wip
This commit is contained in:
@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ The onboarding process is a permanent challenge for online communities and diffe
|
||||
One-day-flies are not unique to StackOverflow. \citeauthor{steinmacher2015social} investigated the social barriers newcomers face when they submit their first contribution to an open-source software project \cite{steinmacher2015social}. They based their work on empirical data and interviews and identified several social barriers preventing newcomers to place their first contribution to a project. Furthermore, newcomers are often on their own in open source projects. The lack of support and peers to ask for help hinders them. \citeauthor{yazdanian2019eliciting} found that new contributors on Wikipedia face challenges when editing articles. Wikipedia hosts millions of articles\footnote{\url{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_of_Wikipedia}} and new contributors often do not know which articles they could edit and improve. Recommender systems can solve this problem by suggesting articles to edit but they suffer from the cold start problem because they rely on past user activity which is missing for new contributors. \citeauthor{yazdanian2019eliciting} proposed a solution by establishing a framework that automatically creates questionnaires to fill this gap. This also helps matching new contributors with more experienced contributors that could help newcomers when they face a problem.
|
||||
\citeauthor{allen2006organizational} showed that the one-time-contributors phenomenon also translates to workplaces and organizations \cite{allen2006organizational}. They found out that socialization with other members of an organization plays an important role in turnover. The better the socialization within the organization the less likely newcomers are to leave. This socialization process has to be actively pursued by the organization.
|
||||
|
||||
One-day-flies may partially be a result of lurking. Lurking is consuming content generated by a community but not contributing content to it. \citeauthor{nonnecke2006non} investigated lurking behavior on Microsoft Network (MSN) \cite{nonnecke2006non} and found that contrary to previous studies lurking is not necessarily a bad behavior. Lurkers show passive behavior and are more introverted and less optimistic than actively posting members of a community. Previous studies suggested lurking is free riding, a taking-rather-than-giving process. However, the authors found that lurking is important in getting to know a community, how a community works and learning the nuances of social interactions on the platform. This allows for better integration into the community when a person decides to join the community. StackExchange, and especially the StackOverflow community, probably has a large lurking audience. Many programmers do not register on the site and those who do only ask one question and revert to lurking, as suggested by \cite{slag2015one}.
|
||||
One-day-flies may partially be a result of lurking. Lurking is consuming content generated by a community but not contributing content to it. \citeauthor{nonnecke2006non} investigated lurking behavior on Microsoft Network (MSN) \cite{nonnecke2006non} and found that contrary to previous studies \cite{kollock1996managing, morris1996internet} lurking is not necessarily a bad behavior. Lurkers show passive behavior and are more introverted and less optimistic than actively posting members of a community. Previous studies suggested lurking is free riding, a taking-rather-than-giving process. However, the authors found that lurking is important in getting to know a community, how a community works and learning the nuances of social interactions on the platform. This allows for better integration into the community when a person decides to join the community. StackExchange, and especially the StackOverflow community, probably has a large lurking audience. Many programmers do not register on the site and those who do only ask one question and revert to lurking, as suggested by \cite{slag2015one}.
|
||||
|
||||
% DONE Non-public and public online community participation: Needs, attitudes and behavior \cite{nonnecke2006non} about lurking, many programmers do that probably, not even registering, lurking not a bad behavior but observing, lurkers are more introverted, passive behavior, less optimistic and positive than posters, prviously lurking was thought of free riding, not contributing, taking not giving to comunity, important for getting to know a community, better integration when joining
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -136,6 +136,36 @@ Unwelcomeness is a large problem on StackExchange \cite{ford2016paradise}\footre
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Keeping users engaged, contributing and well behaved}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||
%new
|
||||
%https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.592.1587&rep=rep1&type=pdf \cite{iriberri2009life}
|
||||
% -> about community life cycle, systainablity; READMORE cap 5&6&*8*&10.3&10.4&10.5
|
||||
% -> look at success factors in table IX and X
|
||||
% -> look at refs
|
||||
% -> look at how to integrate that with kraut etal
|
||||
% look for parallels between papers and stackoverflow and write somethings about how stack overflow does it
|
||||
% split into growth and sustainablity capters (maybe, depends on how well i can be split)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
% IMPORTANT: recognize user contributions, with goodies \cite{iriberri2009life}
|
||||
% community management (social managment)
|
||||
% -> voluntarism
|
||||
% -> reasons user would do that: altruistic(do good for the community), or selfish reasons (recognition from others (superiors), promotions, etc.) \cite{ginsburg2004framework}
|
||||
% -> even if community is lead by paid employees, volunteers to most of the community work \cite{butler2002community}
|
||||
% -> important factors: trust, reputation, identity \cite{ginsburg2004framework}
|
||||
|
||||
% other studies which suggest changes to improve community interaction/qualtity/sustainability
|
||||
% -> help vamipires, noobs, reputation collectors \cite{srba2016stack}
|
||||
% -> qualtity solution suggestions \cite{srba2016stack}
|
||||
% -> restrict openness of the community, not desirable (e.g. restrict number of questions to combat low-quality questions), will not be 100% efective\cite{srba2016stack}
|
||||
% -> ''Improving Low Quality Stack Overflow Post Detection`` \cite{ponzanelli2014improving}, reduce review queue for moderators
|
||||
% -> finding content abusers, yahoo answers \cite{kayes2015social}, other communities \cite{cheng2015antisocial}
|
||||
% -> matching questions with answerers \cite{srba2016stack} (difficult questions -> expert users, easier questions -> answerers that know it but are not experts), dont overload experts, utilize capacities of the many nonexperts
|
||||
% TODO look if moderation features are covered
|
||||
%
|
||||
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||
|
||||
%intro .. se employes serveral features to engage/keep contributing users
|
||||
%reputation
|
||||
%badge system
|
||||
@@ -173,9 +203,9 @@ Different badges also create status classes \cite{immorlica2015social}. The hard
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Quality is often a concern in online communities. Platform moderators and admins want to keep a certain level of quality or even raise it. However, higher-quality posts take more time and effort than lower-quality posts. In the case of CQA platforms, this is an even bigger problem as higher quality answers fight against fast responses. Despite that, StackOverflow also has a problem with low quality and effort questions and subsequent unwelcoming answers and comments\footref{silge2019welcome}. StackOverflow has grown into a large community and larger communities are harder to control. \citeauthor{lin2017better} investigated how growth affects a community. They looked at Reddit communities that were added to the default set of subscribed communities of every new user (defaulting) which lead to a huge influx of new users to these communities as a result. The authors found that contrary to expectations, the quality stays largely the same. The vote score dips shortly after defaulting but quickly recovers or even raises to higher levels than before. The complaints of low-quality content did not increase, and the language used in the community stayed the same. However, the community clustered around fewer posts than before defaulting.
|
||||
Quality is often a concern in online communities. Platform moderators and admins want to keep a certain level of quality or even raise it. However, higher-quality posts take more time and effort than lower-quality posts. In the case of CQA platforms, this is an even bigger problem as higher quality answers fight against fast responses. Despite that, StackOverflow also has a problem with low quality and effort questions and subsequent unwelcoming answers and comments\footref{silge2019welcome}. StackOverflow has grown into a large community and larger communities are harder to control. \citeauthor{lin2017better} investigated how growth affects a community. They looked at Reddit communities that were added to the default set of subscribed communities of every new user (defaulting) which lead to a huge influx of new users to these communities as a result. The authors found that contrary to expectations, the quality stays largely the same. The vote score dips shortly after defaulting but quickly recovers or even raises to higher levels than before. The complaints of low-quality content did not increase, and the language used in the community stayed the same. However, the community clustered around fewer posts than before defaulting. \citeauthor{srba2016stack} did a similar study on the StackOverflow community \cite{srba2016stack}. They found similar pattern in the quality of posts. The quality of questions dipped momentarily due to the huge influx of new users. However, the quality did recover after 3 months. They also identified 3 types of users causing the lowering of quality: \emph{Help Vampires} (these spend litte to no effort to research their questions, which leads to many duplicates), \emph{Noobs} (they create mostly trivial questions), and \emph{Reputation Collectors} (they try to gain repuation as fast as possible by methods described by \citeauthor{bosu2013building}\cite{bosu2013building} but often with no reguard of what effects their behavior has on the community, for instance, encouraging \emph{Help Vampires} and \emph{Noobs}).
|
||||
\citeauthor{tausczik2011predicting} found reputation is linked to the perceived quality of posts in multiple ways \cite{tausczik2011predicting}. They suggest reputation could be used as an indicator of quality.
|
||||
Quality also depends on the type of platform. \cite{lin2017better} showed that expert sites who charge fees, for instance, library reference services, have higher quality answers compared to free sites. Also, the higher the fee the higher the quality of the answers. However, free community sites outperform expert sites in terms of answer density and responsiveness.
|
||||
Quality also depends on the type of platform. \citeauthor{lin2017better} showed that expert sites who charge fees, for instance, library reference services, have higher quality answers compared to free sites\cite{lin2017better}. Also, the higher the fee the higher the quality of the answers. However, free community sites outperform expert sites in terms of answer density and responsiveness.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
% quality
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user