Designing for (Local) Community

Designing for (Local) Online Community Shelly Farnham, Ph.D. 2008

Community Defined
"I define "community" as networks of interpersonal ties that provide sociability, support, information, a sense of belonging, and social identity.”
Barry Wellman (2001).
“ A group of people who share a common interest or purpose; who have the ability to get to know each other better over time. There are two pieces to that definition. That second piece — getting to know each other better over time — means that there needs to be some mechanism of identity and communication.”
Amy Jo Kim (2001)
“ 1) It is interactive and built on the concept of many-to-many communications ...;
2) It is designed to attract and retain community members who become more than superficially involved in community events ... and ... are able to make new friends through the community;
3) It has a single defining focus; ... (that) gives them a reason to return;
4) It provides services to community members, ... that meet community member needs;
5) It has, or has the potential to develop, a strong commercial element...“
From "Towntalk ," a listserv on online community

Socio-Cultural Context
Social dissolution/individualism, lack of traditional community
Bob Putnam, “Bowling Alone”
Neo-tribalism, “Urban Tribes”
Use of Internet to access people, coordinate

Penetration of Online Communities
84% of Internet users in U.S. participated in an online community (Pew 2001)
Of these
79% regularly with one particular group
49% help connect with groups with shared interest
26% to contact or learn about local groups (28 million)
16% use a social networking site (Pew 2006)
39% looked for a home (Pew 2006)
77% of home buyers used Internet (NAR 2005)

Why Community Online?
Geographical isolation/distance
Limited mobility
Weak ties, access to specialized knowledge or circumstances
Need sense of shared understanding/frustration
Similar others hard to find face to face
Asynchronous interaction
Face to face not available all the time, hard to meet
Continuous access to support
People who are available face to face bored with your preoccupation
Overcome social stigmatization
anyone, anytime, anyplace

Glocalization
Barry Wellman
Help find others with similar interests no matter the distance
Increase contact with groups and people already know, feel more connected

What are people using discussion groups for?
2001 MSN Communities Analysis
Sample of 20K communites with more than 1 member.

How does type of group impact measures of community health?
2001 MSN Communities Analysis
Religious and social support communities especially interactive.

Online Support Communities
Decrease worry, anxiety, depression
Information flow, exchange, storytelling
Group problem solving, insights
Trusted sources
Common social support topic: health
Advice from peers with health experience
Improve patient compliance with treatment
Info seeking improve decision-making
go to doctor able to talk intelligently about problems, have language for it etc.
assess quality of their care
Messages primarily informational vs. emotional?
giving info (33.5%),
opinions (17.4%),
suggestions (7.3%),
Socio-emotional (25.8%)
From Maloney-Krichmar & Preece, In Kneeboard

HutchWorld
Provided Internet access and community support software to patients and caregivers following BMT
#1 reason people used Internet was to interact with family and friends, not to meet other cancer patients/caregivers
Access to Internet had buffer effect on feelings of loss of social support/life satisfaction following BMT
“ It kept us connected on a daily basis to friends and family
which was extremely important.”
“ It gave me the feeling that I could connect with the outside
world. Cancer is very isolating and the computer broke that isolation.”

Defining Elements of Online
Distinctive Focus
Integrating content and communication
Appreciation for member-generated content
Access to competing publishers/vendors
(putting needs of community ahead of business)
Sustainable
Figallo

Attributes of Online Community
Feel a part of larger whole
Importance of tapping into identity effects
Web of relationships
Ongoing exchange
Relationships last through time

Communities as Intervention
The minimal “intervention”:
Define community boundaries
Tapping into personal identity, social identity
Enable conversation
Assessment:
Measure community growth, participation
Impact on neighborhood

Designing for Sociability
Clearly articulated shared purpose
Governance, protocols
Spell out ground rules for appropriate behavior
Enforce
Users good at self-regulation if have tools
Blocking, ignoring, three strikes your out
Contact for escalation
Evolve
Ritual
Welcome!
You’ve been promoted/you get an award!

People
Profiles
Roles
Moderators
Experts
Lurkers
Approx 1% leaders, 19% participate, 80% lurkers
Size
Critical mass: number of people needed to make a community useful
Too few not enough, too many overwhelmed
Discussion groups: 25 active participants take up all the air
Plan for emergence of subgroups when it gets too large

Group vs. network form of association
Sense of boundary, you are a member or not, better many to many communicaiton
Need for active communication
Message board/mailing list
Commenting
Possible to shift from broadcast to one on one, public to private
Narrow focus vs. broad
Tend to succeed with dense groups of similar others
A sense of place: where do I go to find us?
Orient people around central home page type location (FAQ/wiki/discussion board for each neighborhood)
Light moderation/hosting of spaces, enable emerging leaders

Enabling transition from newbie to mentor
Passing on “host” role
Awareness of newbie/mentor roles through activity metrics
Time in space
Message activity
# of stories/lessons posted

Importance of First Impressions
Need to see there is social interaction (social translucence)
exchange/reciprocity shows interpersonal trust
Shadows of social behavior: X members, amount recent activity, new story posts, best story
Site trust building:
Post self-regulating policies
Privacy and security
Editorial and advertising
Source disclosure
Third party seal
Branding

Integration with Email!
Importance of email to communities
91% of people email
Of those who connect to groups online
60% through email
33% email main local organization several times a week
Pew 2001

Discovery/Entry Points
Search in system by topic and by person: important to find similar others
Search/show relevant demo factors (SES indicators through job, college, location)
Related interests
Entry through invitation to join
Invite friends/family/cohorts to view stories etc.
Link off of other community sites

Online Community General Concerns
Access
Ease of use
Authentication/accountability
Commercialism and privacy
Safety and security
Bad behavior in online spaces
Misappropriation of personal info
Misinformation

Fostering cooperation
Social dilemma/tragedy of the commons
Individual gain vs. collective good
Increasing cooperation
Reputation
Will meet again
Identification of behavior
Record of past behavior
Media richness (social presence theory)

Social Presence Theory
How successfully media convey sense of others being physically present (also, Media Richness Theory)
Increase social presence with
Verbal
Visual, non-verbals, body language, SES
Context (physical, social)
Impacts
sense of emotion, intimacy, immediacy
Development of common ground
Achieving shared understanding
Infer meaning from context
Activation of pro-social norms
Lack of social presence, increased aggression, decreased trust

Reputation Systems Online
Online interactions outside usual social constraints (disembodied)
Identified behavior
History of behavior over time
Social context: face-to-face increases normative behavior
People *will* break trust if not held accountable/ prosocial norms not activated by presence of others
Reputation
History of past interactions informs current expectation of reciprocity or retaliation in future
Accountability, trust

Reputation Systems -- Key Components
Long-lived entities that inspire expectation of future interaction
Capture and distribution of feedback about current interactions
Use of feedback to guide trust decisions
Issues:
Low incentive to provide feedback
People reluctant to provide negative feedback
Ensuring honest reports

Types of Ratings
Implicit Ranking
Time in system, frequency of visits, frequency of posts, etc
Explicit Rating
Weighted average, explicit rating of object of interest
Collaborative filtering
People with similar rating patterns rate this highly, so you will probably like
Assumes high variability in preferences
Peer-based
Filter implicit/explicit ratings by relevance to self in network (e.g. friend of friend)

Importance of Types of Reputation Information From Jensen et. al 2002, N = ~330 Decision task: Study of use of reputation information to inform choice about whom to interact with

Importance of Types of Reputation Information From Jensen et. al 2002

Slashdot

Netscan

Netscan
Behavior of active users in Netscan (top 10%), from Brush et al. 2005

WholeNote

Wholenote Ratings

Reputation System Design Implications
Filter both content and reputation metrics by relevance to self -- emphasizing similarity
Often reduced overall average ratings the more information is exposed (voice, picture, profile information): indication of increased discrimination between good/bad, relevant content
Include both implicit and explicit ratings/rankings
Expect explicit ratings to be positively biased, so “absence of positive” matters
Ratings per hit rate for example meaningful
Count of ratings overall
Binary votes: e.g. “useful” or not
Metrics at both level of content and level of author important
Rate comments as well as content

Reputation System Design Implications
Assessing a person’s/story’s reputation with “others like me” – localized reputation
Under the hood assessment of “trustability” of raters, use to influence their influence on aggregate scores, search results
Recency in system, deviance, claimed home, explicit ratings (ratings of raters)
Use interaction history with content to normalize ratings
% of positive ratings out of # of people read/hit vs. simple average
Search results, able to change sort by:
Overall ranking/ratings
Ranking/rating in my network
Similarity/relevance to me
Date updated/posted
Author

People Access Local/Neighborhood Communities Online?
41% often/sometimes go online for info about local stores/merchants
35% often/sometimes for news about local community/community events
24% often/sometimes to get info about local schools
Pew 2001

Local Communities Online?
% of Internet % who
Users belong to: email:
Church, synagogue, mosque 44% 43%
Social club or charitable organization 30% 56%
Community group/neighborhood association 22% 52%
Youth group 22% 43%
Sports 20% 38%
Other 14% 51%
Pew 1991

Netville study: what did they talk about?
Discuss interests of common concern (home construction)
Requests for help or advise (e.g. recommendation for a local doctor)
Advertise garage sales, local crafts/services
Invitations to community events
Messages offering such things as job info

Home renovation

“ flavor”
Streets
Art
Bars/restaurants
Shopping
Blogs
Crime
Politics

Community
New
Events
“ talk
view
Live”

Personalization look and feel

Crime feeds

Places with drink deals

People

Stats:
Demographics
Schools
Crime
Economy
Health
Weather

Cost of living

apt
ratings

Map overlay
Pick and choose

Neighborhood meetup

classifieds

photos

boundaries

Places people like

Recommendations

Activity in network

Activity in blog network

People
Discussion,
Photos,
Listings,
Events,
Reviews,
Requests
Related Groups

Conclusions/discussion
Defining primary target users and their common purpose #1 task of any community tool
Group boundaries (location/neighborhood)
Emphasis! Identification with neighborhood
Opportunities to meet
Community language: Join, Welcome, Member!
Communication features
Foster emergence of leaders (reputation metrics, most active/featured member slot)
Seed content, model communities, model neighborhoods

Designing for (Local) Community

by Shelly D. Farnham, Ph.D. on Mar 05, 2010

Accessibility

Categories

Tags

Upload Details

Usage Rights

1 Embed 1

Statistics

Designing for (Local) Community — Presentation Transcript