Session 3: AnswerBag and Motivation for Online Communities

Key Findings from the Readings
Before joining Answerbag.com, I had to form a strategy for interaction. The readings gave a strong basis for the motivations for users to get involved in online communities, which developed ideas for enhancing the experience with Answerbag (AB). I took away a couple of main points that were repeatedly stressed in the articles:

• Ridings and Gefen emphasized that the motivation for joining online communities was (1) to find information and (2) to find social support and relationships.
  
• Users participate because of common interests, personal feelings, and daily experience (Java et al, 6).
  

Along those lines, experience can be enhanced with the knowledge of computer systems, which Schrock describes as computer self-efficacy (6), as well as the ability to self-disclose. Extroverts are more likely to participate because of the shift in social networks from text based to media rich formats. Because the trend for social networks now depends on exposure and visability, introverts are not as comfortable with participation (Schrock, 7). Schrock emphasizes that the colaboration between media makes the social networking system more popular because users can get a range of information in one format.

Although the Java et al. article was primarily about Twitter and other microblogging systems, it seems that AnswerBag also functions on some of the same principles. Microblogging has a few dominate reasons for participating: status updates, conversations, sharing information, and reporting news. Users typically either predominatly contribute information or take away information, and sometimes the user functions as both depending on the community (Java et al, 6).

Strategy for Interaction
Based on the findings above, I decided to try a couple of different techniques. I developed a set of questions that appealed to the different purposes for use. For example:

1. What's the draw to American Idol? (Cross-media information and participation)
2. What are some creative ways to get out of debt? (Information sharing)
3. How do you avoid gossip at work? (Experience sharing)

I also created a few questions based from lurking the community. I noticed that a large portion of the questions are "philosophical" or commentaries on social life. A link to all questions can be found on my profile here: http://www.answerbag.com/profile/static/qa/questions/864789

In an attempt to generate a unique question that would also garner interaction, I decided to survey a controversial issue. This would inspire debate and allow users to draw from their unique experiences, which was researched as one of the major draws to join online communities. My attempts at asking light-hearted questions (How do I get a bird out of my house? What makes a good office plant? How do you avoid gossip at work?) did not get frutiful contributions. I noticed that the more serious questions (Particularly, Do you avoid special needs children/adults? Why?) attracted more attention, possibly because people could draw on self-disclosure and gain user support for their experiences. Hence the decision for my final question: Would you report a rape if the rapist is someone you know?

Results and Thoughts about Interaction
For the purpose of this post, I'm going to use the above question as the best example for interaction. This post gained 24 answer posts and 46 rating points. The question can be viewed here: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1274660

Perhaps part of the reason AB is so successful is the fact that users are required to post unique or original questions. This likely motivates users to contribute primarily because they are required to produce new content. Ling et al stated:

"If [users] believe that their contributions are redundant with those that others in the group can provide, then there is little reason to contribute, because their contributions have little likelihood of influencing the group" (4).

I also noticed that questions and answers received ratings from annonymous users, which suggests that their sentiments were already expressed. This also appeals to the introvert as well as the extrovert, because the interaction is largely text based, but also leaves room for vreative profiles and visability. The posts are also a form of expressing personality, gaining popularity, and even broadcasting experiences (like with a microblog) in the form of a question or comment.

Along those lines, the ratings system was fairly motivating. My whole goal was to reach the 40 points count for the question, but I got absorbed in the question during the process. While the conversation and comments were interesting and kept me involved, the ratings gave me reason to continue posting questions. Tedjamulia et al suggests that "non-monetary rewards like social recognition can be extremely powerful incentives" (8), which includes compliments and recognition. The points system on AB is an efficient way of letting users know they are appreciated. Users are more likely to continue contributing and develop new content if they feel accepted and praised for their efforts to support the community information pool.

As a counter point to this system, do the points seem more controlling than informative (Tedjamulia et al, 6)? The contributions seem superficial when it's obvious that the user is participating for points. In light of the trend/competition to get as many friends as possible on Facebook, and sometimes even pay strangers to be-friend you, doesn't the points system seem to run along the same lines? Especially with the recent acknowledgment of a user reaching level 100, was this user motivated intrinsically or extrinsically? (Some of the questions on this user's profile seemed cookie-cutter to generate points...)

The use of participation levels, with the graphic ribbons, are helpful, since most individuals work well and participate more regularly when given a goal to reach (Ling et al, 19). AB also offers small rewards, like additional rating points to give out or level badges, but these aren't as motivating as trying to get more points on a question.

Ridings and Gefen stated that "virtual communities must have compelling conent, and that they might fail if they do not have good standards for this content" (4). However, I suggest that the content of these online communities don't necessarily need to be compelling, it just needs to be interaction. For instance, I found that the majority of answers and comments to questions on AB were attempts to be humorous, crude, or flippant. Questions were often answered in jest, no matter how serious or trivial the question may be. One answer to my most popular question ended with the user apologizing for the attempt at humor (see Figure 1). If people are just looking for entertainment, socializing, and friendship, the content is not as important as the interaction that takes place. Another development out of this question was the bond of emotional support between users. Because this questions was controversial and troublesome in nature, I noticed that users were more apt to share personal stories and offer condolences. This could stem from the idea that users contribute when they feel they have something unique to offer (Ling et al, 4)--personal experience tops the original factor. For instance, one user admitted to not reporting her rapist, although she thought she would. (I've worked with rape victims before and also shared that I've had second thoughts about reporting. This comment cited sympathy from the answers and comments that followed from other users. Because this was a social experiment, I decided not to reveal that I was not the victim, but allow the conversation to flow as if I were.) Ridings and Gefen found in their research that this is a typical experience in online communities. Social support is a primary influence for getting involved, with some users joining to "support others going through a rough time" and "to let others know that I have gone through it too" (12). My experience confirmed this research (see Figure 2).It was helpful to view the online community from the eyes of a opportunist, with the suggestions from Ridings and Geffen. It is beneficial to the design commuinty interaction after the idea that people are not only looking for information, but also for interaction (17). The content will support itself as long as the community can interact around it. AB does a good job of supporting this principle. Ridings and Geffen suggest that the virtual community have advanced search capabilities, links to non-member-generated material, user profiles, the ability to search profiles for activity, and use of experts in a particular field (17)--all of which AB facilitates.

It was also telling that the questions with the most interaction was also one that produced conversations from people who have had personal experience with the topic. The postings from women who have experienced rape, or others who know victims of rape, confirms the findings in the readings that people draw together because of common interests and the need for support. The questions that asked for personal experience or opinion were overwhelmingly more popular. It seemed to be understood that if you ask the question, than you've experienced the situation yourself. Users reacted with natural support for the issue raised. It immeadiatly formed a small community within the boundaries of the question. Did anyone else notice this?

I also noticed that if I commented on the answers of other users, they were more likely to continue the thread of conversation in other areas of the post. The more comments I made, the more people were drawn to the question and motivated to comment. Visibility is based on frequent participation. I should say that I did end up answering my own question (despite Gazan's warning not to "game the system"), because I felt that the comment would enhance the fruitful contributions. I found that people quickly uprated my answer and the conversation entered a deeper level of communication. Once I started getting to the heart of the issue, I found that other people were more comfortable with sharing their experiences (it built trust).

Overall, the experience was positive. I found myself motivated to keep asking questions just to see if I'd get an answer. The most difficult part was trying to find a question that was not already asked with the added pressure of gaining high ratings. My focus was more on asking a great question than making a great comment. My next attempts with interaction will be to see what kind of comments can gain high ratings.