A reputation system for this community is already in place, but it contains many aspects that are worth analyzing. When a user makes a comment, to the left of their comment appears their username, avatar, date they joined, number of posts, number of thanks, and a small caption. Underneath the comment appears a custom signature that the user usually puts a banner and some quotes in. This community discusses a lot of things, including technology, entertainment, politics, music and design. Because this is a wide range of topics, only some users may have valid, or trusted opinions in these areas. If I were to post a question about a math problem on the forum, I would want a trusted answer that I know is right. I could verify this by using the reputation system; I would need to see a response from a user with a high number of thanks (everytime someone posts help and you appreciated it, you can give them a "thanks") and perhaps a sign in the signature that shows they are part of a "tech crew" (users create online "crews" that put a sign in the signature to show what crew they're in).
Because this is a forum the most desirable behavior is to have consistent postings and a large, diverse, community. People should be posting answers to questions and their opinions often, thus they can be rewarded by receiving thanks, or invitation to a reputable "crew". This system could be manipulated by a random user because they could always put any crews sign in their signature, but this would probably result in them being defamed by other users. Not to mention the fact that all the users on this forum had to apply to get in, so they already have an interest to maintain a high reputation. In fact, because all the users had to apply to get in and most likely will only have one username it reduces the situation where "good name is not at stake...the temptation to "hit and run" outweighs the incentive to cooperate" (Resnick, 46).
Finally the system rewards users who contribute monetarily towards maintaining server costs (which is an issue for the sharing section of the forum). These users are allowed to have higher resolution avatars and an extra caption box to the left of their posts. While this doesn't seem like a big deal, these users have a very high reputation in the community and their posts are considered much more important than other posts.
Posts
It seems like this community is pretty effective developing trust between members. Giving incentives like new avatars is a really good way to get members to want to contribute positively. I think it's really important to point out that reputation systems will only work if people actually care about having a good reputation. In this case, it seems like members would also want to build credibility, a process that requires time, and this would prevent the issue about creating new usernames discussed in the reading.
ReplyDeletei agree with Melanie's observation/warning that the power of reputation systems is essentially nullified when members are uninvolved/have no desire to build a lasting/positive relationship
ReplyDeletebut requiring that a member be an active participant before they are approved for membership in may ways limits the chance that someone who is out to casually diminish the strength of the community would be dedicated enough/allowed to join.
I feel like this system could end up being very bias or using the tight-nit environment to propel one's standing within the community. People who are friends generally are not as objective at judging responses because they do not want to offend their friends feelings. Also how many people can you give thanks to? I feel like if you have created a bond with someone in the community you will generally give then thanks if their response is even a slight bit helpful, this could be a way to manipulate the system if you can offer thanks to more than one response.
ReplyDeleteThis sounds like an interesting website. I feel like this reputation system would have very little manipulation due to the tight knit aspect of the community. It seems that if you're that passionate about becoming part of a community, you're not going to risk manipulating the system.
ReplyDelete