Designing for (Local) Online Community

Shelly Farnham, Ph.D.

2008

Community Defined

"I define "community" as networks of interpersonal ties that provide sociability, support, information, a sense of belonging, and social identity.”

Barry Wellman (2001).

“A group of people who share a common interest or purpose; who have the ability to get to know each other better over time. There are two pieces to that definition. That second piece — getting to know each other better over time — means that there needs to be some mechanism of identity and communication.”

Amy Jo Kim (2001)

“1) It is interactive and built on the concept of many-to-many communications ...; 2) It is designed to attract and retain community members who become more than

superficially involved in community events ... and ... are able to make new friends through the community;

3) It has a single defining focus; ... (that) gives them a reason to return;4) It provides services to community members, ... that meet community member needs; 5) It has, or has the potential to develop, a strong commercial element...“

From "Towntalk," a listserv on online community

Socio-Cultural Context

Social dissolution/individualism, lack of traditional community– Bob Putnam, “Bowling Alone”

Neo-tribalism, “Urban Tribes” Use of Internet to access people, coordinate

Penetration of Online Communities

84% of Internet users in U.S. participated in an online community (Pew 2001)

Of these– 79% regularly with one particular group– 49% help connect with groups with shared interest– 26% to contact or learn about local groups (28 million)

16% use a social networking site (Pew 2006) 39% looked for a home (Pew 2006) 77% of home buyers used Internet (NAR 2005)

Why Community Online?

Geographical isolation/distance Limited mobility Weak ties, access to specialized knowledge or circumstances

– Need sense of shared understanding/frustration– Similar others hard to find face to face

Asynchronous interaction– Face to face not available all the time, hard to meet– Continuous access to support

People who are available face to face bored with your preoccupation

Overcome social stigmatization

anyone, anytime, anyplace

Glocalization

Barry Wellman– Help find others with similar interests no matter

the distance– Increase contact with groups and people already

know, feel more connected

What are people using discussion groups for?

2001 MSN Communities Analysis

Type of Community

% of Total Memberships

% of Total Communities

Avg. # of Members

Avg. # of Messages

Avg. # of Photos

Avg. # of Files

Share interest/activity 22% 29% 10 14 23 1Adult 21% 4% 67 18 79 1Dating 17% 5% 42 29 16 1Similar people 13% 13% 14 13 19 1Information exchange 9% 9% 13 16 10 2Self 7% 19% 5 2 30 1Religion 5% 3% 21 55 12 2Family 4% 13% 4 2 35 0Group 2% 3% 9 10 15 1Support 1% 1% 21 32 5 0Humor 0% 1% 6 9 24 2

Average: 14 13 25 1

Sample of 20K communites with more than 1 member.

How does type of group impact measures of community health?

2001 MSN Communities Analysis

Type of Community

% Members that Post

Community Duration in Days*

Poster Duration in Days*

Number of Messages per Person

Replies per

Message

Adult 13% 143 9 1.9 0.5Dating 19% 88 8 2.6 0.7Similar people 25% 76 9 3.3 0.6Self 30% 31 7 2.5 0.6Information exchange 31% 96 11 3.3 0.6Shared interest/activity 31% 78 12 3.8 0.7Religion 34% 106 16 6.4 0.8Support 35% 137 16 4.1 0.7Group 35% 79 17 2.5 0.5Humor 39% 40 10 3.5 0.6Family 42% 27 7 2.1 0.4

Average: 24% 77 11 3.2 0.6

Religious and social support communities especially interactive.

Online Support Communities

Decrease worry, anxiety, depression Information flow, exchange, storytelling Group problem solving, insights Trusted sources Common social support topic: health

– Advice from peers with health experience– Improve patient compliance with treatment– Info seeking improve decision-making

go to doctor able to talk intelligently about problems, have language for it etc. assess quality of their care

Messages primarily informational vs. emotional? giving info (33.5%), opinions (17.4%), suggestions (7.3%), Socio-emotional (25.8%)

From Maloney-Krichmar & Preece, In Kneeboard

HutchWorld

– Provided Internet access and community support software to patients and caregivers following BMT

– #1 reason people used Internet was to interact with family and friends, not to meet other cancer patients/caregivers

– Access to Internet had buffer effect on feelings of loss of social support/life satisfaction following BMT

“It kept us connected on a daily basis to friends and family

which was extremely important.”“It gave me the feeling that I could

connect with the outside world. Cancer is very isolating and the

computer broke that isolation.”

Defining Elements of Online

Distinctive Focus Integrating content and communication Appreciation for member-generated content Access to competing publishers/vendors

– (putting needs of community ahead of business)

Sustainable

Figallo

Attributes of Online Community

Feel a part of larger whole– Importance of tapping into identity effects

Web of relationships Ongoing exchange Relationships last through time

Communities as Intervention

The minimal “intervention”:– Define community boundaries

Tapping into personal identity, social identity

– Enable conversation

Assessment:– Measure community growth, participation– Impact on neighborhood

Designing for Sociability

– Clearly articulated shared purpose– Governance, protocols

Spell out ground rules for appropriate behavior Enforce

– Users good at self-regulation if have tools– Blocking, ignoring, three strikes your out– Contact for escalation

Evolve

– Ritual Welcome! You’ve been promoted/you get an award!

Designing for Sociability

– People Profiles Roles

– Moderators– Experts– Lurkers– Approx 1% leaders, 19% participate, 80% lurkers

Size– Critical mass: number of people needed to make a community

useful– Too few not enough, too many overwhelmed– Discussion groups: 25 active participants take up all the air\– Plan for emergence of subgroups when it gets too large

Designing for Sociability

Group vs. network form of association– Sense of boundary, you are a member or not, better many to many

communicaiton Need for active communication

– Message board/mailing list– Commenting– Possible to shift from broadcast to one on one, public to private

Narrow focus vs. broad– Tend to succeed with dense groups of similar others

A sense of place: where do I go to find us?– Orient people around central home page type location

(FAQ/wiki/discussion board for each neighborhood) Light moderation/hosting of spaces, enable emerging leaders

Designing for Sociability

Enabling transition from newbie to mentor– Passing on “host” role– Awareness of newbie/mentor roles through

activity metrics Time in space Message activity # of stories/lessons posted

Importance of First Impressions

Need to see there is social interaction (social translucence) – exchange/reciprocity shows interpersonal trust– Shadows of social behavior: X members, amount recent activity,

new story posts, best story Site trust building:

– Post self-regulating policies Privacy and security Editorial and advertising

– Source disclosure– Third party seal– Branding

Integration with Email!

Importance of email to communities91% of people email

Of those who connect to groups online– 60% through email– 33% email main local organization several times a

week

Pew 2001

Discovery/Entry Points

Search in system by topic and by person: important to find similar others

– Search/show relevant demo factors (SES indicators through job, college, location)

– Related interests Entry through invitation to join

– Invite friends/family/cohorts to view stories etc. Link off of other community sites

Online Community General Concerns

Access Ease of use Authentication/accountability Commercialism and privacy Safety and security

– Bad behavior in online spaces– Misappropriation of personal info

Misinformation

Fostering cooperation

Social dilemma/tragedy of the commons– Individual gain vs. collective good

Increasing cooperation– Reputation

Will meet again Identification of behavior Record of past behavior

– Media richness (social presence theory)

Social Presence Theory

How successfully media convey sense of others being physically present (also, Media Richness Theory)

Increase social presence with– Verbal– Visual, non-verbals, body language, SES– Context (physical, social)

Impacts – sense of emotion, intimacy, immediacy– Development of common ground

Achieving shared understanding Infer meaning from context

– Activation of pro-social norms Lack of social presence, increased aggression, decreased trust

Reputation Systems Online

Online interactions outside usual social constraints (disembodied)

– Identified behavior– History of behavior over time– Social context: face-to-face increases normative behavior

People *will* break trust if not held accountable/ prosocial norms not activated by presence of others

Reputation– History of past interactions informs current expectation of

reciprocity or retaliation in future– Accountability, trust

Reputation Systems -- Key Components

Long-lived entities that inspire expectation of future interaction

Capture and distribution of feedback about current interactions

Use of feedback to guide trust decisions Issues:

– Low incentive to provide feedback– People reluctant to provide negative feedback– Ensuring honest reports

Types of Ratings

Implicit Ranking– Time in system, frequency of visits, frequency of posts, etc

Explicit Rating– Weighted average, explicit rating of object of interest

Collaborative filtering– People with similar rating patterns rate this highly, so you will

probably like– Assumes high variability in preferences

Peer-based– Filter implicit/explicit ratings by relevance to self in network (e.g.

friend of friend)

Importance of Types of Reputation Information

From Jensen et. al 2002, N = ~330

Decision task:Study of use ofreputation informationto inform choice aboutwhom to interactwith

Importance of Types of Reputation Information

From Jensen et. al 2002

Ebay

Slashdot

Netscan

Netscan

Netscan

Netscan

Behavior of active users in Netscan (top 10%), from Brush et al. 2005

WholeNote

Wholenote Ratings

Reputation System Design Implications

Filter both content and reputation metrics by relevance to self -- emphasizing similarity

– Often reduced overall average ratings the more information is exposed (voice, picture, profile information): indication of increased discrimination between good/bad, relevant content

Include both implicit and explicit ratings/rankings Expect explicit ratings to be positively biased, so “absence of positive” matters

– Ratings per hit rate for example meaningful– Count of ratings overall– Binary votes: e.g. “useful” or not

Metrics at both level of content and level of author important Rate comments as well as content

Reputation System Design Implications

Assessing a person’s/story’s reputation with “others like me” – localized reputation

Under the hood assessment of “trustability” of raters, use to influence their influence on aggregate scores, search results

– Recency in system, deviance, claimed home, explicit ratings (ratings of raters) Use interaction history with content to normalize ratings

– % of positive ratings out of # of people read/hit vs. simple average Search results, able to change sort by:

– Overall ranking/ratings– Ranking/rating in my network– Similarity/relevance to me– Date updated/posted– Author

People Access Local/Neighborhood Communities Online?

41% often/sometimes go online for info about local stores/merchants

35% often/sometimes for news about local community/community events

24% often/sometimes to get info about local schools

Pew 2001

Local Communities Online?

% of Internet % who Users belong to: email:

Church, synagogue, mosque 44% 43%

Social club or charitable organization 30% 56%

Community group/neighborhood association 22% 52%

Youth group 22% 43%

Sports 20% 38%

Other 14% 51%

Pew 1991

Netville study: what did they talk about?

Discuss interests of common concern (home construction)

Requests for help or advise (e.g. recommendation for a local doctor)

Advertise garage sales, local crafts/services Invitations to community events Messages offering such things as job info

Home renovation

“flavor”

StreetsArtBars/

restaurantsShoppingBlogsCrimePolitics

Community

New

Events

“talk

view

Live”

Personalization look and feel

Crime feeds

Places with drink deals

People

Stats:Demographics

Schools

Crime

Economy

Health

Weather

Cost of living

apt

ratings

Map overlay

Pick and choose

Neighborhood meetup

classifieds

photos

boundaries

Places people like

Recommendations

Recommendations

Activity in network

Activity in blog network

People

Discussion,

Photos,

Listings,

Events,

Reviews,

Requests

Related Groups

Conclusions/discussion

Defining primary target users and their common purpose #1 task of any community tool

Group boundaries (location/neighborhood)– Emphasis! Identification with neighborhood – Opportunities to meet– Community language: Join, Welcome, Member!

Communication features Foster emergence of leaders (reputation metrics,

most active/featured member slot) Seed content, model communities, model

neighborhoods