Analysis of a Cultural Heritage
Game with a Purpose
with an Educational Incentive
Irene Celino, Andrea Fiano and Riccardo Fino
CEFRIEL – Milano, Italy
paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-38791-8_28

Introduction and motivation
Cultural Heritage (CH) Game with a Purpose (GWAP)
Gameplay: quiz to guess a CH asset from four different images
Purpose: ranking images of CH assets
Collateral effect: learning about CH
Evaluation of the CH GWAP:
Effectiveness to achieve its ranking purpose
Ability to engage and retain players
Potential effect of the educational/cultural incentive

Indomilando gameplay
Images of CH architectures in
the city of Milano
Churches, villas, buildings,
schools, towers, …
1 name/title and 4 photos
(of 4 different assets)
Link to official asset record
Map to explore CH assets
the user played with
http://bit.ly/indomilando

Intuitively, a photo is recognizable if it is correctly guessed more frequently
Conservative measure: lower bound of Wilson score interval
But some categories are more recognizable
than others (e.g. buildings are difficult)
 correction: standardization
by asset type
Final photo rank score:
Indomilando purpose
Computing photo ranking
p: observed fraction of successes (=photo guessed)
z2
α/2: (1 - α/2) quantile of the standard normal distribution
n: total number of trials (=photo played)

Indomilando purpose
Computing CH asset ranking
Intuitively, an asset rank score corresponds to the average
of its photos’ rank scores
But each asset has a different no. of photos (1-40)
 correction for number of photos
But each set of photos can be heterogeneous (mix of good
and bad photos)
 correction for photo inhomogeneity
Final asset rank score:

Indomilando purpose
Evaluating ability to rank
Comparison with no. of visits of assets’
Wikipedia pages (when existing)
But no. of Wikipedia visits is more a sign
of “popularity” than “recognisability”
Comparison with ground truth
Best photo of top-10 Wikipedia assets
Manual ranking by 12 users
Rank aggregation weighted by declared
familiarity with Milano CH
Good ability to rank and much more time-effective 
Each manual ranker: avg. of 1 min 27 sec to rank 10 assets
Indomilando: 72 players with avg. of 7.5 min to rank ~1400 photos and ~650 assets

Indomilando gaming flavor
Evaluating players engagement
ALP (Average Life Play): 7.5 min
Left-skewed distribution (long tail)
Median < 3 min
Two user groups (+ “outliers”)
Subjective analysis of engagement
through user questionnaire
Players like it 

Indomilando cultural flavor
Evaluating educational incentive (1/2)
Possibility to explore CH official records
between game rounds (map exploration)
Two rounds consecutive if < 15 min
Distribution of “exploration” time
Possibility to learn over time to recognize
CH assets
No. of correctly guessed photos as a
function of the played game rounds

Indomilando cultural flavor
Evaluating educational incentive (2/2)
Subjective analysis of cultural incentive through user questionnaire
What motivated you to play? Did you learn anything new about Milano?
 guessing it right
 leaderboard
 learning something new

Conclusions
Indomilando is effective to achieve its ranking purpose
Resulting rank highly correlated to a ground truth
Outcome achieved in a very limited time
Indomilando shows a good engagement potential
Most players find the game fun
User group spending a significantly long time in playing
Indomilando has a learning/educational effect
Players are motivated to acquire new knowledge
Interplay of ranking purpose and educational incentive to be further investigated

Indomilando promoted by Lombardy
http://l15.regione.lombardia.it/

Analysis of a Cultural Heritage Game with a
Purpose with an Educational Incentive
Irene Celino, AndreaFiano andRiccardoFino
Thank you!
Additional material can be found at http://swa.cefriel.it/urbangames/indomilando/icwe2016.html
http://bit.ly/indomilando