|
Post by foresquared on Jul 12, 2011 18:39:30 GMT -5
Discussion Questions - According to Johnson, what makes user-generated content systems like www.slashdot.org successful? Can you think of other examples of self-regulating online communities?
- Spend some time exploring slashdot.org. Does it continue to exhibit the qualities that Johnson discusses? Is it still a successful self-regulating community? What makes it successful? Use your response to the previous question in your evaluation of the site.
- Respond to at least one of your peer's posts no later than midnight.
In successful self-regulating communities, all aspects connected to each other. In many ways this exhibits a wave-like effect that spreads outward to reach many other individuals that are also involving themselves in the conversation, eventually bouncing off of some point source and resulting in a “feedback loop.” The concept that Johnson defines as “negative feedback” is also essential is the balancing of extreme ideas, developing the adaptability aspect of a self-regulating community. This teeter-totter sensation of driving new ideas to a common center discussion sparks interests on all ends, stimulating the minds of both active participants and “lurkers” in the setting. Another key aspect of successful self-regulating sites is the idea that no one individual has absolute power over the topics and responses. In this sense, users generate the conversation and also expand upon it, building what Johnson describes as a “collective intelligence” not limited by any higher force. I do not have any personal experience with any self-regulating communities; however, I am very interested in exploring examples that may cross anyone’s mind. After spending some time on slashdot, I feel that it meets the requirements that Johnson discussed. Because so many people use the site, there is a lot of feedback, and with a lot of feedback, the site provides a large domino effect of opinions being posted by the second, not limited or overseen by any one person in general. Upon creating an account, I noticed the “karma” rating in the right-hand column of the screen, solidifying the concept that indeed, a wide array of high-ranked individuals are now ranking journal entries being posted to the site. The large quantity of users also produces a series of related comments, comments about comments, and so forth, really developing standards, as some comments are ranked poorly or not responded to at all. There is also the sense of writing something that may spark others’ interests or be deemed as useful, giving the author credibility, raising karma and being able to rank others and give others the power to rank. The only ways that the conversations are limited is if readers choose to filter poorly-ranked comments. I believe that this site is successful in the way that a “collective intelligence” is formed through a series of feedback loops, comments about comments set on top of comments.
|
|
|
Post by Ava Nova on Jul 12, 2011 18:42:44 GMT -5
Foresquared, thank you so much for getting us started!!!! :-)
|
|
|
Post by gmfreeman on Jul 12, 2011 21:20:17 GMT -5
User-generated content uses the concept of homeostasis, or the constant tendency to remain similar to the norm, or the general consensus. What makes all these user content systems and sites so successful is the endless streams of random user comments and ideas. As these ideas spawn, feedback often spawns even faster as people rate and add to people's ideas, views, or work. An example of a self regulating community is the game Garry's Mod. Garry's Mod takes the game engine from a popular game, but takes away all the objectives and gives everyone the tools to build their own rules, objects and games. Slashdot.org continues to exhibit the features that Johnson discussed and it is still a self regulating community because as the community posts news and ideas, there is a large member base that rates the content and offers comments. When a foul comment is made, the community will rate it as so in an effort to return the website to its normal state. This process is homeostasis, as described by Johnson.
|
|
|
Post by Anna11Banana on Jul 12, 2011 21:20:21 GMT -5
One factor that makes user-generated systems so successful is the incentive to give feedback. The usual "lurker" realizes the reward for their output and will then feel the need to become interactive. Johnson makes a successful web community sound much like a democracy. The people are each given an opportunity to respond, and are then rewarded for their response. But, there is a distinct division of power, so no user becomes to authoritative. Johnson makes clear the component that differentiates the TV from the web. He states that they both share a medium, a message, and an audience, but parts of the web are so innovative because it allows the audience to be interactive. I totally agree with foresquared that Johnson feels a successful self-regulating community ties all of its aspects together. Everything is connected in a successful web community. Slashdot was the first example of a self-regulating site that I have sen. I feel that it does maintain the qualities Johnson talked about. It is so successful because the user can customize the site to their liking. It is also so successful because of the incentive it gives for the user to interact with the site. The quantity of comments was huge, even with the more recent stories. But the quantity of replys to the comments was really shocking. The sites overall setup made it really easy. Being a first time user, I found myself relying on the score of the comment to determine whether of not I wanted to read it.
|
|
|
Post by gmfreeman on Jul 12, 2011 21:28:53 GMT -5
foresquaredIf you want to search for more self regulating communities, the internet gaming communities often have free reign, either that or another obscure one is 4chan.org, but i would not recommend the second one for the faint of heart: This is an example of a self regulating community that has gone a bit out of control, so don't say i didn't warn you.
|
|
|
Post by ndesai on Jul 12, 2011 21:41:56 GMT -5
Ah! So glad you brought up 4chan.org. I would definitely agree with you that this site has lost control in terms of regulation and rules. I think this is a perfect example of how an online community can go array. There's this pervert mentality at that site and I feel as though users don't feel welcome unless they also adopt it. Groupthink maybe?
|
|
|
Post by Ben Yedwabik on Jul 12, 2011 21:55:36 GMT -5
Read Catherine Latterell's 3 Assumptions about Community Read Steven Johnson's Listening to Feedback Complete the following questions and add them to the appropriate thread on our class discussion board (no later than the beginning of class: Hat tip to Foresquared for starting the thread!) According to Johnson, what makes user-generated content systems like www.slashdot.org successful? Can you think of other examples of self-regulating online communities? Spend some time exploring slashdot.org. Does it continue to exhibit the qualities that Johnson discusses? Is it still a successful self-regulating community? What makes it successful? Use your response to the previous question in your evaluation of the site. Respond to at least one of your peer's posts no later than midnight. According to Johnson, the thing that makes user-generated content systems examples successful is feed back. When users give useful and accurate feed back, it helps a consumer make the right choice about a product. Today while in class, somebody said that feedback is only useful when it has both pro's and con's which i completely agree with. There is no "perfect" product so when feedback is given that show's two sides of a product, it gives the consumer needed information which will better help their decision in purchasing or not purchasing a product. The con section was defined by Johnson as "Negative Feedback". I can't think of any self regulating communities myself but when i had googled it, i found many model's on self regulating communities on "http://www.sunship.com/archives.beyond/communityark/index.html". After have searching around on Slashdot.com and looking through the topics it offers, i find that it does meet Johnson's requirements for it a successful user-generated content system. There are ton's of topics on the site with at least 50 reviews on each. With so many comments on each topic, i find that there is a plethora of reviews that are both helpful and what Johnson calls "Negative Reviews". Because there are topics like Books, Software and even Gaming, i think it gives a visitor to that site an area where they can find all the information they need on similar yet different topics without having to travel to different review sites.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Yedwabnik on Jul 12, 2011 21:58:47 GMT -5
@ Gmfreeman
Way to turn me on to a new gaming review website! i hate buying a game and then having to return it because either i didn't know too much about the game or i just didn't like it. hopefully in the future, i will never buy a game i don't like again.
|
|
|
Post by sdematteo on Jul 12, 2011 22:02:36 GMT -5
After reading Johnson’s piece, I am convinced that user-generated content systems work due to the sole fact that the individuals using the site are in control in some sense. Users of Slashdot are all given an opportunity to express their views on others’ posts when it is their turn to participate in the rating system. This gives the users a sense of satisfaction that the content that they will receive on this site is reliable; they feel this way because they have personally gone through the rating process and can customize their screen to show them only the high-ranked posts. The users have the power to manipulate their community instead of being dictated by a set leader. The program that Slashdot runs by has given each user the chance to be the leader of the community for a short time. I have never personally used a site such as this, so I am not aware of any examples. After exploring Slashdot, it seems like a very useful way to get information. The posts that I read with the scores of 4 and 5 contained reliable information and insightful content. They seemed reliable as a writer as well. Due to these factors, Slashdot still exhibits the qualities that Johnson discussed in his work. The rating system is working in full effect, useful words as to the reasoning behind the rank given are also available for the user. Because of these traits I would be open to suggestions on other examples of sites similar to Slashdot as they seem to be reliable sources of information from many different sides of the spectrum.
|
|
|
Post by sdematteo on Jul 12, 2011 22:18:40 GMT -5
@anna11banana I also felt shock in the large amount of comments and replies to those aforesaid comments. It was really nice as a first time user of Slashdot to be directed towards the most useful and insightful posts through the rating system. I also found myself reading the posts based on the score they had received.
|
|
bg6
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by bg6 on Jul 12, 2011 22:20:11 GMT -5
@ndesai You bring up a good point with something like 4chan going awry. The first thing that came to mind after checking out the site was the obvious lack of organization and not having someone who cared enough to manage any problems the site may have. However, the people who run this site may see the content that people put on their website as not a problem because maybe they want to give people a place to go where they can say whatever they want with not as much restriction. People who go to this site perhaps view it as an alternate place to go compared to a place like Slashdot. Where they maybe feel more intimidated by a site like Slashdot because they do not agree or want to abide to the restrictions that come with it.
|
|
wzsun
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by wzsun on Jul 12, 2011 22:30:57 GMT -5
@ndesai
I disagree with your claim. 4chan has never had stringent regulations and forget about rules. The community has always been out of the norm and still is. To say that they have gone wild through out the times is a false. They have all ways been the same wicked community. I think wicked summarizes them better. They do haze a lot but that's just what they do. I also feel that you do not have to pick up their mentality to be accepted. Everything is anonymous. Lets not forget that 4chan creates a majority of the content on the surface of the web. Every funny picture or comment most likely originated from 4chan. I feel that some people may perceive there recent perverseness as something out of the norm but it's not. It just so happens that more people go on 4chan now then before and so more perverted content get's released.
|
|
|
Post by mrschreck on Jul 12, 2011 22:50:40 GMT -5
Johnson believes that through the power of user feedback an user generated content system can work and also be successful. Johnson stated that for a site like slashdot to work it must achieve a sort of homeostatic condition, meaning that it could stay somewhat stable even though its circumstances were ever-changing. This means that if its users were editing it it in a responsible way it could stay relevant and also eliminate the spam or power of having one person taking care of it. Some other examples of self regulating websites are Wikipedia which allows its user to edit all of it's pages. Also YouTube shows what popular at the time and uses ratings to help its users regulate the site and its content. I think that slashdot continues to exhibit the properties that Johnson discussed in the article. The site has a large variety of topics and each one has many different comments on it that are interesting and thought provoking. It is also very user friendly and allows the user to have a lot of control over what the read about.
|
|
wzsun
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by wzsun on Jul 12, 2011 22:51:54 GMT -5
According to Johnson, what makes user-generated content systems like www.slashdot.org successful? Can you think of other examples of self-regulating online communities? Spend some time exploring slashdot.org. Does it continue to exhibit the qualities that Johnson discusses? Is it still a successful self-regulating community? What makes it successful? Use your response to the previous question in your evaluation of the site. Like previously mentioned there are certain requirements that make user submitted sites successful. As previously mentioned there is this wave like effect in which ideas are able to bounce off. For example one person submits something and people can respond to that particular subject. If the submission appeals to people with similar tastes then people post and agree with it. Then it becomes a hit and so people from an opposing view sees it and disagrees and so a conversation can begin. This is the root of user submitted sites. It's also important to note that freedom is a big part of it as mentioned above. No individual's opinion is higher then another, unless proven so. It's also important to look in the past. Take for example what use to be an empire, digg. Digg started to harass its users and so they left. It's important that the users have a good standing relationship with the creators of that site. I participate in a user submitted site called reddit. Another one could be tumblr, not really too sure, I don't use it. After looking through the site, it does demonstrate the qualities described in the article. It's rather successful for such a limiting site. For example most of its content pertains to Linux and Open Source. A majority of the community is well informed and so it tends to make content very trust worthy. The site is definitely much like how Reddit is operated and so I feel like that is part of why its succeeding. As long as the community is knowledgeable and willing to contribute it will continue to be successful. The karma system much like reddit gives a little bit of incentive.
|
|
|
Post by Bethany Shirilla on Jul 12, 2011 22:52:17 GMT -5
@ sdematteo
I am very glad that you brought up the topic of "control" users are granted as a result of being part of such communities. As like any community, if individuals are granted the respect of having a voice, of having an opportunity to establish an environment to satisfy there needs, wants, and beliefs, they are more likely to contribute to the success of the community itself. Being granted a "leader," as you stated in your discussion, is an important quality in a community. It is important for people to feel their work is part of successful and respectable site. Similiar to communities that are offline, no one wants to be part of an environment in which their opinion, beliefs, etc.. do not matter. This small gift of respect, knowing that you matter as an individual of a much broader spectrum, is likely to be a result of a successful online community.
|
|