One of the things I've never quite been able to understand is why people don't comment on blogs more than they do. I don't necessarily mean this in terms of me or this space, but in general - what makes people hesitate to comment? I, of course, am as guilty as the next man. There are probably about 50 or so opinion/ non news based blogs that I read with any regularity, and I can say with a good degree of confidence that I have left no more than 25 comments on all of them combined since the start of '08. 25 comments (if that) after reading hundreds of blog posts. How utterly vexing.
It might be easy to dismiss if the posts were simply meaningless to me, but that isnt the case. Some of them inspired conversation with friends or family. Some of them became professional meeting agenda items. Some of them turned into blog posts of my own. And some just led to some good personal thought sessions, or frustrated tirades over a beer. But almost none of them lead to comments. How does that make any sense?
Maybe I got self conscious about posting something? Maybe I couldn't think of how to properly put into words my response? Maybe I didnt have time to say what I wanted to say? Maybe something shiny fell onto the floor and I wandered off, giggling stupidly? All are possible, but they are all just excuses. As Brad and I were discussing a few weeks ago, there is no reason why I should not be willing to post something as simple as "Fantastic post!" in response to an idea that I carried with me . At its core, thats what participatory culture is based on, isnt it? We'll call changing this bad habit my mid years resolution. I'm getting better, but still have a long way to go (despite the fact that I don't know what the invisible barrier is to begin with).
People have tried all kinds of things to solicit user feedback. Comments of course are the most basic and potentially the most significant in some ways, but polls, star ratings, diggs, tags, embeddable content, and more - they are all means of expressing your feelings on a particular post without actually saying anything. Why this is more appealing than commenting I'm not sure. Time perhaps (both in duration and asynchronous-ness)? Convenience? Regardless, I'm willing to bet its part of a larger mental shift in our society as a whole - the same sort of phenomenon that contributes to posting on someone's Facebook wall or text messaging them before you'd call them. Again, I'm just as guilty as anyone. But its sort of a stunning realization when you just sit back and think about it.
Since he returned from the Berkman@10 conference, Cole has spent a lot of time thinking about a possible future of course design here at the U, supported by that which is the wiki at its core. His latest idea, which
suggests a class built from the bottom up pretty much blew my mind. I don't know what the end result would look like but its a radical idea that I can't stop thinking about.
My biggest concern about Cole's proposal segways back to the impetus for this post. What is it that inspires people to participate? Or put another way, what is it that makes people hesitant to do so? Grades or control over your learning outcomes are obviously a temporary solution, but that only extends as long as the classroom is the setting. If Wikipedia is the model, the community must be sustainable beyond those boundaries. Beyond any boundaries really.
And so we're back to square one. How do make the jump from interested to participatory? From willing to digg something, to willing to respond to it? Obviously content plays a role, but how can one shape the community to help create a compulsion to participate?
Earlier today, as I was enjoying the latest episode of "As the Stub Plays RSS Catchup", I cam across an interesting new addition to the social networking news site, Mashable. The feature, known as
the Prediction Center, allows users to make predictions on certain questions related to the site's main themes. For example, users can respond to the question "Will Twitter be bought out by the end of 2008' with a yes or no answer, then provide rationale to support their prediction if they wish. If it doesnt sound too ground breaking to you thats because it isnt. The Prediction Center is essentially a poll, Digg, and a simplified Future's Market (a stock market in which shares of ideas instead of stock are bought and sold for points or money).
So why bring it up if its old news? The proof, is as they say, in the implementation flavored pudding. Every time you make a prediction, add a comment, post a new question to ask, pass a question along to a friend, or refer a new user to the site - essentially every time you participate in the community in any way, you earn points. And if you post comments, other users can vote them up, earning you more points, or vote them down, costing you points and potentially hiding them from public view (if they are inappropriate or malicious). The idea of Community points is completely different from prediction accuracy (which is also tracked). Participation is further encouraged by only allowing those who make predictions to view the results of the community.
Now for the time being, it appears that the community points are simply a symbol of pride. Having participated in several online communities myself, I can say that such a symbol should not be taking lightly, as pride can become the glue that holds any online community together. But what if the community points actually lead to tangible outcomes? Imaging if those of a certain point threshold had their posts highlighted or pushed to the top? Or fast track the questions you would like the community to predict? Or, as is the case with Wikipedia, eventually earn you the opportunity to administer the system or moderate the content? Would it change the impetus people feel (or don't feel) to participate?
I don't mean to suggest that human beings are primarily self interested, because I don't that is a fair representation of why people don't participate in certain venues. Nor do I think a few points next to your name are enough to motivate people to play, at least not directly. But would it hurt to reward participation anyway? To offer tangible incentives, dare I say achievements, (you knew I had to get gaming in here somewhere) for people to get involved? Or does that completely miss the mark?
It is an interesting conundrum to which I have nothing even resembling an answer. But what about you - what would motivate you to participate?
Images from icanhascheezburger.com and shapeshed.com
