Building Web Reputation Systems- P11 pdf

There are two main subcategories of commercial incentives: Direct revenue incentives Extracting commercial value better yet, cash directly from the user as soon as possible Branding ince

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:

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

A direct revenue incentive is at work whenever someone forks over money for access to a content contributor’s work and the payment ends up, some-times via an intermediary or two, in the contributor’s hands The mechanism for payment can be a subscription, a short-term contract, a transaction for goods or serv-ices, on-content advertising like Google’s AdSense, or even a PayPal-based tip jar When real money is involved, people take trust seriously, and reputation systems play

a critical role in establishing trust By far the most well-known and studied reputation system for online direct revenue business is eBay’s buyer and seller feedback (karma) reputation model Without a way for strangers to gauge the trustworthiness of the other party in a transaction, no online auction market could exist

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 an-swer pages indexed by, you guessed it, Google)

The Zero Price Effect: Free Is Disproportionately Better Than Cheap

In Predictably Irrational, Ariely details a series of experiments to show that people have

an irrational urge to choose a free item over an unusually low-priced but higher-quality item First he offered people a single choice between buying a 1-cent Hershey’s Kiss and a 15-cent Lindt truffle, and most people bought the higher-quality truffle But when

he dropped the price of both items by one penny, making the Kiss free, a dramatic majority of a new group of buyers instead selected the Kiss He calls this the zero price effect For designing incentive systems, it provokes two thoughts:

• 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

Direct revenue incentives.

Various forms of indirect commercial

in-centives can together be referred to as branding, the process of professionally promoting

people, goods, or organizations The advertiser’s half of the direct revenue incentive model lives here, too The goal is to expose the audience to your message and eventually capture value in the form of a sale, a subscriber, or a job

Typically, the desired effects of branding are preceded by numerous branding activities: writing blog posts, running ads, creating widgets to be embedded on other sites, par-ticipating in online discussions, attending conferences, and so on Reputation systems offer one way to close that loop by capturing direct feedback from consumers They also help measure the success of branding activities

Take the simple act of sharing a URL on a social site such as Twitter Without a repu-tation system, you have no idea how many people followed your link or how many other people shared it The URL-shortening service Awe.sm, shown in Figure 5-5, pro-vides both features: it tracks how many people click your link and how many different people shared the URL with others

Figure 5-5 Awe.sm turns URL shortening into a reputation system, measuring how many people click your URL and how many share it 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

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 con-texts, it’s even useless For example, his great reputation would do me no good if I were looking for a thesis advisor, because he’s been dead for almost 20 years

Incentives through branding: Professional promotion.

Asking the Right Questions | 117

Egocentric incentives

Egocentric incentives are often exploited in the design online in computer games and many reputation-based websites The simple desire to accomplish a task taps into

deeply hardwired motivations described in behavioral psychology as classical and operant conditioning (which involves training subjects to respond to food-related stim-ulus) and schedules of reinforcement This research indicates that people can be

influ-enced 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 leader-boards 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 accom-plishments—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

Egocentric incentives and karma do provide very powerful motivations, but they are almost antithetical to altruistic ones The egocentric incentives of many systems have been overdesigned, leading to communities consisting almost exclusively of experts Consider just about any online role playing game that survived more than three years For example, to retain its highest-level users and the revenue stream they produce,

World of Warcraft must continually produce new content targeted at those users If it

stops producing new content for its most dedicated users, its business will collapse

This elder game focus stunts its own growth by all but abandoning improvements aimed

at acquiring new users When new users do arrive (usually in the wake of a marketing promotion), they end up playing alone because the veteran players are only interested

in the new content and don’t want to bother going through the long slog of playing through the lowest levels of the game yet again

We describe three subcategories of egocentric incentives:

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

The Quest for Mastery

Personal and private motivation to improve oneself

The simplest egocentric incentive is the desire to complete a task:

to fulfill a goal as work or personal enjoyment Many reputation model designs that tap the desire of users to complete a complex task can generate knock-on reputations for use by other users or in the system as a whole For example, free music sites are based on the desire of some users to personalize their own radio stations to gather ratings, which they can then use to recommend music to others Not only can reputa-tion models that fulfill preexisting user needs gather more reputareputa-tion claims than al-truism and commercial incentives can, but the data typically is of higher quality because

it more closely represents users’ true desires

Outward-facing egocentric incentives are all related to personal or group recognition They’re driven by admiration, praise, or even envy, and they’re focused exclusively on reputation scores That’s all there is to it Scores often are dis-played on one or more public leaderboards, but they can also appear as events in a

user’s news feed—for example, messages from Zynga’s Mafia Wars game that tell all

your friends you became a Mob Enforcer before they did, or that you gave them the wonderful gift of free energy that will help them get through the game faster

Recognition is a very strong motivator for many users, but not all If, for example, you give accumulating points for user actions in a context where altruism or commercial incentives produce the best contributions, your highest-quality contributors will end

up leaving the community, while those who churn out lower-value content fill your site with clutter

Always consider implementing a quality-based reputation system alongside any rec-ognition incentives to provide some balance between quality and quantity In May

2009, Wired writer Nate Ralph wrote “Handed Keys to Kingdom, Gamers Race to Bottom” in which he details examples of how Digg, and the games Little Planet, and

City of Heroes were hijacked by people who gamed user recognition reputation systems

to the point of seriously decreasing the quality of the applications’ key content Like clockwork, it didn’t take long for reputation abuse to hit the iTunes application library

as well

Personal or private forms of egocentric in-centives can be summarized as motivating a quest for mastery For example, when people play solitaire or do crossword or sudoku puzzles alone, they do it simply for the stimulation and to see if they can accomplish a specific goal; maybe they want to beat

a personal score or time or even just manage to complete the game The same is true for all single-player computer games, which are much more complex Even

multiple-player games, online and off, such as World of Warcraft or Scrabble, have strong

per-sonal achievement components, such as bonus multipliers or character mastery levels

Fulfillment incentives.

Recognition incentives.

Personal or private incentives: The quest for mastery.

Asking the Right Questions | 119

Notice especially that players of online single-player computer games—or casual game sites, as they are known in the industry—skew more female and older than most game-player stereotypes you may have encountered According to the Consumer Electronics Association, 65% of the gamers are women And women between the ages of 35 and

49 are more likely to visit online gaming websites than even teenage boys So, if you expect more women than men to use your application, consider staying away from recognition incentives and using mastery-based incentives instead

Common mastery incentives include achievements (feedback that the user has accom-plished one of a set of multiple goals), ranks or levels with caps (acknowledgments of discrete increases in performance—for example, Ensign, Corporal, Lieutenant, and General—but with a clear achievable maximum), and performance scores such as per-centage accuracy, where 100% is the desired perfect score

Resist the temptation to keep extending the top tier of your mastery incentives Doing

so would lead to user fatigue and abuse of the system Let the user win It’s OK They’ve already given you a lot of great contributions and likely will move on to other areas of your site

Summary: Motivation and Incentive

• 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.”

— 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

some-thing everyone else needs to know.”

• Commercial motivation: to generate revenue

— Direct revenue incentives: Extracting commercial value (better yet, cash)

di-rectly from the user as soon as possible

— Branding incentives: Creating indirect value by promotion—revenue will follow

later

• Egocentric motivation: for self-gratification

— 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

— The Quest for Mastery: Personal and private motivation to improve oneself

Consider Your Community

Introducing a reputation system into your community will almost certainly affect its character and behavior in some way Some of these effects will be positive (we hope! I mean, that’s why you’re reading this book, right?) But there are potentially negative side effects to be aware of, too It is almost impossible to predict exactly what com-munity effects will result from implementing a reputation system because—and we bet you can guess what we’re going to say here—it is so bound to the particular context for which you are designing But the following sections present a number of community factors to consider early in the process

What are people there to do?

This question may seem simple, but it’s one that often goes unasked: what, exactly, is the purpose of this community? What are the actions, activities, and engagements that users expect when they come to your site? Will those actions be aided by the overt presence of content- or people-based reputations? Or will the mechanisms used to generate reputations (event-driven inputs, visible indicators, and the like) actually de-tract from the primary experience that your users are here to enjoy?

Is this a new community? Or an established one?

Many of the models and techniques that we cover in this book are equally applicable, whether your community is a brand-new, aspiring one or has been around a while and already has acquired a certain dynamic However, it may be slightly more difficult to introduce a robust reputation system into an existing and thriving community than to have baked-in reputation from the beginning Here’s why:

• An established community already has shared mores and customs Whether the community’s rules have been formalized or not, users do indeed have expectations about how to participate, including an understanding of what types of actions and behaviors are viewed as transgressive The more established and the more strongly held those community values are, the more important it is for you to match your reputation system’s inputs and rewards to those values

• Some communities may have been around long enough to suffer from problems

of scale that would not affect an early stage or brand-new site The amount of conversation (or noise, depending on how you look at it) might already be over-whelming And some sites face migration issues:

— Should you grandfather in old content or just leave it out of the new system?

— Will you expect people to go back and grade old content retroactively? (In all likelihood, they won’t.)

• In particular, it may be difficult to make changes to an existing reputation system Whether the changes are as trivial and opaque as tweaking some of the parameters that determine a video’s popularity ranking or as visible and significant as

Asking the Right Questions | 121

introducing a new level designation for top performers, you are likely to encounter resistance (or, at the very least, curiosity) from your community You are, in effect, changing the rules of your community, so expect the typical reaction: some will welcome the changes, others (typically, users who benefited most under the old rules) will denounce them

We don’t mean to imply, however, that designing a reputation system for a new, green-field community is an easy task For a new community, rather than identify the com-munity characteristics that you’d like to enhance (or leave unharmed), your task is to imagine the community effects that you’re hoping to influence, then make smart decisions to achieve those outcomes

The competitive spectrum

Is your community a friendly, welcoming place? Helpful? Collaborative? Argumenta-tive or spirited? Downright combaArgumenta-tive? Communities can put a whole range of behav-iors 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 com-munity that you plan to influence through your reputation system

A very telling aspect of community character (though it’s not the only one worth con-sidering) is the level of perceived competitiveness in your community (see Figure 5-6) That aspect includes the individual goals of community members and to what degree those goals coexist peacefully or conflict What are the actions that community mem-bers engage in? How might those actions impinge on the experiences of other com-munity members? Do comparisons or contests among people produce the desired behaviors?

Figure 5-6 The competitive spectrum may help suggest the appropriate reputation model for your community’s needs.

In general, the more competitive a group of people in a community is, the more ap-propriate it is to compare those people (and the artifacts that they generate) to one another

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 sys-tems 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 ‘com-petitive’ part of the spectrum.” People are competing for attention, right? And dates? Remember, though, the entire context for reputation in this example Most impor-tantly, 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.”

“The Competitive Spectrum” is expanded upon in Christian Crumlish

and Erin Malone’s Designing Social Interfaces (O’Reilly).

Better Questions

Our goal for this chapter was 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 your application? We’ve given you a lot to consider in this chapter, but your answers to these questions will be invaluable as you dive into Chapter 6, where we teach you how to define the what, who, how, and limits of your reputation system

Better Questions | 123

CHAPTER 6

Objects, Inputs, Scope, and Mechanism

Having answered the three key questions posed in Chapter 5 (see “Asking the Right Questions” on page 97), you should have a pretty good idea of what you want to

ac-complish with your system In this chapter, we start showing you how to acac-complish

those goals We’ll start identifying the components of your reputation system and we systematically determine these details:

• Which objects (people or things) will play a part in the reputation system? Some

objects will themselves be reputable entities and will accrue and lose reputation over time Other objects may not directly benefit from having a reputation but may play a part in the system nevertheless

• What inputs will feed into your system? Inputs frequently will take the form of actions that your users may take, but other inputs are possible, and we’ll discuss

them in some detail

• In the case of user-expressed opinions and actions, what are the appropriate mech-anisms to offer your users? What would be the difference between offering 5-star

ratings, thumbs-up voting, or social bookmarking?

In addition, we share a number of practitioner’s tips, as always This time around, we consider the effects of exclusivity on your reputation system (how stingy, or how gen-erous, should you be when doling out reputations?) We also provide some guidance for determining the appropriate scope of your reputations in relation to context

The Objects in Your System

To accomplish your reputation-related goals, you’ll have two main weapons—the objects that your software understands and the software tools, or mechanisms, that you provide to users and embed in processes To put it simply, if you want to build birdhouses, you need wood and nails (the objects) along with saws and hammers (the tools), and you need someone to do the actual construction (the users)

125