Summary

In the paper, “The Language that Gets People to Give: Phrases that Predict Success on Kickstarter”, the authors seek to identify the successful features of a crowdfunding project. They wisely observed that not just any data from Kickstarter, the crowdfunding website they performed their analysis on, could be used to draw conclusions. They needed to grab a subset of projects and posts on Kickstarter, specifically projects that reached their end date. From this list of projects, they were able to pull a little over nine million unique phrases. Then from these phrases they eliminated any phrase that was used less than 50 times or was topic specific. This left them with about twenty thousand phrases to work with and aid in drawing their conclusions from.

After analyzing these phrases and control variables that were determined against successful and non-successful Kickstarter projects, the authors were able to find some interesting results. They found that the “top 100 predictors of funded and not funded are solely comprised of phrases” and not control variables among other findings. Along with this, the implications of this research and data that will be released are discussed. It is very possible that crowdfunding websites could provide these most popular successful predicting phrases in some location on the website. Whatever the case, this research deepens our understanding of funded and not funded crowdfunding campaigns as well as persuasive design.

Reflection

I found this paper to be very informative concerning the phrases and variables that can be used to predict crowdfunding success or not. I was slightly surprised that some phrases in general seemed to be a much greater predictor of success than control variables. I also noted that there is much more significance placed on crowdfunding descriptions than I had originally thought.

The idea of reciprocity, as was mentioned, can play a huge role in crowdfunding success. From my own personal experience, I find it much more compelling to contribute something I own when I feel like I am receiving something in return. While this “trade” may be greatly skewed to one side, the idea of making a trade seems like a logical decision and gives us greater ease.

I like how this paper recognized that certain conditions cannot be accounted for when analyzing their data. They recognized that people who provide updates on their Kickstarter page and list their new backers may have a small influence on them reaching their project goal. They acknowledged this limitation, and I find this to be crucial for academic papers that seek to see future research done in the area.

Questions

Are the factors that identify a successful crowdfunding project changing as they become more well-known?

How important is reciprocity in the workplace in terms of effort expended and praise given? How does this affect employee retention?

Can the excessive use of a successful predicting phrase have the opposite effect?

How does the layout of a particular crowdfunding website affect a person’s desire to contribute? Does a more professional layout entice different subsets of people?

 

Read More

Summary

In the paper “Antisocial Behavior in Online Discussion Communities”, the author focuses on determining what causes a user to exhibit antisocial behavior, how an online community extinguishes or propagates this behavior, and if it’s possible to accurately identify this antisocial behavior. This is done by first splitting users into two groups, Future-Banned Users(FBUs) and Never-Banned Users(NBUs). These two different groups help divide up users who were liked or tolerated by their online community from those who were disruptive or cruel. Then we can identify differences in their behaviors that may relate to antisocial behavior. One thing we see is that FBUs post more frequently that NBUs and have a less-accepted post. This post likely includes negative thoughts or some degree of profanity. Another thing that appears is that both FBUs and NBUs have lower quality posts later in their posting lifetime, with FBUs having a greater drop in quality than NBUs. Differences such as these help provide a somewhat accurate way to identify users who are likely to exhibit antisocial behavior within as little as 5-10 posts. Along with this the way the user is accepted by his or her community as well as the number of posts in a thread are viable indicators of antisocial behavior.

 

Reflection

One of the things that was surprising to me from this paper was the general trends people with antisocial behavior follow in online communities. I can think back to reading some “discussions” in YouTube comments and seeing how active the original poster of the comment was. He would post a very controversial comment and wait for other users to reply with resentment to his post. There was a joy for him in seeing either the short temper of other users or seeing a dispute take place. Whatever the case, whenever another user would post he would quickly reply. The behavior this user exhibited closely matched the behavior patterns mentioned in this paper. It was also surprising to me that the quality of posts from both FBUs and NBUs decreased as time progressed. It is possible that once a user felt like they were a part of a certain community or thread that they could be more casual with their posts and less intriguing. Another possibility is that users begin to lose excitement for a group as time progresses. This is only speculation, however, and some research could be done on this topic. One idea that I did not see mentioned in this paper is the user who shows antisocial behavior by trolling other users but is applauded for it. This user may cause embarrassment for a few users but provides humor to a large crowd of users. Depending on the website, this user may be banned or they may be encouraged on.

 

Questions

What causes some users to find joy in antisocial behavior and others to despise it?

Why do online discussion community members produce lower quality posts as time progresses?

Are some users who exhibit antisocial behavior accepted to be used as a source of comedy or to start conversations?

Read More

Summary

In the paper, “Social Translucence: An Approach to Designing Systems that Support Social Processes”, the author looks at the missing social components of digital technology that are present in everyday physical conversations. One of the things that is touched on is the social blindness we have when we communicate with digital technology.  In person, we can read body language and adjust for a group’s actions, however, in a digital community these things we take for granted are normally missing. We need a way to be able to incorporate these “physical” things into a digital community. This idea of creating a socially translucent digital environment is what sparked Babble. Features such as a social proxy, allow digital users to better understand the conversation they are in and eliminate some of the unknowns of a conversation group in a digital community. These features create more openness in a group conversation and are the means for digital conversations to be even more rewarding than physical conversations.

The next paper, “The Chat Circles Series Explorations in Designing Abstract Graphical Communication Interfaces”, looked at different methodologies and benefits of some graphical communication interfaces. Chat Circles is a graphical communication interface that changes the perceived norm of messaging. Typically, a user will send a plaintext message with limited tone to a group of members with an unknown status. With an interface like Chat Circles, the user can see group information, such as who is involved in the chat, when they use it. This helps give the user a more genuine conversational feel to their group chats. Other Chat Circles variants have attempted to use conversational graphics and online speech to help foster social interaction.

 

Reflection

These papers helped bring awareness to me about the simplicity of our current messaging systems. While easy to use, these systems leave much to be desired when compared to everyday conversations. I have been in conversations before where the tone of a message I am trying to convey is not the tone the recipient perceives. With a lack of body movement and the assistance of audible tone, it is easy for messages to be misperceived. It would be helpful if there was some way to add physical language to a text message when it was sent. This addition would favorably be automatic, because if the user has to manually pick a physical description of themselves it is not as accurate as it would be in normal conversation. The addition of some variant of chat circles could greatly enhance a user’s knowledge of group activity and membership. Ultimately, I see that there is a major desire for more realism in digital communication. The more visible we make elements of a group conversation appear, the easier it is for users to respond appropriately.

 

Questions

Is it possible to eventually mimic all physical social queues in a digital conversation?

Does keeping an archive of conversations create a stigma of secrecy in digital conversations?

Is there any way to add “physical” feel to a message with recording a video or taking a picture?

Could our phone detect emotion when we send a message and attach it to our message?

Read More

Summary

The first of these papers, “Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community”, looks at the methods and displays of identity and deception in the virtual world. It sets a basis for the prevalence of deception online, by stating how the physical body is a means of identification for most people. Without it, we only have the online user’s speech which he or she can manipulate at will. However, this article also brings up some ways to better identify people online. Ultimately there are two types of signals we look at to determine honesty, assessment signals and conventional signals. Assessment signals are costlier but directly related to the trait, while conventional signals are unstable and are often used as a means of deception. Things such as voice, language, and other traits given off by the writer help us develop our identity of that person.

The paper “4chan and /b/: An Analysis of Anonymity and Ephemerality in a Large Online Community” dove into the short-lived and radical community of 4chan. It starts by identifying two key components of 4chan, which are ephemerality and anonymity. Posts made to 4chan have a very short lifespan. If people are not commenting and “bumping” a post, it is only a matter of minutes before that post will be pushed down off the website. On one hand, this keeps no archive of well-liked posts, but on the other hand it forces the website to come up with fresh and unique posts. Along with this, anonymity is a factor in 4chan’s success. It allows users to post difficult questions without feeling like they are looked down on. This also allows other users to answer difficult questions from their own experience without having to give away personal details. However, there is also a negative side to anonymity which most people are familiar with. This negative side, is the ability to post anything the mind can think of without having to be held accountable for that post. This leads to many insensitive and radical posts that have helped give 4chan its bad reputation.

 

Reflection

These articles really got me thinking about what we perceive as identity online. It made me consider the identity that other users give off from their voice and language online and what their identity actually looks like from a physical perspective. These articles also made me consider the pros and cons of anonymity online. It has great benefits for those who are in need of help and don’t want to give out personal details. It also has consequences, though, since people who want to post terrible things now have the ability to do so without direct consequence.

 

Questions

What are the consequences of anonymity when a law is broken?

Is there a greater reward posting when you get recognition?

Will anonymity always be a possibility online?

Can word language be used more easily to identify a user?

Read More

Akshay Java, Xiaodan Song, Tim Finin, Belle Tseng. “Why We Twitter: Understanding Microblogging Usage and Communities”. http://aisl.umbc.edu/resources/369.pdf. Accessed 30 Aug. 2017.

Summary

This article examines the premise behind why we use Twitter, but more broadly microblogging. It starts by defining the microblogging nature of Twitter and how it entices users with short posts that they feel they can create multiple times a day. This article also looks to understand the intentions of microblogging users and how relationships are built between them. It looks at the three main user intentions of users of Twitter (“information sharing, information seeking, and friendship-wise relationship”). These intentions differ for each user but are an important part of that user’s experience. This article proceeds to go into detail about the communities that can form from these microblogging applications. Interestingly enough, it examines how users with similar interests will share more about their “personal feeling and daily experience” with other users they have connected with who have similar interests. Along with this, we also examine the main user intentions on Twitter, such as daily chatter or reporting news, and why they may be appealing to different users.

 

Reflection

I greatly enjoyed the breadth of this article and how it started from the basics of microblogging and then dove into more intensive topics. This article discussed how users feel more inclined to post when using microblogging. I would definitely agree with this, as I have seen many people post simple sentences several times a day just to let their followers know what they are doing. This post could be as simple as saying they had just made it to work, but they desire to let their followers know about this. One thing I wish this article had expanded on more would be the “information seeking” user base of Twitter and the social implications of this user base. It would be very interesting to know more about the different users that populate the three user intention groups. Another thing this article has made me think about is the future of microblogging. We know that many years ago the social structure of how people communicated was much different than it is today. This begs the question of what the future of communication will look like as technology increases.

 

Questions

What causes some users to post numerous times a day on Twitter?

What causes some users to never post on Twitter, but simply browse?

Is there a correlation between number of posts and follower base?

Do users with more followers post differently than those with less?

Is microblogging too long for the future of communication?

 

Read More