Submitted by Christina Kalinowski on November 23rd, 2008 to the On-line Interaction and Facilitation Seminar, Fall 2008, Purdue University, Dr. Sorin A. Matei via the I Think Blog
Designing and maintaining a functional and fruitful online community can be a difficult endeavor. Many a designer has tried and failed; and for those who have enjoyed success, the going was often very rocky. Having never personally attempted to create or design an online community, the following advice comes from a novice perspective. I have selected eight design principles that I believe are absolutely necessary for the creation of a successful online community. Not only must these principles be included, but careful consideration must be given regarding the implementation of each. Each principle consists of a multitude of dimensions and options that must be weighed carefully by the designer. Each decision, no matter how seemingly insignificant, can greatly impact the future (assuming it has one!) and direction of the site.
The eight principles I have chosen are as follows: a purpose, codes of conduct, a “hands off” approach to government of site, giving power to members, exercising caution when translating the offline online, creating spaces for members to express themselves, a cultivation of accountability and continuity, and generating and maintaining activity. This is by no means an exhaustive list; there are many other design principles to take into consideration when designing an online community. The eight that I have chosen reflect my subjective judgment regarding the principles I find most salient and crucial to the successful implementation and maintenance of an online community. As such, these principles will be outlined and critically examined.
Purpose
One of the first questions that a designer should ask him/herself is ‘what is the purpose of the site?’ Are your intentions to build a site specifically for members to discuss a particular topic, such as dating? Or are you envisioning a site that connects members based upon geographical location or some ascribed characteristic(s), such as gender or race? Furthermore, the following sub-questions – ‘What type of community are you building?’ ‘Why are you building it?’ and ‘Who are you building it for?’ – should be likewise initially addressed (Kim 1999). Answering these questions is important because the purpose serves as a guideline for interactions and influences the character of the community (Preece 2000). As Kim (1999) so clearly articulates, “A successful community serves a clear purpose in the lives of its members and meets the fundamental goals of its owners (1).” Not only is it important for a community to operate as it was designed to, members must feel that they benefit through participation (Kim 1999 and Preece 2000).
Not only must the purpose be outlined prior to implementation, it must be clearly communicated to site visitors once the site is up and running. Upon visiting the home page, potential members should be able to quickly and easily figure out what the site is and what it is to be used for. As Steve Krug would wisely advise, “Don’t Make Me Think!” And don’t make your audience think either! The purpose should be made as obvious as humanly possible (Krug 2006). Visitors need to be able to immediately understand the purpose of your site, without having to expend much thought; if they have to spend a considerable amount of time thinking about it, they may just move on.
It is useful here to conceive of designing an online community as a balancing act in that a designer must balance the goals s/he envisions and what goals members hope to fulfill through participation. While you, the designer, may intend for members to use the site to accomplish certain goals in a certain way, members may not share your vision. Making sure you carefully consider and clearly articulate answers to the aforementioned questions will help alleviate possible ambiguity regarding perceived goals. While being able to successfully and succinctly answer these questions initially is important, these questions must be constantly revisited (Kim 1999). As online communities grow and mature, the purpose(s) may evolve. Online communities are not static entities; they can be likened to organisms, in that they grow, change, and evolve (Kim 1999). A designer may exert the greatest influence upon a community initially, but over time members cultivate significant influence as well, which often results in shifting goals.
Codes of Conduct
It is useful to consider the codes of conduct that you expect your future members to abide by alongside the purpose of the site. Codes of conduct reinforce the purpose of the site and guide member interactions. As such, the codes should be written with the nature of the community in mind (“Interaction”). Establishing codes of conduct (and the ways in which you do so) are important for several reasons. First and foremost, codes of conduct establish the social structure of the site (Matei, Kim 1999, Preece 2000). If you do not provide rules for your members to follow, they will make up their own (Matei). More often than not, this is a bad thing. Codes of conduct let members know what types of behavior are and are not acceptable. Codes of conduct should serve as guidelines for how members should behave so as to benefit from site membership.
In addition to establishing a social structure, codes should be designed to police members’ behavior (“Interaction”). The rules are not there strictly and solely for enforcement by the designer; members have a stake in the community too, and a desire to make sure that the rules are followed. Members’ may invoke the community rules to sanction those who do not act accordingly. This self-policing by members allows for community maintenance through the upholding of mutually agreed upon norms.
Codes of conduct must be written with care and consideration. Too many rules stifles interaction, but too few rules and members become unruly (Kim 1999 and Matei). A designer should aim for the middle ground, and conceptualize the codes of conduct in terms of structured freedom (Matei). Rules should be clear, yet a bit ambiguous; members need to be aware of what the community expects of them, but they also need to know that they are free to express themselves (Matei, Kim 1999, Preece 2000). This fosters cooperation and trust (“Interaction”). Similarly, rules should be written concisely, using language that is easily understood. The rules should also be socially acceptable, practical, and flexible, as the rules may evolve and change over time (Matei and “Interaction”). Practically, the rules should be easily locatable throughout the site so that members can quickly refer to them if necessary (“Interaction”).
“Hands off” government
Closely linked to the principle regarding codes of conduct is that of approaching the government of the site in a “hands off” fashion. Part of the goal in establishing codes of conduct is creating a form of ‘community self-rule’ in that members ensure rules are followed by enforcing them themselves (“Interaction,” Matei, and Godwin 1994). Just because you, the designer, have the supreme authority and may exercise it at your discretion doesn’t necessarily mean that you should. When arguments occur, it is better to let members resolve their disputes than for an external authority to interfere. Constant interference serves as a disruption to the formation of community. Allowing community members to “hash out” their differences can actually be beneficial to community growth in two important ways. First, it allows for members to create norms surrounding proper behavior regarding conflict resolution (Godwin 1994). Since the internet as a whole consists of few widely shared norms, it is important that norms are created within your community (Kim 1999). Secondly, dissent can be a good thing. Passionate disputes among members demonstrate that they care about the community since they are willing to fight over it (“Interaction”).
Having said this, it must be noted that there are other times when it is appropriate, even necessary, for supreme authority to step in and resolve conflict. For instance, if a debate that began innocently enough quickly turns into an all-out flame war with members hurling personal insults at one another, and there are no signs that said dispute will be resolved anytime soon, you might want to step in and end it. As a designer, you are responsible for protecting the weak and sanctioning the unruly to ensure the community is able to maintain itself (Matei).
Power to the People
Closely correlated with taking a “hands off” approach to site government is the principle that members should be given power. Fostering endogenous leadership is beneficial to community maintenance because, as previously mentioned, it is less disruptive than the exercise of external authority, and it allows members to construct community norms. In addition, granting members power or influence is rewarding in that it contributes to individual self-efficacy, and allows members to perceive of their participation as beneficial to themselves and the online community of which they are a part (“Interaction”).
There are a few different ways in which power can be granted or distributed to members of an online community, three of which I will briefly mention. Which type or types you wish to employ depends upon the type of community you envision, and how you would like it to operate. One type you can employ is that of assigning leadership roles to members of your choosing. This can be useful in that you can promote those who model the type of community you are trying to foster, thus leading by example (“Interaction,” Godwin 1994, Kim 1999). Effective leaders “breathe life into a community” as they can perform a variety of functions such as welcoming newcomers, managing programs, and keeping activities lively and civil (Kim 1999). The WELL is an excellent example of this selective leadership; in the past, WELL leaders were chosen due to high participation rates and engaging in model behavior to help moderate the site (Hafner 1997 and Rheingold 1993). Though this is not the sole principle that led to the great success of the WELL, the type and amount of power selectively invested in members clearly had a significant impact as this online community has been in existence for over 20 years!
Alternatively, or additionally, a feedback loop can be created in which members are provided with opportunities to voice opinions regarding the community (“Interaction”). This information can then be used to implement changes that members’ desire (Kim 1999). Allowing members the power to influence the design and functioning of the site empowers members and gives them a sense of community belonging.
The last type I will discuss is related to a feedback loop, but takes it a few steps further. In a feedback loop members opinions are usually not evaluated and considered on an individual basis, but rather collectively by addressing concerns that arise most frequently. When power is distributed evenly among members, as sites like Digg and Slashdot employ, each member’s voice counts (Lampe and Resnik 2004). On these sites members rate stories, videos, or commentary; each member is allowed to cast a vote as to whether or not s/he feels the item of perusal is newsworthy. Such democratic power distribution empowers members in that it is evident that members’ actions clearly influence and shape the site (Lampe and Resnik 2004). However, as in Slashdot’s case, this system is far from perfect. The site has several moderators who possess significantly more power than other members, which upsets the democratic employment of fair voting (Lampe and Resnik 2004).
Be Careful Translating the Offline Online
While thinking about what makes for good offline communities can be a useful way to formulate principles for an online community, a designer should exercise caution when doing so (“Interaction”). Successful offline principles cannot be directly applied online as there is something lost in translation. Offline principles need to be modified to cater to the unique dynamics of the online medium (“Interaction”). Many of the social (nonverbal) cues that we rely on in face-to-face interactions are absent online; this has several important consequences for those interacting online (Kim 1999). A reigning perception that many hold regarding the social landscape of the internet is that people can do, say, or be whatever they want. Subsequently, a lot of the social norms and behaviors that are upheld offline are violated online (Kiesler et al. 1984). People often reveal things about themselves, or say things to others online, that they would never offline. Because people tend to behave differently online than they do offline, principles translated to accommodate the online medium often need to be made more explicit (Kim 1999). When writing codes of conduct, it is important to state the obvious. For example, offline it occurs to most that swearing at complete strangers is considered unacceptable and inappropriate. As a designer, you cannot just assume that this norm will be carried over and observed by members; you need to explicitly state that this behavior is not allowed.
Even though a designer needs to consider and recognize the important differences between face-to-face and online interaction, s/he must always remember that human beings are human beings regardless of the medium chosen for communication (“Interaction”). Through their examinations of social information processing theory, Walther and Parks (2002) have noted that online communicators are just as motivated to “reduce interpersonal uncertainty, form impressions, and develop affinity” as are those who communicate face-to-face (535). In other words, people have the same interpersonal needs in their online interactions as they do in their offline ones.
Personalized space
Because so many social cues are absent online, creating spaces for members to construct their identity online becomes a salient consideration; just as codes of conduct must be made explicit, so does a person’s identity (Kim 1999). Allowing members to choose how much information to reveal about themselves to others encourages self-disclosure and trust (“Interaction”). Decisions regarding how much members must reveal about themselves to others is thus an important one to make, and should be based in part on the purpose of the community (“Interaction”). Remaining anonymous and bearing it all both work individually, but do not mix well (Williams 1994). Mixing the two can have the undesired effect of creating an unequal distribution of trust among members (Williams 1994). The WELL proves to be an anomaly in this regard, as they were able to mix both with success; members are required to disclose their offline identities, and members are privy to this information at all times. But members can also create pseudonyms for themselves. Mixing both works in this case because pseudonyms can be traced back to their original owners.
Providing members with a profile page that they can change and modify at their own discretion is a good way for members to express themselves individually (“Interaction”). Allowing members the opportunity to construct their identity within your online community does several important things. First, it allows members to establish who they are and develop a reputation (Kim 1999). This information can be used by fellow members and newcomers to get a sense of who others are and what they do within the context of the community (Kim 1999). Furthermore, establishing member identities builds trust, fosters relationships, and creates a meaningful social infrastructure through which your community can prosper (Kim 1999).
While providing members with a customizable profile page is a good idea, the decision regarding its implementation (or not) is up to you. Either way, attempts should be made to provide spaces for members to express themselves and interact with others. This can be done through the use of forums and bulletin boards; decisions regarding which type of interface to use are important and should reflect the nature of the community you are trying to create (Kim 1999). It is important to note here that there is no such thing as an average web user; all web users are unique (Krug 2006). Similarly, each community member is unique in how they choose to construct their identity and present themselves to others.
Even though each member is unique, individuality is sometimes difficult to ascertain among a mass of online participants. Because people have a desire to be recognized as unique, diversity should be valued (Williams 1994, “Interaction”). Valuing different ideas, personalities, points of view, and life experiences not only makes your community more interesting for members, it makes it more attractive to outsiders (“Interaction,” Kim 1999). Valuing diversity and encouraging individuality makes your community a more open and welcoming place to be, and can encourage greater participation (Kim 1999). Several studies conducted using a movie recommender website called MovieLens found that when members received information valuing their unique perspectives regarding movies, members were motivated to participate more (Ludford et al. 2004 and Ling et al. 2005). Clearly, recognizing members as individuals with unique insights is salient to encouraging member participation and community growth and maintenance (Ludford et al. 2004 and Ling et al. 2005).
Cultivating Accountability and Continuity
Cultivating a sense of accountability and continuity among your community members is important because it will significantly impact the future of your site. Re-visiting my earlier discussion regarding disclosure of identity to community members is appropriate here. An excellent way to promote accountability and continuity is to encourage the persistent use of real names or screen names (“Interaction”). Maintaining an ongoing identity allows members to get to know one another, facilitates community interaction, and creates a sense of community to members (Godwin 1994). It also serves to hold individuals accountable, or responsible, for their actions. A main reason why the WELL feels like a community to many members has to do with the requirement regarding the usage of real names; many WELLites have belonged to the community for years, and have cultivated a “face” that others recognize and have gotten to know (Godwin 1994).
Similarly, diversity facilitates continuity (“Interaction”). Carving out an individual, yet stable, identity among the community not only allows members to get to know and recognize others, it makes the community more interesting (“Interaction”). It also allows for the development of community norms (“Interaction,” Williams 1994). In addition to the codes of conduct that you will formally institute for members to follow, members will develop informal codes of their own. These norms will largely be influenced by members’ interactions with others over time, and will serve as guides regarding how to behave and treat others.
Activity
The final design principle that I will discuss is that of generating and maintaining activity. In order to thrive and survive, communities must remain active (“Interaction”). New information must be created to maintain interest among members (“Interaction”). Depending upon the type of site you decide to create, this can be done by providing frequent updates or stimulating discussion. On Digg, for instance, members and moderators frequently post new content for consumption. If your community is based solely upon member discussion and interaction, like a site dedicated to the discussion of a specific topic of interest, a moderator might find it necessary from time to time to step in and propose new topics to generate discussion (“Interaction”). This is especially important to consider in the infancy of your website, as visitors likely will hold high levels of uncertainty regarding community interaction. Members need time to figure out how the community works, get to know its members, and to develop a sense of community (Kim 1999). In time, members usually become more confident in their interactions with others, and are able to generate new content and maintain activity (“Interaction”). However, even the most successful communities have been known to falter from time to time. If members are not presented with new material on a regular basis, they will more than likely get bored and leave (“Interaction”).
Conclusion
As I have tried to illustrate through a discussion of my ‘elite eight’ design principles, designing an online community with sociability in mind is imperative and will ultimately determine the success of your site. But what exactly constitutes a successful online community, and how should it be evaluated? There is no definitive answer to this question. Defining the success of an online community is an elusive concept, and ultimately depends upon the designer’s goals. The WELL is often idealized as the epitome of a successful online community because of its large membership base and persistence over time. However, communities with considerably smaller membership bases and less frequent levels of participation can likewise be considered successful. Having an idea in mind regarding what your goals are regarding success is useful initially, as long as you remain aware that how popular or successful a site will become is often unpredictable. Now that you, the designer, have been primed, go forth, and create an online community of your own invention.
Works Cited
Godwin, Mike. 1994. “Nine Principles for Making Virtual Communities Work.” Wired.
Hafner, Katie. 1997. “The Epic Saga of the WELL.” Wired.
Rheingold, Howard. 1993. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. MIT Press.