;</html>, enhanced with nicely illustrated trophies for achieving milestones (such as a winning season in a league) for various sports.
-<html><a name="Figure_5-2"><center></html>// Figure_5-2: "Boca Joe" has played a variety of fantasy sports on Yahoo! since 2002. Do you suppose the reputation he's earned on the site helps brings him back each year? //<html></center></a></html> +<html><a name="Figure_5-2"><center></html>// Figure_5-2: Boca Joehas played a variety of fantasy sports on Yahoo! since 2002. Do you suppose the reputation he's earned on the site helps brings him back each year? //<html></center></a></html> 
-<html><center><img width="80%" src="http://buildingreputation.com/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=Ch06-YahooFantasySportsProfile.png"/></center></html>+<html><center><img width="80%" src="http://buildingreputation.com/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=Figure_5-2.png"/></center></html>
This simple feature serves many purposes: the trophies are fun and engaging; they may serve as an incentive for community members to excel at a sport; they help extend each user's identity and give the user way to express her own unique set of interests and biases to the community; and they are //also// an effective way of establishing a continuing bond with Fantasy Sports players-one that persists from season to season and sport to sport. This simple feature serves many purposes: the trophies are fun and engaging; they may serve as an incentive for community members to excel at a sport; they help extend each user's identity and give the user way to express her own unique set of interests and biases to the community; and they are //also// an effective way of establishing a continuing bond with Fantasy Sports players-one that persists from season to season and sport to sport.
Line 93: Line 93:
Once again, reputation systems offer a way out of this conundrum. By tracking the high-quality contributors and contributions on your site, you can guarantee to advertisers that their brand will only be associated with content that meets or exceeds certain standards of quality. Once again, reputation systems offer a way out of this conundrum. By tracking the high-quality contributors and contributions on your site, you can guarantee to advertisers that their brand will only be associated with content that meets or exceeds certain standards of quality.
-In fact, you can even craft your system to reward particular //aspects// of contribution. Perhaps, for instance, you'd like to keep a "clean contributor" reputation that takes into account a user's typical profanity level and also weighs abuse reports against him into the mix. Without some form of filtering based on quality and legality, there's simply no way that a prominent and respected advertiser like Johnson's would associate its brand with YouTube's user-contributed, typically anything-goes videos.+In fact, you can even craft your system to reward particular //aspects// of contribution. Perhaps, for instance, you'd like to keep a “clean contributor” reputation that takes into account a user's typical profanity level and also weighs abuse reports against him into the mix. Without some form of filtering based on quality and legality, there's simply no way that a prominent and respected advertiser like Johnson's would associate its brand with YouTube's user-contributed, typically anything-goes videos. (See <html><a href="#Figure_5-3">Figure_5-3</a>&nbsp;</html>
-<html><a name="Figure_5-3"><center></html>// Figure_5-3: The Johnson's Baby Channel on YouTube exhibits a higher than average level of trust in the quality of user submissions. //<html></center></a></html> +<html><a name="Figure_5-3"><center></html>// Figure_5-3: The Johnson's Baby Channel on YouTube places a lot of trust in the quality of user submissions. //<html></center></a></html> 
-<html><center><img width="80%" src="http://buildingreputation.com/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=Ch06-SponsoredUGC.png"/></center></html>+<html><center><img width="80%" src="http://buildingreputation.com/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=Figure_5-3.png"/></center></html>
Line 103: Line 103:
== Improving Content Quality == == Improving Content Quality ==
-Reputation systems really shine at helping you make value judgements about the relative quality of content that users submit to your site. <html><a href="/doku.php?id=Chapter_8">Chapter_8</a>&nbsp;</html>will focus on the myriad techniques for filtering out bad content and encouraging high-quality contributions. For now, it's only necessary to think of "content" in broad strokes. First, let's examine content control patterns-patterns of content generation and management on a site. The patterns will help you make smarter decisions about your reputation system.+Reputation systems really shine at helping you make value judgements about the relative quality of content that users submit to your site. <html><a href="/doku.php?id=Chapter_8">Chapter_8</a>&nbsp;</html>will focus on the myriad techniques for filtering out bad content and encouraging high-quality contributions. For now, it's only necessary to think of “content” in broad strokes. First, let's examine content control patterns-patterns of content generation and management on a site. The patterns will help you make smarter decisions about your reputation system.
Line 109: Line 109:
The question of whether you need a reputation system at all and, if so, the particular models that will serve you best, are largely a function of how content is generated and managed on your site. Consider the workflow and lifecycle of content that you have planned for your community, and the various actors who will influence that workflow. The question of whether you need a reputation system at all and, if so, the particular models that will serve you best, are largely a function of how content is generated and managed on your site. Consider the workflow and lifecycle of content that you have planned for your community, and the various actors who will influence that workflow.
-First//, who// will handle your community's content? Will users be doing most of the content creation and management? Or staff? ("Staff" can be employees, trusted third-party content providers, or even deputized members of the community, depending on the level of trust and responsibility that you give them.)+First//, who// will handle your community's content? Will users be doing most of the content creation and management? Or staff? (“Staff” can be employees, trusted third-party content providers, or even deputized members of the community, depending on the level of trust and responsibility that you give them.)
In most communities, content control is a function of some combination of users and staff, so we'll examine the types of activities that each might be doing. Consider all the potential activities that make up the content lifecycle at a very granular level: In most communities, content control is a function of some combination of users and staff, so we'll examine the types of activities that each might be doing. Consider all the potential activities that make up the content lifecycle at a very granular level:
Line 126: Line 126:
  - Who will evaluate the content?   - Who will evaluate the content?
  - Who has responsibility for removing content that is inappropriate?   - Who has responsibility for removing content that is inappropriate?
-<html><center><img width="50%" src="http://buildingreputation.com/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=Ch06-CreateEvaluateRemove.png"/></center></html>+<html><center><img width="50%" src="http://buildingreputation.com/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=InformalFigure_5-3.0.png"/></center></html>
-There are eight different content control patterns for these questions-one for each unique combination of answers. For convenience, we've given each pattern a name (shown in <html><a href="#Figure_5-4">Figure_5-4</a>&nbsp;</html>), but the names are just placeholders for discussion, not suggestions for recategorizing your product marketing.+There are eight different content control patterns for these questions-one for each unique combination of answers. For convenience, we've given each pattern a name, but the names are just place holders for discussion. (Not suggestions for re-categorizing your product marketing.)
-<html><a name="Figure_5-4"><center></html>// Figure_5-4: Content control patterns for communities of content. These patterns largely determine the number and types of reputation models that you will need. //<html></center></a></html> +<note tip>If you have multiple content control patterns for your site, consider them all and focus on any shared reputation opportunities. For example, you may have a community site with a hierarchy of categories that are created, evaluated, and removed by staff. Perhaps the content //within// that hierarchy is created by users.
-<html><center><img width="80%" src="http://buildingreputation.com/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=Ch06-ContentControlPatterns.jpg"/></center></html>+
-<note>If you have multiple content control patterns for your site, consider them all and focus on any shared reputation opportunities. For example, you may have a community site with a hierarchy of categories that are created, evaluated, and removed by staff, but perhaps the content within that hierarchy is created by users. In that case, two patterns apply: the staff-tended category tree is an example of the Web 1.0 content control pattern, and as such it can effectively be ignored when selecting your reputation models. Focus instead on the options suggested by the Submit-Publish pattern formed by the users populating the tree.+In that case, two patterns apply: the staff-tended category tree is an example of the Web 1.0 content control pattern, and as such it can effectively be ignored when selecting your reputation models. Focus instead on the options suggested by the Submit-Publish pattern formed by the users populating the tree.
</note> </note>
<html><a name='Chap_5-Web-1.0-CCP'></a></html> <html><a name='Chap_5-Web-1.0-CCP'></a></html>
== Web 1.0: Staff Creates, Evaluates, and Removes == == Web 1.0: Staff Creates, Evaluates, and Removes ==
-<html><center><img width="" src="http://buildingreputation.com/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=Ch06-CCP-Web1.0.png"/></center></html>+<html><center><img width="50%" src="http://buildingreputation.com/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=InformalFigure_5-3.1.png"/></center></html>
When your staff is in complete control of all of the content on your site-even if it is supplied by third-party services or data feeds-then you are using a Web 1.0 content control pattern. There's really not much a reputation system can do for you in this case-no user participation equals no reputation needs. Sure, you could grant users reputation points for visiting pages on your site or clicking indiscriminately, but to what end? Without some sort of visible result to participating, they will soon give up and go away. When your staff is in complete control of all of the content on your site-even if it is supplied by third-party services or data feeds-then you are using a Web 1.0 content control pattern. There's really not much a reputation system can do for you in this case-no user participation equals no reputation needs. Sure, you could grant users reputation points for visiting pages on your site or clicking indiscriminately, but to what end? Without some sort of visible result to participating, they will soon give up and go away.
Line 146: Line 145:
<html><a name='Chap_5-Bug-Report-CCP'></a></html> <html><a name='Chap_5-Bug-Report-CCP'></a></html>
== Bug Report: Staff Creates and Evaluates, Users Remove == == Bug Report: Staff Creates and Evaluates, Users Remove ==
-<html><center><img width="" src="http://buildingreputation.com/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=Ch06-CCP-BugReport.png"/></center></html>+<html><center><img width="50%" src="http://buildingreputation.com/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=InformalFigure_5-3.2.png"/></center></html>
In this content control pattern, the site encourages users to petition for removal or major revision of corporate content-items in a database created and reviewed by staff. Users don't add any content that other users can interact with. Instead, they provide feedback intended to //eventually// change the content. Examples include bug tracking and customer feedback platforms and sites, such as Bugzilla and GetSatisfaction. Each site allows users to tell the provider about an idea or problem, but it doesn't have any immediate effect on the site or other users. In this content control pattern, the site encourages users to petition for removal or major revision of corporate content-items in a database created and reviewed by staff. Users don't add any content that other users can interact with. Instead, they provide feedback intended to //eventually// change the content. Examples include bug tracking and customer feedback platforms and sites, such as Bugzilla and GetSatisfaction. Each site allows users to tell the provider about an idea or problem, but it doesn't have any immediate effect on the site or other users.
Line 158: Line 157:
<html><a name='Chap_5-Reviews-CCP'></a></html> <html><a name='Chap_5-Reviews-CCP'></a></html>
== Reviews: Staff Creates and Removes, Users Evaluate == == Reviews: Staff Creates and Removes, Users Evaluate ==
-<html><center><img width="" src="http://buildingreputation.com/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=Ch06-CCP-Reviews.png"/></center></html>+<html><center><img width="50%" src="http://buildingreputation.com/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=InformalFigure_5-3.3.png"/></center></html>
This popular content control pattern-the first generation of online reputation systems-gave users the power to leave ratings and reviews of otherwise static web content, which then was used to produce ranked lists of like items. Early, and still prominent, sites using this pattern include Amazon.com and dozens of movie, local services, and product aggregators. Even blog comments can be considered user evaluation of otherwise tightly controlled content (the posts) on sites like BoingBoing or The Huffington Post. This popular content control pattern-the first generation of online reputation systems-gave users the power to leave ratings and reviews of otherwise static web content, which then was used to produce ranked lists of like items. Early, and still prominent, sites using this pattern include Amazon.com and dozens of movie, local services, and product aggregators. Even blog comments can be considered user evaluation of otherwise tightly controlled content (the posts) on sites like BoingBoing or The Huffington Post.
-The simplest form of this pattern is implicit ratings only, such as Yahoo! News, which tracks the most-emailed stories for the day and the week. The user simply clicks a button labeled "Email this story" and the site produces a reputation rank for the story.+The simplest form of this pattern is implicit ratings only, such as Yahoo! News, which tracks the most-emailed stories for the day and the week. The user simply clicks a button labeled “Email this story” and the site produces a reputation rank for the story.
Historically, users who write reviews usually have been motivated by altruism (see <html><a href="/doku.php?id=Chapter_5#Chap_5-Incentives">Chap_5-Incentives</a>&nbsp;</html>). Until strong personal communications tools arrived, such as social networking, news feeds, and multidevice messaging (connecting SMS, email, the Web, and so on), users didn't produce as many ratings and reviews as many sites were looking for. There were often more site content items than user reviews, leaving many content items (such as obscure restaurants or specialized books) without reviews. Historically, users who write reviews usually have been motivated by altruism (see <html><a href="/doku.php?id=Chapter_5#Chap_5-Incentives">Chap_5-Incentives</a>&nbsp;</html>). Until strong personal communications tools arrived, such as social networking, news feeds, and multidevice messaging (connecting SMS, email, the Web, and so on), users didn't produce as many ratings and reviews as many sites were looking for. There were often more site content items than user reviews, leaving many content items (such as obscure restaurants or specialized books) without reviews.
Line 168: Line 167:
Some site operators have tried to use commercial (direct payment) incentives to encourage users to submit more and better reviews. Epinions offered users several forms of payment for posting reviews. Almost all of those applications eventually were shut down, leaving only a revenue sharing model for reviews that are tracked to actual purchases. In every other case, payment for reviews seemed to have created a strong incentive to game the system (by generating false was-this-helpful votes, for example), which actually lowered the quality of information on a site. Paying for participation almost never results in high-quality contributions. Some site operators have tried to use commercial (direct payment) incentives to encourage users to submit more and better reviews. Epinions offered users several forms of payment for posting reviews. Almost all of those applications eventually were shut down, leaving only a revenue sharing model for reviews that are tracked to actual purchases. In every other case, payment for reviews seemed to have created a strong incentive to game the system (by generating false was-this-helpful votes, for example), which actually lowered the quality of information on a site. Paying for participation almost never results in high-quality contributions.
-More recently, sites such as Yelp! have created egocentric incentives for encouraging users to post reviews: Yelp! lets other users rate reviewers' contributions across dimensions such as "useful," "funny," and "cool," and they track and display more than 20 metrics of reviewer popularity. This configuration encourages more participation by certain mastery-oriented users, but it may result in an overly specialized audience for the site by selecting for people with certain tastes. Yelp!'s whimsical ratings can be a distraction to older audiences, discouraging some from contributing.+More recently, sites such as Yelp! have created egocentric incentives for encouraging users to post reviews: Yelp! lets other users rate reviewers' contributions across dimensions such as “useful,” “funny,and “cool,and they track and display more than 20 metrics of reviewer popularity. This configuration encourages more participation by certain mastery-oriented users, but it may result in an overly specialized audience for the site by selecting for people with certain tastes. Yelp!'s whimsical ratings can be a distraction to older audiences, discouraging some from contributing.
What makes the reviews content control pattern special is that it is //by and for// other users. It's why the was-this-helpful reputation pattern has emerged as a popular participation method in recent years-hardly anyone wants to take several minutes to write a review, but it only takes a second to click a thumb-shaped button. Now a review itself can have a quality score and its author can have the related karma. In effect, the review becomes its own context and is subject to a different content control pattern: <html><a href="/doku.php?id=Chapter_5#Chap_5-Basic-Social-Media-CCP">Chap_5-Basic-Social-Media-CCP</a>&nbsp;</html>. What makes the reviews content control pattern special is that it is //by and for// other users. It's why the was-this-helpful reputation pattern has emerged as a popular participation method in recent years-hardly anyone wants to take several minutes to write a review, but it only takes a second to click a thumb-shaped button. Now a review itself can have a quality score and its author can have the related karma. In effect, the review becomes its own context and is subject to a different content control pattern: <html><a href="/doku.php?id=Chapter_5#Chap_5-Basic-Social-Media-CCP">Chap_5-Basic-Social-Media-CCP</a>&nbsp;</html>.
Line 174: Line 173:
<html><a name='Chap_5-Surveys-CCP'></a></html> <html><a name='Chap_5-Surveys-CCP'></a></html>
== Surveys: Staff Creates, Users Evaluate and Remove == == Surveys: Staff Creates, Users Evaluate and Remove ==
-<html><center><img width="" src="http://buildingreputation.com/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=Ch06-CCP-TBD1.png"/></center></html>+<html><center><img width="50%" src="http://buildingreputation.com/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=InformalFigure_5-3.4.png"/></center></html>
-In the surveys content control pattern, users evaluate and eliminate content as fast as staff can feed it to them. This pattern's scarcity in public web applications usually is related to the expense of supplying content of sufficient minimum quality. Consider this pattern a user-empowered version of the reviews content control pattern, where content is flowing so swiftly that only the fittest survive the user's wrath. Probably the most obvious example of this pattern is the television program "American Idol" and other elimination competitions that depend on user voting to decide what is removed and what remains, until the best of the best is selected and the process begins anew. In this example, the professional judges are the staff that selects the initial acts (content) that the users (the home audience) will see perform (content) from week to week, and the users among the home audience who vote via telephone act as the evaluators and removers.+In the surveys content control pattern, users evaluate and eliminate content as fast as staff can feed it to them. This pattern's scarcity in public web applications usually is related to the expense of supplying content of sufficient minimum quality. Consider this pattern a user-empowered version of the reviews content control pattern, where content is flowing so swiftly that only the fittest survive the user's wrath. Probably the most obvious example of this pattern is the television program //American Idol//and other elimination competitions that depend on user voting to decide what is removed and what remains, until the best of the best is selected and the process begins anew. In this example, the professional judges are the staff that selects the initial acts (content) that the users (the home audience) will see perform (content) from week to week, and the users among the home audience who vote via telephone act as the evaluators and removers.
The keys to using this pattern successfully are as follows: The keys to using this pattern successfully are as follows:
Line 191: Line 190:
<html><a name='Chap_5-Submit-Publish-CCP'></a></html> <html><a name='Chap_5-Submit-Publish-CCP'></a></html>
== Submit-Publish: Users Create, Staff Evaluates and Removes == == Submit-Publish: Users Create, Staff Evaluates and Removes ==
-<html><center><img width="" src="http://buildingreputation.com/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=Ch06-CCP-SubmitPublish.png"/></center></html>+<html><center><img width="50%" src="http://buildingreputation.com/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=InformalFigure_5-3.5.png"/></center></html>
In the submit-publish content control pattern, users create content that will be reviewed for publication and/or promotion by the site. Two common evaluation patterns exist for staff review of content: proactive and reactive. Proactive content review (or moderation) is when the content is not immediately published to the site and is instead placed in a queue for staff to approve or reject. Reactive content review trusts users' content until someone complains and only then does the staff evaluate the content and remove it if needed. In the submit-publish content control pattern, users create content that will be reviewed for publication and/or promotion by the site. Two common evaluation patterns exist for staff review of content: proactive and reactive. Proactive content review (or moderation) is when the content is not immediately published to the site and is instead placed in a queue for staff to approve or reject. Reactive content review trusts users' content until someone complains and only then does the staff evaluate the content and remove it if needed.
-Some web sites that display this pattern are television content sites, such as the site for the TV program "Survivor." That site encourages viewers to send video to the program rather than posting it, and they don't publish it unless the viewer is chosen for the show. Citizen news sites such as Yahoo! You Witness News accept photos and videos and screen them as quickly as possible before publishing them to their sites. Likewise, food magazine sites may accept recipe submissions that they check for safety and copyright issues before republishing.+Some web sites that display this pattern are television content sites, such as the site for the TV program //Survivor.//That site encourages viewers to send video to the program rather than posting it, and they don't publish it unless the viewer is chosen for the show. Citizen news sites such as Yahoo! You Witness News accept photos and videos and screen them as quickly as possible before publishing them to their sites. Likewise, food magazine sites may accept recipe submissions that they check for safety and copyright issues before republishing.
-Since the feedback loop for this content control pattern typically lasts days, or at best hours, and the number of submissions per user is minuscule, the main incentives that tend to drive people fall under the altruism category: "I'm doing this because I think it needs to be done, and someone has to do it." Attribution should be optional but encouraged, and karma is often worth calculating when the traffic levels are so low.+Since the feedback loop for this content control pattern typically lasts days, or at best hours, and the number of submissions per user is minuscule, the main incentives that tend to drive people fall under the altruism category: “I'm doing this because I think it needs to be done, and someone has to do it.Attribution should be optional but encouraged, and karma is often worth calculating when the traffic levels are so low.
-An alternative incentive that has proven effective to get short-term increases in participation for this pattern are commercial: offer a cash prize drawing for the best, funniest, or wackiest submissions. In fact, this pattern is used on many contest sites, such as YouTube's Symphony Orchestra contest. (http://www.youtube.com/symphony) YouTube had judges sift through user-submitted videos to find exceptional performers to fly to New York City for a live symphony concert performance of a new piece written for the occasion by the renowned Chinese composer Tan Dun, which was then republished on YouTube.+An alternative incentive that has proven effective to get short-term increases in participation for this pattern are commercial: offer a cash prize drawing for the best, funniest, or wackiest submissions. In fact, this pattern is used on many contest sites, such as YouTube's Symphony Orchestra contest. ([[http://www.youtube.com/symphony|http://www.youtube.com/symphony]]) YouTube had judges sift through user-submitted videos to find exceptional performers to fly to New York City for a live symphony concert performance of a new piece written for the occasion by the renowned Chinese composer Tan Dun, which was then republished on YouTube.
<blockquote Michael Tilson Thomas, Director of Music, San Francisco Symphony> <blockquote Michael Tilson Thomas, Director of Music, San Francisco Symphony>
Line 206: Line 205:
<html><a name='Chap_5-Agents-CCP'></a></html> <html><a name='Chap_5-Agents-CCP'></a></html>
== Agents: Users Create and Remove, Staff Evaluates == == Agents: Users Create and Remove, Staff Evaluates ==
-<html><center><img width="" src="http://buildingreputation.com/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=Ch06-CCP-TBD2.png"/></center></html>+<html><center><img width="50%" src="http://buildingreputation.com/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=InformalFigure_5-3.6.png"/></center></html>
The agents content control pattern rarely appears as a standalone form of content control, but it often appears as a subpattern in a more complex system. The staff acts as a prioritizing filter of the incoming user-generated content, which is passed on to other users for simple consumption or rejection. A simple example is early web indexes, such as the 100% staff-edited Yahoo! Directory, which was the Web's most popular index until web search demonstrated that it could better handle the Web's exponential growth and the types of detailed queries required to find the fine-grained content available. The agents content control pattern rarely appears as a standalone form of content control, but it often appears as a subpattern in a more complex system. The staff acts as a prioritizing filter of the incoming user-generated content, which is passed on to other users for simple consumption or rejection. A simple example is early web indexes, such as the 100% staff-edited Yahoo! Directory, which was the Web's most popular index until web search demonstrated that it could better handle the Web's exponential growth and the types of detailed queries required to find the fine-grained content available.
-Agents are often used in hierarchical arrangements to provide scale, because each layer of hierarchy decreases the work on each individual evaluator several times over, which can make it possible for a few dozen people to evaluate a very large amount of user-generated content. We mentioned that the contest portion of "American Idol" was a surveys content control pattern-but talent selection initially goes through a series of agents, each prioritizing and passing them on to a judge, until some of the near-finalists (selected by yet another agent) appear on camera before the celebrity judges. The judges choose the talent (the content) for the season, but they don't choose who appears in the qualification episodes-the producer does.+Agents are often used in hierarchical arrangements to provide scale, because each layer of hierarchy decreases the work on each individual evaluator several times over, which can make it possible for a few dozen people to evaluate a very large amount of user-generated content. We mentioned that the contest portion of //American Idol//was a surveys content control pattern-but talent selection initially goes through a series of agents, each prioritizing and passing them on to a judge, until some of the near-finalists (selected by yet another agent) appear on camera before the celebrity judges. The judges choose the talent (the content) for the season, but they don't choose who appears in the qualification episodes-the producer does.
The agents pattern generally doesn't have many reputation system requirements, depending on how much power you invest in the users to remove content. In the case of the Yahoo! Directory, the company may choose to pay attention to the links that remain unclicked in order to optimize its content. If, on the other hand, your users have a lot of authority over the removal of content, consider the abuse mitigation issues raised in the <html><a href="/doku.php?id=Chapter_5#Chap_5-Surveys-CCP">Chap_5-Surveys-CCP</a>&nbsp;</html>pattern. The agents pattern generally doesn't have many reputation system requirements, depending on how much power you invest in the users to remove content. In the case of the Yahoo! Directory, the company may choose to pay attention to the links that remain unclicked in order to optimize its content. If, on the other hand, your users have a lot of authority over the removal of content, consider the abuse mitigation issues raised in the <html><a href="/doku.php?id=Chapter_5#Chap_5-Surveys-CCP">Chap_5-Surveys-CCP</a>&nbsp;</html>pattern.
Line 216: Line 215:
<html><a name='Chap_5-Basic-Social-Media-CCP'></a></html> <html><a name='Chap_5-Basic-Social-Media-CCP'></a></html>
== Basic Social Media: Users Create and Evaluate, Staff Removes == == Basic Social Media: Users Create and Evaluate, Staff Removes ==
-<html><center><img width="" src="http://buildingreputation.com/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=Ch06-CCP-BasicSocialMedia.png"/></center></html>+<html><center><img width="50%" src="http://buildingreputation.com/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=InformalFigure_5-3.7.png"/></center></html>
An application that lets users create and evaluate a significant portion of the a site's content is what people are calling basic social media these days. On most sites with a basic social media content control pattern, content removal is controlled by staff, for two primary reasons: An application that lets users create and evaluate a significant portion of the a site's content is what people are calling basic social media these days. On most sites with a basic social media content control pattern, content removal is controlled by staff, for two primary reasons:
  * Legal exposure: Compliance with local and international laws on content and who may consume it cause most site operators to draw the line on user control here. In Germany, for instance, certain Nazi imagery is banned from web sites, even if the content is from an American user, so German sites filter for it. No amount of user voting will overturn that decision. U.S. laws that affect what content may be displayed and to whom include the Children's Online Privacy and Protection Act (COPPA) and the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which govern children's interaction with identity and advertising, and the Digital Copyright Millennium Act (DCMA), which requires sites with user-generated content to remove items that are alleged to violate copyright on the request of the content's copyright holder.   * Legal exposure: Compliance with local and international laws on content and who may consume it cause most site operators to draw the line on user control here. In Germany, for instance, certain Nazi imagery is banned from web sites, even if the content is from an American user, so German sites filter for it. No amount of user voting will overturn that decision. U.S. laws that affect what content may be displayed and to whom include the Children's Online Privacy and Protection Act (COPPA) and the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which govern children's interaction with identity and advertising, and the Digital Copyright Millennium Act (DCMA), which requires sites with user-generated content to remove items that are alleged to violate copyright on the request of the content's copyright holder.
-  * Minimum editorial quality and revenue exposure: When user-generated content is popular but causes the company grave business distress, it is often removed by staff. A good example of a conflict between user-generated content and business goals surfaces on sites with third-party advertising: Ford Motor Company wouldn't be happy if one of its advertisements appeared next to a post that read, "The Ford Taurus sucks! Buy a Scion instead." Even if there is no way to monitor for sentiment, often a minimum quality of contribution is required for the greater health of the community and business. Compare the comments on just about any YouTube video to those on popular Flickr photos. This suggests that the standard for content quality should be as high as cost allows.+  * Minimum editorial quality and revenue exposure: When user-generated content is popular but causes the company grave business distress, it is often removed by staff. A good example of a conflict between user-generated content and business goals surfaces on sites with third-party advertising: Ford Motor Company wouldn't be happy if one of its advertisements appeared next to a post that read, “The Ford Taurus sucks! Buy a Scion instead.Even if there is no way to monitor for sentiment, often a minimum quality of contribution is required for the greater health of the community and business. Compare the comments on just about any YouTube video to those on popular Flickr photos. This suggests that the standard for content quality should be as high as cost allows.
Often, operators of new sites start out with an empty shell, expecting users to create and evaluate en masse, but most such sites never gather a critical mass of content creators, because the operators didn't account for the small fraction of users who are creators (see <html><a href="/doku.php?id=Chapter_1#Chap_1-creators_synthesizers_consumers">Chap_1-creators_synthesizers_consumers</a>&nbsp;</html>). But if you bootstrap yourself past the not-enough-creators problem, through advertising, reputation, partnerships, and/or a lot of hard work, the feedback loop can start working for you. See <html><a href="/doku.php?id=Chapter_1#Chap_1-virtuous_circle">Chap_1-virtuous_circle</a>&nbsp;</html>. The Web is filled with examples of significant growth with this content control pattern: Digg, YouTube, Slashdot, JPG Magazine, etc. Often, operators of new sites start out with an empty shell, expecting users to create and evaluate en masse, but most such sites never gather a critical mass of content creators, because the operators didn't account for the small fraction of users who are creators (see <html><a href="/doku.php?id=Chapter_1#Chap_1-creators_synthesizers_consumers">Chap_1-creators_synthesizers_consumers</a>&nbsp;</html>). But if you bootstrap yourself past the not-enough-creators problem, through advertising, reputation, partnerships, and/or a lot of hard work, the feedback loop can start working for you. See <html><a href="/doku.php?id=Chapter_1#Chap_1-virtuous_circle">Chap_1-virtuous_circle</a>&nbsp;</html>. The Web is filled with examples of significant growth with this content control pattern: Digg, YouTube, Slashdot, JPG Magazine, etc.
Line 228: Line 227:
<html><a name='Chap_5-The-Full-Monty-CCP'></a></html> <html><a name='Chap_5-The-Full-Monty-CCP'></a></html>
== The Full Monty: Users Create, Evaluate, and Remove == == The Full Monty: Users Create, Evaluate, and Remove ==
-<html><center><img width="" src="http://buildingreputation.com/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=Ch06-CCP-TheFullMonty.png"/></center></html>+<html><center><img width="50%" src="http://buildingreputation.com/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=InformalFigure_5-3.8.png"/></center></html>
What? You want to give users complete control over the content? Are you sure? Be sure to read <html><a href="/doku.php?id=Chapter_5#Chap_5-Basic-Social-Media-CCP">Chap_5-Basic-Social-Media-CCP</a>&nbsp;</html>to find out why most site operators don't give communities control over most content removal. What? You want to give users complete control over the content? Are you sure? Be sure to read <html><a href="/doku.php?id=Chapter_5#Chap_5-Basic-Social-Media-CCP">Chap_5-Basic-Social-Media-CCP</a>&nbsp;</html>to find out why most site operators don't give communities control over most content removal.
Line 241: Line 240:
Notice that catching bad content is not the same is identifying good content. In a universe in which the users are in complete control, the best you can hope to do is encourage the kinds of contributions you want through modeling the behavior you want to see, constantly tweaking your reputation systems, improving your incentive models, and providing clear lines of communication between your company and customers. Notice that catching bad content is not the same is identifying good content. In a universe in which the users are in complete control, the best you can hope to do is encourage the kinds of contributions you want through modeling the behavior you want to see, constantly tweaking your reputation systems, improving your incentive models, and providing clear lines of communication between your company and customers.
 +
 +<html><a name="Figure_5-4"><center></html>// Figure_5-4: An overview of the content control patterns //<html></center></a></html>
 +<html><center><img width="90%" src="http://buildingreputation.com/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=Figure_5-4.png"/></center></html>
<html><a name='Chap_5-Incentives'></a></html> <html><a name='Chap_5-Incentives'></a></html>
Line 250: Line 252:
In Chapter 4 of his book //Predictably Irrational//, Duke University Professor of Behavioral Economics Dan Ariely describes a view of two separate incentive exchanges for doing work and the norms that set the rules for them: he calls them social norms and market norms. In Chapter 4 of his book //Predictably Irrational//, Duke University Professor of Behavioral Economics Dan Ariely describes a view of two separate incentive exchanges for doing work and the norms that set the rules for them: he calls them social norms and market norms.
-Social norms govern doing work for other people because they asked you to-often because doing the favor makes you feel good. Ariely says these exchanges are "wrapped up in our social nature and our need for community. They are usually warm and fuzzy." Market norms, on the other hand, are cold and mediated by wages, prices, and cash: "There's nothing warm and fuzzy about [them]," writes Ariely. Market norms come from the land of "you get what you pay for."+Social norms govern doing work for other people because they asked you to-often because doing the favor makes you feel good. Ariely says these exchanges are “wrapped up in our social nature and our need for community. They are usually warm and fuzzy.Market norms, on the other hand, are cold and mediated by wages, prices, and cash: “There's nothing warm and fuzzy about [them],writes Ariely. Market norms come from the land of “you get what you pay for.
-Social and market norms don't mix well. Ariely gives several examples of confusion when these incentive models mix. In one, he describes a hypothetical scene after a family home-cooked holiday dinner, in which he offers to pay his mother $400, and the outrage that would ensue, and the cost of the social damage (which would be take a long time to repair). In a second example, less purely hypothetical and more common, Ariely shows what happens when social and market norms are mixed in dating and sex. A guy takes a girl out on a series of expensive dates. Should he expect increased social interaction-maybe at least a passionate kiss? "On the fourth date he casually mentions how much this romance is costing him. Now he's crossed the line [and has upset his date!] He should have known you can't mix social and market norms-especially in this case-without implying that the lady is a tramp."+Social and market norms don't mix well. Ariely gives several examples of confusion when these incentive models mix. In one, he describes a hypothetical scene after a family home-cooked holiday dinner, in which he offers to pay his mother $400, and the outrage that would ensue, and the cost of the social damage (which would be take a long time to repair). In a second example, less purely hypothetical and more common, Ariely shows what happens when social and market norms are mixed in dating and sex. A guy takes a girl out on a series of expensive dates. Should he expect increased social interaction-maybe at least a passionate kiss? “On the fourth date he casually mentions how much this romance is costing him. Now he's crossed the line [and has upset his date!] He should have known you can't mix social and market norms-especially in this case-without implying that the lady is a tramp.
//Predictably Irrational// then goes on to detail an experiment which verifies that social and market exchanges differ significantly, at least when it comes to very small units of work. The work-effort he tested is similar to many of reputation evaluations we're trying to create incentives for. The task in the experiments was trivial: use a mouse to drag a circle into a square on a computer screen as many times as possible in five minutes. Three groups were tested: one group was offered no compensation for participating in the test, one group was offered 50 cents, and the last group was offered $5. Though the subjects who were paid $5 did more work than those who were paid 50 cents, the subjects who did the most work were the ones who were offered no money at all. When the money was substituted with a gift of the same value (a Snickers bar and a box of Godiva chocolates), the work distinction went away-it seems that gifts operate in the domain of social norms, and the candy recipients worked as hard as the subjects who weren't compensated. But-when a price sticker was left on the chocolates so that the subjects could see the monetary value of the reward, it was again market norms that applied, and the striking difference in work results reappeared-with volunteers working harder than subjects who received priced candy. //Predictably Irrational// then goes on to detail an experiment which verifies that social and market exchanges differ significantly, at least when it comes to very small units of work. The work-effort he tested is similar to many of reputation evaluations we're trying to create incentives for. The task in the experiments was trivial: use a mouse to drag a circle into a square on a computer screen as many times as possible in five minutes. Three groups were tested: one group was offered no compensation for participating in the test, one group was offered 50 cents, and the last group was offered $5. Though the subjects who were paid $5 did more work than those who were paid 50 cents, the subjects who did the most work were the ones who were offered no money at all. When the money was substituted with a gift of the same value (a Snickers bar and a box of Godiva chocolates), the work distinction went away-it seems that gifts operate in the domain of social norms, and the candy recipients worked as hard as the subjects who weren't compensated. But-when a price sticker was left on the chocolates so that the subjects could see the monetary value of the reward, it was again market norms that applied, and the striking difference in work results reappeared-with volunteers working harder than subjects who received priced candy.
Line 263: Line 265:
  * //commercial// motivation: to generate revenue   * //commercial// motivation: to generate revenue
  * //egocentric// motivation: for self-gratification   * //egocentric// motivation: for self-gratification
-Interestingly, these behaviors map somewhat to social norms (altruistic and egocentric) and market norms (commercial and egocentric). Notice that egocentric motivation is listed both a social and a market norm. This is because market-like reputation systems (like points or virtual currencies) are being used to create successful work incentives for egocentric users. In effect, egocentric motivation crosses the two categories in a entirely new virtual social environment - an online reputation-based incentive system - in which these social and market norms can coexist in ways that we might normally find socially repugnant in the real world. In reputation-based incentive systems, bragging can be good.+Interestingly, these behaviors map somewhat to social norms (altruistic and egocentric) and market norms (commercial and egocentric). Notice that egocentric motivation is listed both a social and a market norm. This is because market-like reputation systems (like points or virtual currencies) are being used to create successful work incentives for egocentric users. In effect, egocentric motivation crosses the two categories in a entirely new virtual social environment-an online reputation-based incentive system-in which these social and market norms can coexist in ways that we might normally find socially repugnant in the real world. In reputation-based incentive systems, bragging can be good.
<html><a name='Chap_5-Altruistic_Incentives'></a></html> <html><a name='Chap_5-Altruistic_Incentives'></a></html>
Line 271: Line 273:
Altruistic or sharing incentives can be characterized into several categories: Altruistic or sharing incentives can be characterized into several categories:
-  * //tit-for-tat// or //pay-it-forward// incentives: "I do it because someone else did it for me first" +  * //tit-for-tat// or //pay-it-forward// incentives: “I do it because someone else did it for me first”  
-  * //friendship// incentives: "I do it because I care about others who will consume this" +  * //friendship// incentives: “I do it because I care about others who will consume this”  
-  * //know-it-all// or //crusader// or //opinionated// incentives: "I do it because I know something everyone else needs to know"+  * //know-it-all// or //crusader// or //opinionated// incentives: “I do it because I know something everyone else needs to know”
  * //other// atruistic incentives: If you know of other incentives driven by altruism or sharing, please contribute them to the web site for this book: [[http://buildingreputation.com|BuildingReputation.com]].   * //other// atruistic incentives: If you know of other incentives driven by altruism or sharing, please contribute them to the web site for this book: [[http://buildingreputation.com|BuildingReputation.com]].
When you're considering reputation models that offer altruistic incentives, remember that these incentives exist in the realm of social norms-they're all about sharing, not accumulating commercial value or karma points. Avoid aggrandizing users driven by altruistic incentives-they don't want their contributions to be counted, recognized, ranked, evaluated, compensated, or rewarded in any significant way. Comparing their work to anyone else's will actually discourage them from participating. When you're considering reputation models that offer altruistic incentives, remember that these incentives exist in the realm of social norms-they're all about sharing, not accumulating commercial value or karma points. Avoid aggrandizing users driven by altruistic incentives-they don't want their contributions to be counted, recognized, ranked, evaluated, compensated, or rewarded in any significant way. Comparing their work to anyone else's will actually discourage them from participating.
Line 294: Line 296:
** Know-It-All, Crusader, and Opinionated Incentives ** ** Know-It-All, Crusader, and Opinionated Incentives **
-Some users are motivated to contribute to a site by a passion of some kind. Some passions are temporary; for example, the //Crusaders// are like those who've had a terrible customer experience might wish to share their frustration with the anonymous masses, perhaps exacting some minor revenge on the business in question. Some passions stem from deeply held religious or political beliefs and they feel compelled to share - they are the //Opinionated//.. The //Know-it-All// users' passions emerge from topical expertise and others are just killing time. In any case, people seem to have a lot to say that has very mixed commercial value. Just glancing at the at the comments on a popular YouTube video will show many of these motivations all jumbled together.+Some users are motivated to contribute to a site by a passion of some kind. Some passions are temporary; for example, the //Crusaders// are like those who've had a terrible customer experience might wish to share their frustration with the anonymous masses, perhaps exacting some minor revenge on the business in question. Some passions stem from deeply held religious or political beliefs and they feel compelled to share-they are the //Opinionated//.. The //Know-it-All// users' passions emerge from topical expertise and others are just killing time. In any case, people seem to have a lot to say that has very mixed commercial value. Just glancing at the at the comments on a popular YouTube video will show many of these motivations all jumbled together.
This group of altruistic incentives is a mixed bag. It can result in some great contributions as well as a lot of junk (as we mentioned in <html><a href="/doku.php?id=Chapter_1#Chap_1-lots_of_crap">Chap_1-lots_of_crap</a>&nbsp;</html>). If you have reason to believe that a large portion of your most influential community members will be motivated by controversial ideas, carefully consider the costs of evaluation and removal in the content control pattern that you choose. Having a large community that is out of control can be worse than having no community at all. This group of altruistic incentives is a mixed bag. It can result in some great contributions as well as a lot of junk (as we mentioned in <html><a href="/doku.php?id=Chapter_1#Chap_1-lots_of_crap">Chap_1-lots_of_crap</a>&nbsp;</html>). If you have reason to believe that a large portion of your most influential community members will be motivated by controversial ideas, carefully consider the costs of evaluation and removal in the content control pattern that you choose. Having a large community that is out of control can be worse than having no community at all.
-<html><a name="Figure_5-5"><center></html>// Figure_5-5: In the context of movie reviews, the vote "This was helpful" means something like "I agree with this." //<html></center></a></html> +<html><a name="Figure_5-5"><center></html>// Figure_5-5: In the context of movie reviews, it appears as if the community has interpreted the Was This Helpfulquestion in its own way-they're probably using that input to agree or disagree with a viewpoint, rather than gauging how usefulit may or may not be. //<html></center></a></html> 
-<html><center><img width="90%" src="http://buildingreputation.com/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=Ch06-HelpfulBecomesAgreement.png"/></center></html>+<html><center><img width="90%" src="http://buildingreputation.com/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=Figure_5-5.png"/></center></html>
-On any movie review site, look at the way people respond to one another's reviews for the movies "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "The Passion of the Christ." If the site offers "Was this review helpful?" voting, the reviews with the highest total votes are likely to be very polarized. Clearly, in this context the word "helpful" means agreement with the author.+On any movie review site, look at the way people respond to one another's reviews for hot-button movies like //Fahrenheit 9/11//(<html><a href="#Figure_5-5">Figure_5-5</a>&nbsp;</html>) or //The Passion of the Christ//. If the site offers “Was this review helpful?voting, the reviews with the highest total votes are likely to be very polarized. Clearly, in these contexts the word //helpful// means “agreement with the review-writers viewpoint.
<html><a name='Chap_5-Commercial_Incentives'></a></html> <html><a name='Chap_5-Commercial_Incentives'></a></html>
Line 309: Line 311:
Reputation models that exhibit content control patterns based on commercial incentives must communicate a much stronger user identity. They need strong and distinctive user profiles with links to each user's valuable contributions and content. For example, as part of reinforcing her personal brand, an expert in textile design would want to share links to content that she thinks her fans will find noteworthy. Reputation models that exhibit content control patterns based on commercial incentives must communicate a much stronger user identity. They need strong and distinctive user profiles with links to each user's valuable contributions and content. For example, as part of reinforcing her personal brand, an expert in textile design would want to share links to content that she thinks her fans will find noteworthy.
-But don't confuse the need to support strong profiles for contributors with the need for a strong or prominent karma system. When a new brand is being introduced to a market, whether it's a new kind of dish soap or a new blogger on a topic, a karma system that favors established participants can be a disincentive to contribute content. A community decides how to treat newcomers-with open arms or with suspicion. An example of the latter is eBay, where all new sellers must "pay their dues" and bend over backward to get a dozen or so positive evaluations before the market at large will embrace them as trustworthy vendors. Whether you need karma in your commercial incentive model depends on the goals you set for your application. One possible rule of thumb: If users are going to pass money directly to other people they don't know, consider adding karma to help establish trust.+But don't confuse the need to support strong profiles for contributors with the need for a strong or prominent karma system. When a new brand is being introduced to a market, whether it's a new kind of dish soap or a new blogger on a topic, a karma system that favors established participants can be a disincentive to contribute content. A community decides how to treat newcomers-with open arms or with suspicion. An example of the latter is eBay, where all new sellers must “pay their dues” and bend over backward to get a dozen or so positive evaluations before the market at large will embrace them as trustworthy vendors. Whether you need karma in your commercial incentive model depends on the goals you set for your application. One possible rule of thumb: If users are going to pass money directly to other people they don't know, consider adding karma to help establish trust.
There are two main subcategories of commercial incentives: There are two main subcategories of commercial incentives:
Line 324: Line 326:
When you're considering reputation systems for an application with a direct revenue incentive, step back and make sure that you might not be better off with either an altruistic or an egocentric incentive. Despite what you may have learned in school, money is //not// always the best motivator, and for consumers it's a pretty big barrier to entry. The ill-fated Google Answers failed because it was based on a user-to-user direct revenue incentive model in which competing sites, such as WikiAnswers, provided similar results for free (financed, ironically, by using Google AdSense to monetize answer pages indexed by, you guessed it, Google). When you're considering reputation systems for an application with a direct revenue incentive, step back and make sure that you might not be better off with either an altruistic or an egocentric incentive. Despite what you may have learned in school, money is //not// always the best motivator, and for consumers it's a pretty big barrier to entry. The ill-fated Google Answers failed because it was based on a user-to-user direct revenue incentive model in which competing sites, such as WikiAnswers, provided similar results for free (financed, ironically, by using Google AdSense to monetize answer pages indexed by, you guessed it, Google).
-<note tip>+<box blue 75% round>
** The Zero Price Effect: Free Is Disproportionately Better Than Cheap ** ** The Zero Price Effect: Free Is Disproportionately Better Than Cheap **
Line 331: Line 333:
  * Don't delude yourself that you will overcome the zero price effect by pricing items low enough in a user-to-user direct revenue incentive design.   * Don't delude yourself that you will overcome the zero price effect by pricing items low enough in a user-to-user direct revenue incentive design.
  * Even if you give away user contributions for free, you can still have direct revenue: charge advertisers or sponsors instead of charging consumers.   * Even if you give away user contributions for free, you can still have direct revenue: charge advertisers or sponsors instead of charging consumers.
-</note>+</box>
** Incentives through Branding: Professional Promotion ** ** Incentives through Branding: Professional Promotion **
Line 340: Line 342:
<html><a name="Figure_5-6"><center></html>// Figure_5-6: Awe.sm turns URL shortening into a reputation system, measuring how many people click your URL and how many share it with others. //<html></center></a></html> <html><a name="Figure_5-6"><center></html>// Figure_5-6: Awe.sm turns URL shortening into a reputation system, measuring how many people click your URL and how many share it with others. //<html></center></a></html>
-<html><center><img width="90%" src="http://buildingreputation.com/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=Ch06-AweSmReputation.png"/></center></html>+<html><center><img width="90%" src="http://buildingreputation.com/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=Figure_5-6.png"/></center></html> 
 + 
 +Take the simple act of sharing a URL on a social site, such as Twitter. Without a reputation system, you have no idea how many people followed your link or how many other people shared it. The URL-shortening service Awe.sm, <html><a href="#Figure_5-6">Figure_5-6</a>&nbsp;</html>, provides both features: it tracks how many people click your link and how many different people shared the URL with others.
-Take the simple act of sharing a URL on a social site, such as Twitter. Without a reputation system, you have no idea how many people followed your link or how many other people shared it. The URL-shortening service Awe.sm provides both features: it tracks how many people click your link and how many different people shared the URL with others.+For contributors who are building a brand, public karma systems are a double-edged sword. If a contributor is at the top of his market, his karma can be a big indicator of trustworthiness, but most karma scores can't distinguish inexperience from a newly registered account from complete incompetence-this fact handicaps new entrants.
-For contributors who are building a brand, public karma systems are a double-edged sword. If a contributor is at the top of his market, his karma can be a big indicator of trustworthiness, but most karma scores can't distinguish inexperience from a newly registered account from complete incompetence, which handicaps new entrants. An application can address that problem by including time-limited scores in the karma mix. For example, B.F. Skinner was a world-renowned and respected behavioral scientist, but his high reputation has a weakness - it's old. In certain contexts, it's even useless- for example his great reputation would do me no good if I were looking for a thesis advisor-he's been dead for almost 20 years.+An application can address this experience-inequity by including time-limited scores in the karma mix. For example, B.F. Skinner was a world-renowned and respected behavioral scientist, but his high reputation has a weakness-it's old. In certain contexts, it's even useless. For example, his great reputation would do me no good if I were looking for a thesis advisor-he's been dead for almost 20 years.
<html><a name='Chap_5-Egocentric_Incentives'></a></html> <html><a name='Chap_5-Egocentric_Incentives'></a></html>
Line 350: Line 354:
Egocentric incentives are often exploited in the design online in computer games and many reputation based web sites. The simple desire to accomplish a task taps into deeply hard-wired motivations described in behavioral psychology as //classical and operant conditioning// (which involves training subjects to respond to food-related stimulus) and //schedules of reinforcement//. This research indicates that people can be influenced to repeat simple tasks by providing periodic rewards, even a reward as simple as a pleasing sound. Egocentric incentives are often exploited in the design online in computer games and many reputation based web sites. The simple desire to accomplish a task taps into deeply hard-wired motivations described in behavioral psychology as //classical and operant conditioning// (which involves training subjects to respond to food-related stimulus) and //schedules of reinforcement//. This research indicates that people can be influenced to repeat simple tasks by providing periodic rewards, even a reward as simple as a pleasing sound.
-But, an individual animal's behavior in the social vacuum of a research lab is not the same as the ways in which we very social humans reflect our egocentric behaviors to one another. Humans make teams and compete in tournaments. We follow leaderboards comparing ourselves to others and comparing groups that we associate ourselves with. Even if our accomplishments don't help another soul or generate any revenue for us personally, we often want to feel recognized for them. Even if we don't seek accolades from our peers, we want to be able to //demonstrate mastery// of something-to hear the message "You did it! Good job!"+But, an individual animal's behavior in the social vacuum of a research lab is not the same as the ways in which we very social humans reflect our egocentric behaviors to one another. Humans make teams and compete in tournaments. We follow leaderboards comparing ourselves to others and comparing groups that we associate ourselves with. Even if our accomplishments don't help another soul or generate any revenue for us personally, we often want to feel recognized for them. Even if we don't seek accolades from our peers, we want to be able to //demonstrate mastery// of something-to hear the message “You did it! Good job!
Therefore, in a reputation system based on egocentric incentives, user profiles are a key requirement. In this kind of system, users need someplace to show off their accomplishments-even if only to themselves. Almost by definition, egocentric incentives involve one or more forms of karma. Even with only a simple system of granting trophies for achievements, users will compare their collections to one another. New norms will appear that look more like market norms than social norms: people will trade favors to advance their karma, people will attempt to cheat to get an advantage, and those who feel they can't compete will opt out altogether. Therefore, in a reputation system based on egocentric incentives, user profiles are a key requirement. In this kind of system, users need someplace to show off their accomplishments-even if only to themselves. Almost by definition, egocentric incentives involve one or more forms of karma. Even with only a simple system of granting trophies for achievements, users will compare their collections to one another. New norms will appear that look more like market norms than social norms: people will trade favors to advance their karma, people will attempt to cheat to get an advantage, and those who feel they can't compete will opt out altogether.
Line 388: Line 392:
==  == ==  ==
-<note tip>+<box blue 75% round>
** Summary: Motivation and Incentive ** ** Summary: Motivation and Incentive **
  * //Altruistic// motivation: for the good of others   * //Altruistic// motivation: for the good of others
-    * //Tit-for-Tat// or //Pay-it-Forward// incentives: I do it because someone else did it for me first" +    * //Tit-for-Tat// or //Pay-it-Forward// incentives: “I do it because someone else did it for me first.”  
-    * //Friendship// incentives: "I do it because I care about others who will consume this" +    * //Friendship// incentives: “I do it because I care about others who will consume this.”  
-    * //Know-it-All// or //Crusader// or //Opinionated// incentives: "I do it because I know something everyone else needs to know"+    * //Know-it-All// or //Crusader// or //Opinionated// incentives: “I do it because I know something everyone else needs to know.”
  * //Commercial// motivation: to generate revenue   * //Commercial// motivation: to generate revenue
    * //Direct revenue// incentives: Extracting commercial value (better yet, cash) directly from the user as soon as possible     * //Direct revenue// incentives: Extracting commercial value (better yet, cash) directly from the user as soon as possible
-    * //Branding// incentives: Creating indirect value by promotion - revenue will follow later+    * //Branding// incentives: Creating indirect value by promotion-revenue will follow later
  * //Egocentric// motivation: for self-gratification   * //Egocentric// motivation: for self-gratification
    * //Fulfillment// incentives: The desire to complete a task, assigned by oneself, a friend, or the application     * //Fulfillment// incentives: The desire to complete a task, assigned by oneself, a friend, or the application
    * //Recognition// incentives: The desire for the praise of others     * //Recognition// incentives: The desire for the praise of others
    * //The Quest for Mastery//: Personal and private motivation to improve oneself     * //The Quest for Mastery//: Personal and private motivation to improve oneself
-</note>+</box>
=== Consider Your Community === === Consider Your Community ===
Line 423: Line 427:
-== Community's Character: The Competitive Spectrum ==+== The Competitive Spectrum ==
Is your community a friendly, welcoming place? Helpful? Collaborative? Argumentative or spirited? Downright combative? Communities can put a whole range of behaviors on display, and it can be dangerous to generalize too much about any specific community. But it's important to at least consider the overall character of the community that you plan to influence through your reputation system. Is your community a friendly, welcoming place? Helpful? Collaborative? Argumentative or spirited? Downright combative? Communities can put a whole range of behaviors on display, and it can be dangerous to generalize too much about any specific community. But it's important to at least consider the overall character of the community that you plan to influence through your reputation system.
-A very telling aspect of community character (though it's not the only one worth considering) is the level of perceived competitiveness in your community. That aspect includes the individual goals of community members, and to what degree those goals coexist peacefully or conflict. What actions that community members engage in? How do those actions may impinge on the experiences of other community members? Do comparisons or contests among people produce the desired behaviors.+A very telling aspect of community character (though it's not the only one worth considering) is the level of perceived competitiveness in your community. (<html><a href="#Figure_5-7">Figure_5-7</a>&nbsp;</html>.) That aspect includes the individual goals of community members, and to what degree those goals coexist peacefully or conflict. What actions that community members engage in? How do those actions may impinge on the experiences of other community members? Do comparisons or contests among people produce the desired behaviors.
-<html><a name="Figure_5-7"><center></html>// Figure_5-7: The reputation models you need depend on the level of competitiveness in your community. //<html></center></a></html> +<html><a name="Figure_5-7"><center></html>// Figure_5-7: The competitive spectrum may help suggest the appropriate reputation model for your community's needs. //<html></center></a></html> 
-<html><center><img width="80%" src="http://buildingreputation.com/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=Ch06-CompetitiveSpectrum.jpg"/></center></html>+<html><center><img width="80%" src="http://buildingreputation.com/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=Figure_5-7.png"/></center></html>
In general, the more competitive a group of people in a community are, the more appropriate it is to compare those people (and the artifacts that they generate) to one another. In general, the more competitive a group of people in a community are, the more appropriate it is to compare those people (and the artifacts that they generate) to one another.
-<note caution>Read that last bit again, and carefully. A common mistake made by product architects (especially for social web experiences) is assuming a higher level of competitiveness than what really exists. Because reputation systems and their attendant incentive systems are often intended to emulate the principles of engaging game designs, designers often gravitate toward the aggressively competitive-and comparative-end of the spectrum.+Read that last bit again, and carefully. A common mistake made by product architects (especially for social web experiences) is assuming a higher level of competitiveness than what really exists. Because reputation systems and their attendant incentive systems are often intended to emulate the principles of engaging game designs, designers often gravitate toward the aggressively competitive-and comparative-end of the spectrum.
-Even the intermediate stages along the spectrum can be deceiving. For example, where would you place a community like Match.com or Yahoo! Personals along the spectrum? Perhaps your first instinct was to say "I would place a dating site firmly in the 'competitive' part of the spectrum." People are competing for attention, right? And dates?+Even the intermediate stages along the spectrum can be deceiving. For example, where would you place a community like Match.com or Yahoo! Personals along the spectrum? Perhaps your first instinct was to say “I would place a dating site firmly in the 'competitive' part of the spectrum.People are competing for attention, right? And dates?
-Remember, though, the entire context for reputation in this example. Most important, remember the desires of the person who is doing the evaluating on these sites. A visitor to a dating site probably doesn't want competition, and she may not view her activity on the site as competitive at all but as a collaborative endeavor. She's looking for a potential dating partner who meets her own particular criteria and needs-not necessarily "the best person on the site.&quot;+Remember, though, the entire context for reputation in this example. Most important, remember the desires of the person who is doing the evaluating on these sites. A visitor to a dating site probably doesn't want competition, and she may not view her activity on the site as competitive at all but as a collaborative endeavor. She's looking for a potential dating partner who meets her own particular criteria and needs-not necessarily “the best person on the site.&lt;note tip>“The Competitive Spectrum” is expanded upon in //Designing Social Interfaces//(O'Reilly, 2009).
</note> </note>
 +
 +
=== Better Questions === === Better Questions ===
-Our goal for this chapter has been to get you asking the right questions about reputation for your application. Do you need reputation at all? How might it promote more and better participation? How might it conflict with your goals for community use of my application? We've given you a lot to consider in this chapter, but your answers to these questions will be invaluable as you dig into the nuts and bolts of your reputation system in <html><a href="/doku.php?id=Chapter_6">Chapter_6</a>&nbsp;</html>.+Our goal for this chapter has been to get you asking the right questions about reputation for your application. Do you need reputation at all? How might it promote more and better participation? How might it conflict with your goals for community use of my application? We've given you a lot to consider in this chapter, but your answers to these questions will be invaluable as you dig into <html><a href="/doku.php?id=Chapter_6">Chapter_6</a>&nbsp;</html>, where we'll teach you how to define the what, who, how, and limits of your reputation system.
chapter_5.txt · Last modified: 2009/12/01 14:22 by randy
www.chimeric.de Creative Commons License Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki do yourself a favour and use a real browser - get firefox!! Recent changes RSS feed Valid XHTML 1.0