Skip to main content

Home/ encourage user participation/ Group items tagged web

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Martin M

Bokardo » Common Pitfalls of Building Social Web Applications and How to Avoi... - 0 views

Martin M

Bokardo » Common Pitfalls of Building Social Web Applications and How to Avoi... - 0 views

  • 1) Underestimating The Cold Start Problem
  • you have to build your own attention momentum over time
  • Strong social sites build value one user at a time. If one user finds value, then they’re much more likely to tell others or invite their friends.
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • 2) Focusing on Too Many Things
  • If you can’t describe what your site does with a single, clear idea then you’re trying to do too much
  • the ease of adding social features is a barrier to focus
  • Nail that one thing to the ground, and show people how you do that one thing better than anybody else.
  • 3) Lack of Sustained Execution
  • 4) Pointing the Finger when Missteps Happen
Oksana

Slashdot | Luring the Lurkers - 0 views

  • Lurkers are one of the Net's biggest disenfranchised groups, unseen or heard. Although there are many more Lurkers than posters by far on sites like this, they get almost none of the attention. This distorts agendas and skews perceptions. As newcomers come onto the Web in record numbers, Lurking is growing -- you should see my e-mail. So are the reasons for websites to take Lurkers more seriously and get them to come out.
  • A recent survey by a computer consulting firm in Chicago found that 98 per cent of the visitors to large sites with open forums - from AOL and MSN to sites like Slashdot - never submit ideas or articles and never post opinions or participate in arguments.
  • Sites like Slashdot should offer special welcome areas for Lurkers, newcomers and newbies, not to mention immigrants, the elderly, the technically challenged or the shy. I can testify from personal experience that there are hundreds of people on this site who would be happy to help if they were asked, and would warmly greet newcomers.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • Established sites like the Well have long provided moderated areas where people can identify themselves, be welcomed, and ask questions about the site, and the different topics and discussion areas. There is no debate or arguments on welcome sites, simply the chance for people to say who they are, why they're here, and what they are interested in, and for the site - usually volunteers -- to help guide them.
  • One of the best things about the Web, as many Lurkers point out, is, in fact, one of the worst - a tolerance for open discussion that makes the Internet the freest culture in the world. For me, this is a fair trade-off.
Oksana

Invisible Participants: How Cultural Capital Relates to Lurking Behavior - 0 views

  • While participation in the activities of virtual communities is crucial for a community's survival and development, many people prefer lurking, that is passive attention over active participation.
  • This work investigates the concept of cultural capital as situational antecedent of lurking and de-lurking (the decision to start posting after a certain amount of lurking time).
  • Cultural capital is defined as the knowledge that enables an individual to interpret various cultural codes.
  • ...28 more annotations...
  • The main hypothesis states that a user's cultural capital affects her level of activity in a community and her decision to de-lurk and cease to exist in very active communities because of information overload.
  • The hypotheses verified here make it clear that fostering receptive participation may be as important and constructive as encouraging active contributions in online communities.
  • Lurking has been studied in the past [37, 42, 43, 44, 45, 62].
  • Identifying lurkers constitutes a difficult methodological problem: Lurkers do not leave visible traces. Even if lurkers can be identified, it is difficult to approach them directly, because their identity is often disguised. This is why lurking research is interesting and challenging.
  • The main goal of this research is to study the triggers to active participation
  • We built a framework for analyzing passive and active Internet behavior based on Social Capital Theory [47] and Cultural Capital Theory [8].
  • The Social Capital aspect of our research has been described elsewhere [51].
  • This paper concentrates on the Cultural Capital and its relation to the lurking phenomenon.
  • A somewhat deeper semantic examination reveals that the English verb "to lurk" usually means "lying in wait", often with malicious intent.
  • Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of the verb "lurk" offers an additional unexpected meaning - "to persist in staying" [38]
  • To summarize, lurking is an integral and normal part of Internet behavior. It may be perceived as negative and harmful or as positive and useful. However, lurkers are present en masse. Some report the level of lurking to be 50-60% [42, 62], while others estimate it at 90% [29, 37]. This fact alone is strong enough to make research on lurkers worthwhile. Accordingly, many researchers have noted that lurkers are a major part of the Web community and should be studied [29, 31, 52, 53, 63, 78].
  • Nonnecke [42], Nonnecke and Preece [43] and Preece et al. [45] interviewed several users and classified different reasons for lurking behavior. Only the most relevant and interesting to this study will be pointed out (selected in bold in the table), not necessarily in order of importance.
  • One often stated reason for lurking is to learn about the community
  • Kraut et al. [31] point out that silent observation is an important way for novices to learn about a new topic
  • Whittaker et al. [78] define lurking-as-surveillance as peripheral participation that continues until a topic of direct interest is spotted. Donath [14] proposes that people often try to find out about other participants from the content of their postings. Nonnecke and Preece [43] define learning about the community culture as a central lurker activity - 70% of the users they interviewed stated they lurked to get to know the group better.
  • Another reason for lurking that is of special interest to this project is a sense of belonging to a group.
  • This means that in the course of the ostensibly passive activities of watching other people talk and getting familiar with the content and style of the community people feel that they belong to the community. The sense of belonging to an online community has also been reported by Beaudouin and Velkovska [5].
  • Another frequent explanation of lurking is free-riding.
  • Free-riding is defined as a use of common good without contributing to it [11, 65]. As information is frequently considered a public good [50], lurkers can be perceived as free riders. Kollock and Smith [30], Wellman and Gulia [76] and Morris and Ogan [41] discuss lurkers as free riders, referring to non active participation
  • Nevertheless, free riding connotes negative activity.
  • Another reason for lurking is information overload [25, 26].
  • This observation is related to the cognitive abilities of people to digest huge amounts of information.
  • but they do have to deal with all the messages flying around. So it is not surprising that people find it hard to keep up with very busy communities and prefer lurking there and sometimes even dropping off entirely [42].
  • He concludes that the main reason for lurking is a violent atmosphere in computer forums, dominated by young and not so well-behaved people.
  • Finally, the last reason of interest is the reaction of the community to de-lurking. In his SlashDot.com article, Katz [29]
  • Nonnecke [42] also points out that the reaction of the community to de-lurking and flaming (violent Internet behavior, see [23]) are possible reasons for lurking.
  • Soroka et al. [62] found a clear correlation between a positive first posting experience and subsequent active participation in the community.
  • If the general atmosphere in the community is bad, the reaction to newcomers is non-welcoming or an attitude to user's subjects of interest is negative, people might choose to stay silent or drop off.
Martin M

OUseful Info: Social Computing Forecasts - 0 views

  • To what extend could we - and/or should we - be encouraging students to use Web 2.0 tools, either off their own back, or via institutional systems?
  • "participation ladder", which can be used to identify the extent to which consumers participate
  • creator/synthesizer/consumer pyramid,
Oksana

Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge - Seven Principles f... - 0 views

  • Invite different levels of participation
  • Good community architecture invites many different levels of participation. Consider the variety of activities we might find in a city neighborhood on any given day: solitary shoppers, people walking briskly to work, friends out for a casual stroll, couples chatting at an outdoor cafe, a crowd watching a street performer. Others are on the periphery, watching the action from the windows above the street. A community of practice is very similar. People participate in communities for different reasons—some because the community directly provides value, some for the personal connection, and others for the opportunity to improve their skills. We used to think that we should encourage all community members to participate equally. But because people have different levels of interest in the community, this expectation is unrealistic.
  • Alive communities, whether planned or spontaneous, have a "coordinator" who organizes events and connects community. But others in the community also take on leadership roles. We commonly see three main levels of community participation. The first is a small core group of people who actively participate in discussions, even debates, in the public community forum. They often take on community projects, identify topics for the community to address, and move the community along its learning agenda. This group is the heart of the community. As the community matures, this core group takes on much of the community's leadership, its members becoming auxiliaries to the community coordinator. But this group is usually rather small, only 10 to 15 percent of the whole community. At the next level outside this core is the active group. These members attend meetings regularly and participate occasionally in the community forums, but without the regularity or intensity of the core group. The active group is also quite small, another 15 to 20 percent of the community. A large portion of community members are peripheral and rarely participate. Instead, they keep to the sidelines, watching the interaction of the core and active members. Some remain peripheral because they feel that their observations are not appropriate for the whole or carry no authority. Others do not have the time to contribute more actively. In a traditional meeting or team we would discourage such half-hearted involvement, but these peripheral activities are an essential dimension of communities of practice. Indeed, the people on the sidelines often are not as passive as they seem. Like people sitting at a cafe watching the activity on the street, they gain their own insights from the discussions and put them to good use. They may have private conversations about the issues being discussed in the public forum. In their own way, they are learning a lot. In one community, a peripheral member attended nearly all meetings for two years, but almost never contributed. Then he was transferred to another division and, to everyone's surprise, started a similar community there. Unlike team members, community members can offer advice on a project with no risk of getting entangled in it… —Cultivating Communities of Practice Finally, outside these three main levels are people surrounding the community who are not members but who have an interest in the community, including customers, suppliers, and "intellectual neighbors." Community members move through these levels.  8  Core members often join the sideline as the topic of the community shifts. Active members may be deeply engaged for a month or two, then disengage. Peripheral members drift into the center as their interests are stirred. Because the boundaries of a community are fluid, even those outside the community can become quite involved for a time, as the focus of the community shifts to their areas of interest and expertise. The key to good community participation and a healthy degree of movement between levels is to design community activities that allow participants at all levels to feel like full members. Rather than force participation, successful communities "build benches" for those on the sidelines. They make opportunities for semiprivate interaction, whether through private discussion rooms on the community's Web site, at a community event, or in a one-on-one conversation. This keeps the peripheral members connected. At the same time, communities create opportunities for active members to take limited leadership roles, such as leading a development project that requires a minimal time commitment. To draw members into more active participation, successful communities build a fire in the center of the community that will draw people to its heat.
1 - 10 of 10
Showing 20 items per page