The Answerbag.com community has several topics where members post questions and answers (to posted questions). After reviewing about 10 random profiles, members were from various locations inside and outside the U.S., and had different backgrounds, professions, interests, and ages. There were both male and female members. The answerbag.com community is diverse and is not comprised of a specific age group and population.
Questions are categorized by topic, and members can post questions and answers in any topic. Members can give points to any question and answer. These points are an extrinsic reward as mentioned in the Tedjamulia et al. article that allow a member to move up levels as they acquire a certain amount of points. From my initial observations it appeared that members gave points to questions and answers that they found useful.
My strategy for accomplishing two of the goals posted for Session 3, Week 1 included the following:
1 – To create a profile that would create a high level of trust with other members.
2 – To post questions that would generate interest from the largest amount of members as possible.
3 – To post answers that would generate interest from the largest amount of members as possible.
According the Tedjumila et al. article, Proposition 3 mentions that members contribute more frequently if they have high trust in its participants. The Ridings et al. article found that many participants sought friendship in online communities, which indicates that there should be a certain level of trust in a community’s participants in order to attract new members. To generate a level of trust in my profile with other members, I uploaded a neutral image of an older woman holding a cookie for my avatar. I decided to post an image rather than to use one provided by the site because it personalized my profile. I selected the nickname “Oracle13” to generate a high level of attention, yet appear as though the person behind the profile could be trusted. However, as I participated in the Answerbag.com community, I noticed that most people responded to fun and playful questions and answers. This is evident in the large amount of questions and answers in the “Outside the bag” category. I then posted some fun information in the About Me section.
In order to appeal to the largest amount of members, I initially posted questions that I thought would allow members to feel that their contributions were unique. As found in the Ling et al. article, members contributed more when they felt that their contributions were unique and they were least similar to others in the group. I attempted to give members the opportunity to generate unique answers. I also posted answers that I thought would catch attention. These questions (9, 10, 11, and 12) generated very little contribution.
I then decided to post questions that would generate content that would help members to exchange information. The findings in the Ridings et al. article indicated that many members sought an exchange of information. I attempted to post questions (6, 7, 8) that allowed members to post practical information such as information on the economic stimulus bill and Windows 7 compared to Windows XP. These questions generated more contribution than the questions meant to generate unique answers, and seemed to support the findings in the Ridings et al. article. The Windows 7 question generated the second highest number of points.
Because I did not reach the Session 3, Week 1 goal I attempted to appeal to both the friendship and uniqueness aspects of motivating contribution. According to the Ridings et al. article, members also sought friendship as a reason for joining a community. Throughout my participation in Answerbag.com, I noticed that members answered novel questions. Questions that were similar to questions posted previously generated little activity. My question “How many people did you date in high school?” was meant to allow members to post unique answers about their personal high school experience. This question was also meant to allow for friendship opportunities because members could relate to similar experiences in high school and post comments. This question was novel in that there were no other questions similar to it. This question successfully generated over 40 points in two days.
The “How many people did you date in high school?” question generated a little under 40 points after the first day, and there was no activity at the start of the second day. I had to post an answer to get the question into the “Latest Q & A” list to generate enough points to reach the over 40 point goal. Having a question in the “Latest Q & A” list supports the finding that reminding participants of the opportunity to contribute increased participation in the Ling et al. article. It appears that many of the answerbag.com members monitor the “Latest Q & A” section to find questions to answer. However, I feel that the “Latest Q & A” list is meant to bring attention to a member’s question (increasing visibility of that question) rather than to remind members about the opportunity to participate. In this case members are actively looking for opportunities to participate rather than the site manager trying to encourage participation from the members.
For the answers, I decided to start with questions that were meant for sharing information. (Answers 4, 13, 16, 18-20, and 27-36) My goal was to post answers that generated interest from the largest amount of members as possible, and according to the Ridings et al. and Twitter articles a large portion of members join online communities to share information. 6 out of the 16 answers meant for sharing information received 4 or more points. Answer 27 that gave information on using a network attached storage device received the second highest number of points out of all the answers I posted.
I then decided to answer questions meant to generate unique answers, such as questions in the “Out of the bag” category. (Answers 3, 5-12, 14, 15, 17, 22, and 24-26) I tried to keep these answers entertaining and “light hearted,” in order to portray a friendly and outgoing demeanor. I intended to appeal to a large amount of members by posing these unique and entertaining answers. According to the Ridings et al. article many who join online communities sought friendship as well as an exchange of information. Ling et al. found that members contributed more when they felt that their contributions were unique and they were least similar to others in the group. I thought that if I posted answers to questions meant to generate unique answers, a large number of members would view both the question and my answer. 6 out of the 16 answers to questions meant to generate unique answers received 4 or more points. Answer 10 received the highest number of points out of all the answers posted.
Based on my experiences in the Answerbag.com community, I found that many members sought friendship by posting unique information about themselves to gain attention and possibly acquire new friends. This supports the Ridings et al. finding that many members seek friendship in online communities. The question “How many people did you date in high school?” quickly generated over 40 points and over 20 answers. There were a few members that posted comments to each other under the high school dating question.
I also found that many members joined Answerbag.com as a form of entertainment. The largest amount of activity was in the “Out of the bag” category, and my answer from this category generated the largest amount of points. One possible reason that the “Out of the bag” category generates a large amount of activity is that they allow members to make unique contributions, which supports the finding that members contributed more when they felt that their contributions were unique in the Ling et al. article. However, I did not witness any “lively disagreements” during my time in the Answerbag.com community. Therefore, members were probably looking for unique answers as a form of entertainment rather than for lively discussions based on “lively disagreements.”
Link to my profile: http://www.answerbag.com/profile/?id=863135
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Session 3 Readings
The Ridings et al. article gave the best overview of the motivation behind content contribution. The article investigated some of the reasons as to why people join virtual communities. Their findings showed that many sought friendship or an exchange of information. I was not surprised that a much lower percent of people sought social support. People who seek social support share intimate details about their lives, and not many want to share these details publicly over the Internet. The Ridings et al. study found that the most popular reason for joining a community across all community types is for the exchange of information. The second most popular reason for joining a community depended on its type. Health/wellness and professional/occupational topics had social support as the second most popular reason, while personal interest/hobbies/pets/recreation topics had friendship as the second most popular reason. The second most popular reason for joining a community varying with community topics was expected because people join different groups for different reasons in real life. For instance, people join professional associations to network with others in their field, and people join support groups for emotional encouragement. Based on their findings, the Ridings et al. article suggests that virtual community managers support information exchange and encourage friendship and social support. This article mentioned one example of encouraging friendship and social support where a patron could “see who responded to each post.” According to the article, identification of the individual who created a post could be important in creating “connections among members,” leading to friendships.
The Ling et al. article describes four experiments conducted to test designs based on social science theories that describe the motivations behind contributions. The first experiment is based on the collective-effort model where “people will work hard when they think their effort will help them achieve outcomes they value.” Experiment 1 tested the ideas that people will contribute more if they feel that their contributions are unique and if they feel that they are similar to others in the group. The results indicated that members contributed more when they felt that their contributions were unique and when they were least similar to others in the group. Individuals in heterogeneous groups were found to have “lively disagreements.” Experiment 2 tested the idea that members contribute more if the benefit they receive from and the benefit they provide to the community are made salient. Reminding people either of the benefit provided and the benefit given separately decreased the number of contributions. However, reminding people of both benefits given and received increased participation. Overall, it was found that reminding participants of the opportunity to contribute increased participation. Experiment 3 also found that there was a decline in participation when individuals were reminded of either benefit alone, and that mentioning both the benefits given and received was “better than mentioning either one alone.” Experiment 4 tested both the benefits and limits of the goal setting theory where assigning “challenging, specific goals” motivates individuals to “achieve more.” The results of experiment 4 found that there was an increased participation when members were given specific rather than non-specific goals. It was also found that there was an increase in participation with group rather than individual goals due to social facilitation.
Tedjamulia et al. proposes a model suggesting ways to increase contribution in online communities. The three groups of the model’s components are environmental factors, personal characteristics, and goal setting/goal commitment. The components of interest as related to the session 3 assignment are:
Proposition 3: OC members who have high trust in its participants will contribute and participate more frequently.
Proposition 5: As interesting content increases, more individuals will want to participate and contribute. (fresh content)
Proposition 7: The more visible a person’s actions are to other community members, the more he or she will contribute and participate.
The following ideas from the Tedjamuila et al. article are also of interest as related to the session 3 assignment.
1 - Under the Goals section that members “choose to engage in the activity tat gives them the most beneficial expected outcome.”
2 – Reinforcers of increasing contribution are meaningful content from credible sources and performance appraisal of contributions.
The one item of interest as it relates to the session 3 assignment from the Schrock article is that “females were more likely to be MySpace members.” Also, that many MySpace members are extroverted and self-disclosure friendly.
The Twitter article has an interesting section on user intentions. The most common use of Twitter was found to be discussions on what people did daily and what they were currently doing. Many users also gave reports on the latest news and gave comments on current events. Twitter was used as a means of exchanging information and contacting friends and family.
The Ling et al. article describes four experiments conducted to test designs based on social science theories that describe the motivations behind contributions. The first experiment is based on the collective-effort model where “people will work hard when they think their effort will help them achieve outcomes they value.” Experiment 1 tested the ideas that people will contribute more if they feel that their contributions are unique and if they feel that they are similar to others in the group. The results indicated that members contributed more when they felt that their contributions were unique and when they were least similar to others in the group. Individuals in heterogeneous groups were found to have “lively disagreements.” Experiment 2 tested the idea that members contribute more if the benefit they receive from and the benefit they provide to the community are made salient. Reminding people either of the benefit provided and the benefit given separately decreased the number of contributions. However, reminding people of both benefits given and received increased participation. Overall, it was found that reminding participants of the opportunity to contribute increased participation. Experiment 3 also found that there was a decline in participation when individuals were reminded of either benefit alone, and that mentioning both the benefits given and received was “better than mentioning either one alone.” Experiment 4 tested both the benefits and limits of the goal setting theory where assigning “challenging, specific goals” motivates individuals to “achieve more.” The results of experiment 4 found that there was an increased participation when members were given specific rather than non-specific goals. It was also found that there was an increase in participation with group rather than individual goals due to social facilitation.
Tedjamulia et al. proposes a model suggesting ways to increase contribution in online communities. The three groups of the model’s components are environmental factors, personal characteristics, and goal setting/goal commitment. The components of interest as related to the session 3 assignment are:
Proposition 3: OC members who have high trust in its participants will contribute and participate more frequently.
Proposition 5: As interesting content increases, more individuals will want to participate and contribute. (fresh content)
Proposition 7: The more visible a person’s actions are to other community members, the more he or she will contribute and participate.
The following ideas from the Tedjamuila et al. article are also of interest as related to the session 3 assignment.
1 - Under the Goals section that members “choose to engage in the activity tat gives them the most beneficial expected outcome.”
2 – Reinforcers of increasing contribution are meaningful content from credible sources and performance appraisal of contributions.
The one item of interest as it relates to the session 3 assignment from the Schrock article is that “females were more likely to be MySpace members.” Also, that many MySpace members are extroverted and self-disclosure friendly.
The Twitter article has an interesting section on user intentions. The most common use of Twitter was found to be discussions on what people did daily and what they were currently doing. Many users also gave reports on the latest news and gave comments on current events. Twitter was used as a means of exchanging information and contacting friends and family.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Session 2
*****Free-Response to Session 2 Readings*****
The Galston reading is a good introduction and overview of the why and how social computing has such a widespread appeal. The two principal cultural forces that structure “contemporary American society” are (1) the need for “individual choice” and (2) the need for community (a sense of connectedness). Galston suggests that social computing (voluntary community) allows society to reconcile the opposition between autonomy and connection. This idea is very meaningful because expressing our individuality weakens local social bonds, and yet social computing allows us to reach out globally and create “voluntary communities.” We are able to link ourselves “by choice rather than accident.” However, Galston questions whether the “online group” is a “community.” He investigates four structural features of a community (1) limited membership, (2) shared norms, (3) affective ties, and (4) a sense of mutual obligation. In his conclusion he mentions three doubts to the online group as a community (1) they do not promote the development of “voice” because “exit” is a readily available option to discontent, (2) they do not acknowledge the need for authority because of its emphasis on “individual choice”, and (3) they do not “foster mutual obligation” because they are “held together by converging individual interests.” The last two sentences of Galston’s article mentions that online groups “fulfill important emotional and utilitarian needs” and that they should not be “taken as comprehensive models of a future society.” Galston’s article helped me to better understand the widespread formation of online groups, and why it may not completely fulfill an individual’s need to be a part of a community.
The Weeks NPR article gives an example of an individual being able to fulfill the need for an “individual choice” of expressing radical views. I thought that the individual defied authority, causing a “conflict” with her online group, by expressing her “radical views.” The article suggests that there needs to be a “social norm” in an online community, as mentioned in the Galston article, because it is “much larger than your regular live-action community.” The article also mentions that SNSs are often used as “calls for help.” I believe that a “cal for help” is a person’s need for community.
The LaRose, et al. reading suggests that social computing with known individuals among “socially isolated” groups alleviate depression. It seems that the article suggests that these “socially isolated” groups use social computing to “obtain social support.” The article also mentions that the “stressful interactions with the Internet itself” rather than the inadequacy of the social interactions through the Internet led to depression. This article supports the idea that social computing can fulfill the need for connectedness, as mentioned in the Galston article especially among “socially isolated” groups. The article also mentions that self-efficacy allows users to cope with the stress of interacting with the Internet, which suggests that self-efficacy allows users to embrace social computing. I see this trend with individuals in their 20s and 30s who grew up with computers, the Internet, and used SNSs in their high school and college years.
The Hague blog post indicates that American business (American culture) is banal which does not allow us to think for ourselves nor does it allow us to be creative. He suggests that blogs are a way for us to express our own individual thoughts and ideas and promote innovation, what America needs to thrive. Often I feel as though I have lost my edge for creativity, perhaps I need to blog more as well. The idea here suggests the importance for individuality.
The Albrechtslund article describes the concept of surveillance in regards to social networking and the current concerns surrounding surveillance. Albrechtslund then introduces the concept of “participatory surveillance” and how it can be beneficial to the individual. Participatory surveillance involves “mutuality, empowerment and sharing.” The idea of participatory surveillance seems to be a bit risky because there currently not many laws that protect our rights to privacy on the Internet. Until these laws are enforced, I am hesitant to agree with Albrechtslund’s ideas on participatory surveillance.
The Rosen article covers the more cautionary aspect of social computing. He mentions the need for social norms in all communities including online communities to “serve a protective function” as mentioned in the Galston article. Online social networking creates “self-exposure” and sacrifices anonymity as individuals satisfy their need for individuality. Online (SNS) “friendship” causes individuals to trivialize friend relationships. Friends are collected and little efforts are made to maintain friendships. Because I have not used SNSs, I was unaware of the narcissistic and exhibitionistic behavior of SNS members. I actually that narcissistic and exhibitionistic behavior was minimized in SNSs because I thought that people mainly chatted, sent email, and blogged in the SNSs.
Ryan Bigge investigates the idea of SNS membership (social computing) becoming a necessity rather than an option for an individual. I could see some similarity to email becoming a necessity for work and home. Bigge mentions that SNSs allow users to gain “sociotechnical capital” and “network sociality.” This article suggests that a person’s success may depend on SNS membership.
Question raised by the readings:
Ryan Bigge explores the idea of SNS membership becoming a necessity rather than an option to ensure an individual’s success. Because of the necessity of membership and extra effort to maintain a viable online presence, does this lessen an individual’s freedom of expression? Is an individual be less likely to post personal thoughts and ideas (which promotes creativity as suggested in the Hague blog) in order to develop and maintain a successful online identity?
*****Online Community*****
I joined two online communities. The first online community is MentorNet. MentorNet is an “e-mentoring” site connecting protégé’s and mentors worldwide. MentorNet’s main purpose is to support women and other underrepresented groups in scientific and technical fields. The second online community was Facebook. I disabled my account after three days because of my concerns over privacy.
MentorNet:
I signed up for MentorNet in 1993 and was matched with a mentor in California. He and his wife are software engineers and he could relate to some of the challenges that I faced with being a women in a technical field. It was really nice to receive encouragement and support from a mentor in software engineering because it was very challenging for me to enter the ICS department about 5 years ago.
I re-signed up for MentorNet on Monday 1/26/2009. I updated my profile by answering questions on my current interests and issues that I would like to discuss with my new mentor. Based on your profile and answers, MentorNet matches you with a mentor from their database. I was matched with an information technology university instructor in South Africa. I am still waiting for a response from the instructor as to whether I was accepted as a protégé. The MentorNet website also allows members to create discussion topics on their e-forum. I replied to a question regarding sources for social outlet/networking as an older graduate student.
My interaction consisted of email and discussion forums.
http://www.mentornet.net/
Facebook:
I signed up for Facebook on Monday 1/26/2009. I was curious about Facebook because I searched for high school friends on Google, and many of the results pointed to their Facebook sites. I signed up anonymously on Facebook. Because of my concerns over privacy, I only entered my high school information. I was able to find many high school classmates on Facebook, but I did not attempt to contact them using my pseudonym. I did not want to alarm anyone. I cancelled my account with Facebook after three days because I was unable to contact anyone using my pseudonym and because of my concerns over privacy. Many of the jobs I plan to apply run background security checks and many HR department staff informed me that they are required to run searches using Google. HR staff have also informed me that the directors will not consider hiring individuals with MySpace and Facebook sites. However, if you don’t post your picture, place strict limits on access to your site, and limit the number of friends to about 5, I found it more difficult to find these individuals.
My interaction consisted of lurking.
My experience as it relates to my question from the session 2 readings:
In conclusion, I found that many individuals were able to successfully separate personal identities reserved for friend and family view and professional identities reserved for employers and clients. In order to “hide” a personal online identity, users did not post blogs, images and movies accessible to the general public. However, the information that was easily accessed by the general public was on the professional level such as resumes, curriculum vitas, and business card type information. They were able to maintain anonymity regarding their personal lives while maintaining a successful professional identity.
The Galston reading is a good introduction and overview of the why and how social computing has such a widespread appeal. The two principal cultural forces that structure “contemporary American society” are (1) the need for “individual choice” and (2) the need for community (a sense of connectedness). Galston suggests that social computing (voluntary community) allows society to reconcile the opposition between autonomy and connection. This idea is very meaningful because expressing our individuality weakens local social bonds, and yet social computing allows us to reach out globally and create “voluntary communities.” We are able to link ourselves “by choice rather than accident.” However, Galston questions whether the “online group” is a “community.” He investigates four structural features of a community (1) limited membership, (2) shared norms, (3) affective ties, and (4) a sense of mutual obligation. In his conclusion he mentions three doubts to the online group as a community (1) they do not promote the development of “voice” because “exit” is a readily available option to discontent, (2) they do not acknowledge the need for authority because of its emphasis on “individual choice”, and (3) they do not “foster mutual obligation” because they are “held together by converging individual interests.” The last two sentences of Galston’s article mentions that online groups “fulfill important emotional and utilitarian needs” and that they should not be “taken as comprehensive models of a future society.” Galston’s article helped me to better understand the widespread formation of online groups, and why it may not completely fulfill an individual’s need to be a part of a community.
The Weeks NPR article gives an example of an individual being able to fulfill the need for an “individual choice” of expressing radical views. I thought that the individual defied authority, causing a “conflict” with her online group, by expressing her “radical views.” The article suggests that there needs to be a “social norm” in an online community, as mentioned in the Galston article, because it is “much larger than your regular live-action community.” The article also mentions that SNSs are often used as “calls for help.” I believe that a “cal for help” is a person’s need for community.
The LaRose, et al. reading suggests that social computing with known individuals among “socially isolated” groups alleviate depression. It seems that the article suggests that these “socially isolated” groups use social computing to “obtain social support.” The article also mentions that the “stressful interactions with the Internet itself” rather than the inadequacy of the social interactions through the Internet led to depression. This article supports the idea that social computing can fulfill the need for connectedness, as mentioned in the Galston article especially among “socially isolated” groups. The article also mentions that self-efficacy allows users to cope with the stress of interacting with the Internet, which suggests that self-efficacy allows users to embrace social computing. I see this trend with individuals in their 20s and 30s who grew up with computers, the Internet, and used SNSs in their high school and college years.
The Hague blog post indicates that American business (American culture) is banal which does not allow us to think for ourselves nor does it allow us to be creative. He suggests that blogs are a way for us to express our own individual thoughts and ideas and promote innovation, what America needs to thrive. Often I feel as though I have lost my edge for creativity, perhaps I need to blog more as well. The idea here suggests the importance for individuality.
The Albrechtslund article describes the concept of surveillance in regards to social networking and the current concerns surrounding surveillance. Albrechtslund then introduces the concept of “participatory surveillance” and how it can be beneficial to the individual. Participatory surveillance involves “mutuality, empowerment and sharing.” The idea of participatory surveillance seems to be a bit risky because there currently not many laws that protect our rights to privacy on the Internet. Until these laws are enforced, I am hesitant to agree with Albrechtslund’s ideas on participatory surveillance.
The Rosen article covers the more cautionary aspect of social computing. He mentions the need for social norms in all communities including online communities to “serve a protective function” as mentioned in the Galston article. Online social networking creates “self-exposure” and sacrifices anonymity as individuals satisfy their need for individuality. Online (SNS) “friendship” causes individuals to trivialize friend relationships. Friends are collected and little efforts are made to maintain friendships. Because I have not used SNSs, I was unaware of the narcissistic and exhibitionistic behavior of SNS members. I actually that narcissistic and exhibitionistic behavior was minimized in SNSs because I thought that people mainly chatted, sent email, and blogged in the SNSs.
Ryan Bigge investigates the idea of SNS membership (social computing) becoming a necessity rather than an option for an individual. I could see some similarity to email becoming a necessity for work and home. Bigge mentions that SNSs allow users to gain “sociotechnical capital” and “network sociality.” This article suggests that a person’s success may depend on SNS membership.
Question raised by the readings:
Ryan Bigge explores the idea of SNS membership becoming a necessity rather than an option to ensure an individual’s success. Because of the necessity of membership and extra effort to maintain a viable online presence, does this lessen an individual’s freedom of expression? Is an individual be less likely to post personal thoughts and ideas (which promotes creativity as suggested in the Hague blog) in order to develop and maintain a successful online identity?
*****Online Community*****
I joined two online communities. The first online community is MentorNet. MentorNet is an “e-mentoring” site connecting protégé’s and mentors worldwide. MentorNet’s main purpose is to support women and other underrepresented groups in scientific and technical fields. The second online community was Facebook. I disabled my account after three days because of my concerns over privacy.
MentorNet:
I signed up for MentorNet in 1993 and was matched with a mentor in California. He and his wife are software engineers and he could relate to some of the challenges that I faced with being a women in a technical field. It was really nice to receive encouragement and support from a mentor in software engineering because it was very challenging for me to enter the ICS department about 5 years ago.
I re-signed up for MentorNet on Monday 1/26/2009. I updated my profile by answering questions on my current interests and issues that I would like to discuss with my new mentor. Based on your profile and answers, MentorNet matches you with a mentor from their database. I was matched with an information technology university instructor in South Africa. I am still waiting for a response from the instructor as to whether I was accepted as a protégé. The MentorNet website also allows members to create discussion topics on their e-forum. I replied to a question regarding sources for social outlet/networking as an older graduate student.
My interaction consisted of email and discussion forums.
http://www.mentornet.net/
Facebook:
I signed up for Facebook on Monday 1/26/2009. I was curious about Facebook because I searched for high school friends on Google, and many of the results pointed to their Facebook sites. I signed up anonymously on Facebook. Because of my concerns over privacy, I only entered my high school information. I was able to find many high school classmates on Facebook, but I did not attempt to contact them using my pseudonym. I did not want to alarm anyone. I cancelled my account with Facebook after three days because I was unable to contact anyone using my pseudonym and because of my concerns over privacy. Many of the jobs I plan to apply run background security checks and many HR department staff informed me that they are required to run searches using Google. HR staff have also informed me that the directors will not consider hiring individuals with MySpace and Facebook sites. However, if you don’t post your picture, place strict limits on access to your site, and limit the number of friends to about 5, I found it more difficult to find these individuals.
My interaction consisted of lurking.
My experience as it relates to my question from the session 2 readings:
In conclusion, I found that many individuals were able to successfully separate personal identities reserved for friend and family view and professional identities reserved for employers and clients. In order to “hide” a personal online identity, users did not post blogs, images and movies accessible to the general public. However, the information that was easily accessed by the general public was on the professional level such as resumes, curriculum vitas, and business card type information. They were able to maintain anonymity regarding their personal lives while maintaining a successful professional identity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
