Fostering Socialbility: An Online Community How-to Design Guide

Submitted by Adrienne Hall on December 1, 2008 to the On-line Interaction and Facilitation Seminar, Fall 2008, Purdue University, Dr. Sorin A. Matei via the I Think Blog (http://www.matei.org/ithink)

Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to discuss some of the design principles that can lead toward a successful online community. The author suggests five principles that are key for designing a site for success: (1) Discover and find the content first, (2) design a site that fosters community,  (3) Keep it simple and always put the user first, (4) have a balanced and diverse site, and (5) monitor, monitor, monitor.  The basic definition of each principle is discussed along with practical applications, some key issues, and how to measure the application of the principle.

Introduction
Over the past few months there has been a steady increase in the popularity of social networking sites.  In April, both MySpace and Facebook were attracting 115 million unique users daily (Arrington, 2008).  Both sites, as well as other newcomers, have become a way for people to connect with others.  More importantly, there has recently been a push from the marketing world for businesses to start looking at using social networking sites to increase their business influence (Gillin, 2007).  In his book, The New Influencers, Gillin takes the reader through a series of current social networking applications and the “influencers” of that segment.  He encourages businesses to connect with target markets, understand what consumers are saying about them, and to some how successfully incorporate the magic of social networking into their current marketing schemes.   What Gillian’s popular book fails to do is to provide readers with actual tangible design principles for achieving such a goal.  He discusses what others have achieved with their sites, and the important factors to include, but he gives only minor insight into how to actually do this on your own.  The purpose of this paper is to discuss some of the design principles that can lead toward a successful online community. If you want to build an online community, the following principles are things to consider. The key to the most successful social networking sites or online communities can all be found in the site design.  The usability and functionality of a site can be summed up in one phrase, “don’t make me think!” (Krug, 2006).  The concept of design covers more than just the user-interface. It also encompasses the rules for participation, general “atmosphere” of the online group, as well as some unwritten protocols.  Proper planning and directed design will help to design a site for success.

#1: Discover and find the content FIRST
Building & Maintaining
The best online communities are those that fit into the lifestyle, interests, and existing behaviors of it’s users.  A site should have a divine purpose.  A designer needs to understand the purpose of the site and how the users will benefit from the site.  The design process of a social networking site can be compared to that of the process of developing a new consumer product.  When a product developer is designing a new product he/she also drafts a concept of the product, including the benefits, what the product promises, and the believability.  A good social networking site needs to have the same thing.  What are the benefits to the user?  Who will they connect to?  How will they connect?  Will it be through email, instant message, status updates or something else?  What will be the linking factor of the users?  The designer should take some time to discover all the many ways the site will function and exist.  This will help guide the interactions of the users.  A designer should understand the characteristics of the user.  Gender, religion, political beliefs, interests, and other social demographic factors play a part in the connections as well as how the users will interact.  In his book on designing online communities, Krug (2006) emphasized that every aspect of an online community must be planned carefully in order to ensure that it is necessary, efficient, and succinct.  He goes on to explain his laws of usability, with the first being, “don’t make me think!”   In order to deliver a site that meets this first law, the designer must understand that users scan and muddle through content and that they need things to be intuitive and effortless.  Keeping these key ideas in mind while developing the original concept for a site will help the entire process come together much smoother.

Practices and Issues
Discovery of the proper subject matter and application tools for an online community can be done several ways.  First, the designers need to conduct an assessment of what the user needs.   This assessment is best conducted using focus groups or online surveys to capture input from the target user/audience.  Designers can determine which tools (email, messaging, blogging, etc.) are easiest to use by the target user/audience.  Knowing this information will help in the long run to keep the site active.   After conducting the first assessment, designers should continually request feedback on the functionality of the site.  This can be done in various ways.  Some suggestions are thought user-comments, guided feedback on particular functions, and though open feedback forums.  Sites that allow for user input for functionality tend to be more robust and valuable (Cosley, Frankowski, Kiesler, Terveen, & Riedl, 2005).

With respect to defining the target user, it might also prove to be difficult to narrow this down so early in the game.  For example, your intended purpose is to design a site for high school student to network amongst their existing friends in real life (i.e. Facebook).  However, after some time, you realized that if you opened up the site to college students, and then finally anyone, that you would have a greater impact on sociability.  The creators of Facebook had done their homework on their original target group of high school students, and then had to “redesign” the marketing plan to attract college students.  In this case the purpose and benefit didn’t change, but the change in the user potentially added some unexpected complexity.

Measurement & Evaluation
Krug (2006) discusses several principles for determining usability.  These can be applied to evaluating whether or not the enough resources have been devoted to understanding the site’s purpose prior to design.  Some key things to ask are:
•    Will the site be useful?
•    Will there be a meaningful exchange of information?
•    Can a person of average intelligence navigate the site?
•    Have there been boundaries set and a community defined? (Matei, 2008).

A general guideline for evaluating this principle is to sit down and determine if you have done what you said you were going to do when first developing the purpose of the site.  The best way to test this is to try it out with a few members and to be open to changes long the way.  Like Krug says, it’s not rocket science and if designers were to use a little common sense then things would be so difficult.

#2: Design a site that fosters community
Building and Maintaining
People hang out online to meet new friends or connect with old friends and to exchange information (Ridings and Gefen, 2004).   Just like communities in real life, online communities are made up of people who share similar traits and interests.   Each online community should be defined, with a name, motto, and/or tagline.  Proper time and resources should be dedicated to this step during the discovery phase.  Take for example the Well.  This was a community of predominantly White males who were in a certain socioeconomic group that had a keen interest in technology and the “laid back” ways of the 1960s (Seabrook, 1997).  There were regular contributors, lurkers, and others that only posted once every blue moon.  Regardless of which of these roles the users were playing, they all continued participating, even if it was only to read.  Why, you may ask?  Because they liked the conflict, the never-ending jabs at each other, the emotional connection, coupled with feelings of sympathy and empathy.  As Rheingold (2001) expressed, it was a way to connect to people from all across the country, to make friends that you end up caring about.   The connections that people make online began to mimic the behaviors that exchange between people in real life.  Just like church groups, social clubs, and volunteer organizations, online communities need to provide a way for people to have a sense of belonging.  In their study on why people hang out online, Ridings and Gefen (2004) noted that previous research proved that humans have a need for to be affiliated wit h others.  In the social networking world, this can be something as sharing similar interests in books, or having the same taste in music.  Again, discovering these similarities is one way that communities start to form.  Williams (1994) suggested on her list of principles for online communities that a sense of accountability is needed for success.  Kollock (1996) posited that when people are involved in a community, they make a decision to either cooperate or behave selfishly.  He goes on to discuss three elements, as depicted by Axelrod, that need to exist in cooperative relationships, in this case online communities.  Users exchange information, identify each other online via avatars, handles, etc., and are more than likely to interact with each other repeatedly, therefore making it important to have a cooperative community.  Designers should keep this in mind when developing sites.  A site should provide easy ways to maintain these three elements.

Practices and Issues
This principle in its most general form is necessary for the success of the online community, however, site designers also need to note that the following rules, add to the success probability of the community as a whole:
(1)    Have some written rules for the community.  Rules as simple as “no profanity or vulgar language” will help with keeping the community under control.
(2)    Define the user.  This simple, but very important, rule will help to control the types of users participating in the community.  This will also help with spam.
(3)    Set the boundaries of the community.  Determining from the beginning the scope of the community is key in making sure the users benefit fully from the online community.  In the first principle, I pointed out how important it was to understand and discover the purpose of the community.  The boundary rule is just a follow-up to this principle.

Each online community should have their own list of rules and boundaries that are unique to that community, which also provide the user with an environment that encourages making new friends and continue participation.  Users won’t continue coming back if they don’t trust the community and the others that are in it.  Users need to feel like they belong and can have some stake in the community.  This is how community is fostered and how it is maintained.

Measurement and Evaluation
Community formation can be measured by usability. Being able to encourage community without forcing it on the users can prove to be difficult.  Site designers need to understand that it isn’t just the user interface that keeps users coming back.  It is a combination of this, the rules, boundaries, and user benefits.   Baym (1998) defined a clear way to measure the community “value” of a site.  Over time, a group will develop a specific language and nomenclature for communicating.  Seeing signs of this is a basic way to evaluate the formation of community.  An online group’s ability to sustain a sense of community depends on the dynamic interactions that occur.  The more people use a site and reap the benefits of connection to others, then the more they will use the site (Baym, 1998; Krug, 2006).

#3: Keep it simple and always put the user first
Building and Maintaining
Krug (2006) expressed that keeping a site simple is the key to success.  A site that is carefully planned, and presented to the user in a very simple, intuitive manner is more likely to succeed than one that has over-the-top, advanced bells and whistles that only the site designer can barley use.  This principle goes hand in hand with principle #1 and Krug’s first law of usability.  The simple use, directions, and navigation of a site are the first thing that a user encounters.  If your site is about health insurance, and the user can’t find the search bar or the link to health plans, then you have already failed.  Even before the user gets a chance to start clicking on anything.  Less is more and content should be organized in a hierarchical manner.  The most important links, only a few, not a never-ending list, should be someplace easy to find on the main page.  Remember, the most novice users should be able to navigate the site.

Along with easy navigation, there should also be a way to contribute that is just as easy to complete.  Like Krug, Goodwin (1994) also emphasized the simplicity of design by providing software or a user interface that promotes good discussions.  Posting should not have a character limit.  This will help to alleviate some the anxiety some users feel when wanting to contribute to a site.  In a sense, keeping it simple is a way for the site designer to empower the user.  The user feels like they are in control since all of the tasks on the site are intuitive and easy to complete.  There are very few limitations except those things explicitly outlined in the rules.  Another thing to add would be a way for the users to make changes to or suggestions about the interface.  If users can add to the way a site works, then they will be more likely to come back again and again (Krug, 2006).  The producers of community and relationships are both the product and its consumers (Williams, 1994, p. 2).  Again this reinforces that the users is like a commodity; a valuable asset of the site.

Practices and Issues
There is such a thing as making a site too simple.  The designer’s goal should be to make the site simple enough to use, but to also add some type of “wow” factor to distinguish the site from others in the market (Gillin, 2007; Krug, 2006).  Krug’s second and third laws of usability point directly at simplicity.  Each click of the mouse should be mindless and always be mindful of the number of words on a page.  Take a look at what you have so far, and then get rid of half of it (Krug, 2006).  Over-crowding sites, just like over crowding a presentation slide, can cause the user to become confused and overwhelmed.   A successful online community will have hosting sites that draw the user in  and lead them to their desired destination with just a few simple clicks.  All information should be hierarchical in manner (Krug, 2006; Matei, 2008).  Information should be clearly defined and organized into several searchable areas.  Consistent navigation and clearly marked content are the key to a simple, yet usable, site.

Measurement and Evaluation
Polling the user through the site via comments is one way to evaluate the simplicity of a site.  Another way is to conduct separate research on the pros and cons of the site in general.  This way, users can express their opinions of existing applications and functions and provide ideas on improvements or new functions they would like to see.  Involving the user with the site maintenance helps to foster the sense of belonging, purpose, and motivation for continued participation (Baym, 1998; boyd and Ellison, 2007; Williams, 1994).

#4: Have a balanced and diverse site
Building and Maintaining
Many sites can get the physical design of an online community right, but still end up having a site with low participation and turn-around.  Previous literature has discussed how sites fail with low contributions and what motivates a user to contribute (Ling, Beenen, Ludford, et al., 2005; Ludford, Cosley, Frankowski, and Terveen, 2004).  Both of these articles give sound arguments for why contributions online can be very low.  They also point out how some sites, or in our case designers, can inspire contributions.  Designers should find ways to appeal to the users by connecting to their inner motivations. Both previously mentioned studies examined group similarity and the uniqueness of the individual.  Similarity is defined as the general agreement or same opinions of users, while uniqueness was defined as a unique contribution from a user that was dissimilar to anyone else.  Results from the study showed that the most active online communities were composed of individuals who were dissimilar and who brought different perspectives to the group. Users need to be reminded that they are unique and that their contributions are essential to the well-being of the site (Ling et al., 2005).   Similar to these ideas, Williams (1994) also emphasized the importance of value diversity.  According to her list, this is important when developing a new online community.

Practices and Issues
Although this principle is very important, it carries a certain amount of baggage that makes it difficult to manage.  Designers are there to make a site easy to use and to fulfill a purpose.  It is extremely challenging to “build in” balance and diversity.  This is a task that would be up to a site moderator.

Measurement and Evaluation
The Ludford et al (2004) and Ling et al (2005) studies studied the diversity and homogeneity of an online community.  Evaluating the different types of users and how many different times they have an opinion that is unique from the others in the group is one way to determine diversity of an online community.   Another way to determine diversity is to survey the demographics of the community.  Segmentations of social demographic variables is one way to go.  Designers could also ask for feedback of users on how diverse they think other users are on the site.  Tracking traffic for the various functions of a site is another way to examine homogeneity of applications and services the site offers.

#5: Monitor, monitor, monitor
Building and Maintenance
Even the most successful example of social networking, The Well, needed moderation to sustain its success.  Despite the lack of  “rules” and the open environment of the Well there were still some aspects that needed monitoring.  Having a site moderator brings a sense of control to the environment from the designer’s perspective.  A code of conduct, for both the user and the moderator, are key in leveraging the success points of moderating your site’s online activity.

There are some sites that have taken moderation too far.  In their discussion on the history of social networking, boyd and Ellison (2007) they point out the pitfalls of moderation as it pertains to the Friendster site.  As one of the pioneer social networking site, Friendster had an opportunity to transform the world of online dating.  However, their moderator/design-imposed rules of limiting profile views, restricting some activities to heavy users, coupled with a breach in user-to-site trust, eventually became the downfall of the site.  Designers should understand how much moderation the users can cope with and should always include the user in the moderation process.  It is important to note that when using moderation, an environment of trust is necessary in order to increase posting frequency and to eliminate any user inhibitions.

Practices and Issues
Have a moderator on any social networking site will decrease the amount of spam, negative and anti-sociability behavior.  Not all sites need an extensive moderation operation like that of Wikipedia, but they at least need to have some way to keep the bad out.  User-moderated sites have been proven to be more valuable and successful than sites without moderators (Cosley et al, 2005).   A moderator should understand his/her role in the community, the boundaries and rules for users, and the general nature of the content or information being exchanged.  They should also be someone who is active in the “conversation” and who has a genuine interest in the well-being of the community.  Matei (2008) discussed some other general rules for moderators explaining the importance of moderators being nice, personal, honest, inclusive, and unbiased.  Not all sites can afford to have moderators that police all activity, but they can at the least start off with a small number to attend to the basic things of spam and negative behavior.

Measurement and Evaluation
Kollock (1996) discussed the work of Ostrom and good design principles for online communities.  He noted Ostrom’s conclusions on defining rules to moderate online communities and how users should be the one handling the moderating.  Even the most successful communities need moderation.  It is important to understand and properly develop a moderating framework for online communities.  Taking on too much control of the user’s activity can prove to be destructive, like the Friendster designers (boyd and Ellison, 2007).  Carefully designed moderation can actually add to the community, forcing users to behave in a respectable manner.

Conclusion
Designing a successful social networking website takes time, proper planning and a little intuition.  This paper discussed five principles that I think are important to designing and maintaining successful online community.  These principles do not cover all the things that are key to a successful online community, however they do briefly touch on the points that I believe should not go overlooked.  There are many paths that lead to a successful site.  In reality there is not exact set of directions or tools that guarantee a perfect site.  The intent of this white paper was to give the reader an idea of what key principles to keep in mind when developing a site; a starting place that will hopefully lead to a the building of an online community that will cater to the needs of the user by fostering an environment for them to share and thrive amongst others of similar interests and ideologies.

References

Arrington, M. (2008). Facebook no longer the second largest social network. TechCrunch. Retrieved from http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/06/12/facebook-no-longer-the-second-largest-social-network/

Baym, N. (1998). The emergence of on-line community. In S. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety 2.0 (pp. 35-68). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

boyd,d.m. and Ellison, N.B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer –Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11. Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html

Cosley, D., Frankowski, D. , Kiesler, S., Terveen, L., and  Riedl, J. (2005). How oversight improves member-maintained communities. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems table of contents. Portland, Oregon, USA. Retrieved from http://www.matei.org/learn/cybertheory/pdfs/p11-cosley.pdf

Gillin, P. (2007). The new influencers: A marketer’s guide to the new social media. Sanger, California: Quill Driver Books.

Goodwin, M. (1994). Nine principles for making virtual communities work.  Wired. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.06/vc.principles_pr.html

Krug, S. (2006).  Don’t make me think! A common sense approach to web usability (2nd edition). Indianapolis, Indiana: New Ryders Press.

Ling, K., Beenen, G., Ludford, P., Wang, X., Chang, K., Li, X., Cosley, D., Frankowski, D., Terveen, L., Rashid, A. M., Resnick, P., and Kraut, R. (2005). Using social psychology to motivate contributions to online communities. Using Social Psychology to Motivate Contributions to Online Communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(4), article 10.  Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/ling.html

Ludford, P., Cosely, D., Frankowski, D., Terveen, L. (2004). Think different: increasing online community participation using uniqueness and group dissimilarity. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems.  Retrieved from http://www.matei.org/learn/cybertheory/pdfs/p631-ludford.pdf

Matei, S. (2008). Classroom discussion and notes. Online community design process [electronic version]. Retrieved from http://wikiway.net/index.php5?title=632/Online_community_design_process

Rheingold, H. (2001). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier (2nd edition). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Ridings, C.M. and Gefen, D. (2004).  Virtual community attraction: Why people hang out online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(1), article 4. Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue1/ridings_gefen.html

Seabrook, J. (1997). Deeper. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Williams, G. A. (1994). Online community building concepts. Retrieved from http://www.well.com/user/gail/community.tips.html