Two very simple games of experimental economics can decode the rules of the blogosphere and the web. They expose basic functions of the society - of any society - and consequently teach us how to be better bloggers, surfers, users, contributors.

The Ultimatum Game

A very interesting game in experimental economics is the Ultimatum Game. It takes place between two players, who play it only once.
An amount of money (lets say 100$) is to be shared between the players. A coin is flipped to determine which player will decide how the money will be split. The other player, the “responder” can either accept the deal and the money is split as the first player proposed or he can refuse the deal and neither player gets any money. The game is simple, but the results stand against any rational thinking:

• 2/3 of the experimental subjects offer between $40-$50.

• Only 4% offers less than $20 and

• more than the half of the responders reject offers smaller than 20% of the total.

The Public Goods Games

A development of the Ultimatum Game is the Public Goods Game.
In this game 4 participants have to decide how much to invest in a common pot. Each one has a starting amount of money and the option to keep what they don’t invest in the pot. The total amount invested (each decides without knowing how much the others invested), is multiplied and then divided equally among the players.
But this game is played in rounds and after each round the amount invested by each player is revealed.
Also in some of the games, players were allowed to spend part of their pool for the privilege of fining each other.
In other games, the players were rotated among different groups, so that individuals did not have the opportunity to encounter each other again.
The results of the game are intriguing:

• In the games, where fining was allowed participators made more generous contributions in the pot, but without the punishment collaboration collapsed.

• Even though there was no possibility for future interaction, very often players punished free riders and reported that they did it because they were angry at the cheaters.

The hidden rules of the games

Someone who knows and has studied the games can extract 3 simple rules in order to understand them.

1. People tend to be more generous than a strategy of rational self-interest predicts.
2. People will penalize cheaters, even at some expense to themselves.
3. These tendencies tend to influence individuals to behave in such ways that benefit the group.

But the reactions of the participants are not only to be seen in our ‘cultivated’ society. They seem to follow a universal pattern.

In some organisms and some human societies, individuals have been so willing to cooperate that they apparently act against their own self-interest in order to provide benefit to others. Why do antelope hunters in Tanzania and turtle fishermen off Australia expend their energy providing game for tribal feasts, even at the expense of their own families? Biologists think the answer is something called “costly signaling”: The hunters are letting others know that they are good citizens and good providers and therefore food husband and partner material.

Very often the hunters are sharing their catch at the expense of their time and their shares in order to send this “costly signal”. The others, who perceive this signal, tend to trust it because of the cost the hunters paid to signal it.
In the end this evolves to a reputation contest.

To biologists Pollock and Dugatkin, reputation evolved as a measure of an individual’s willingness to reciprocate, thereby raising the probability that the individual will be chosen as a partner in reciprocally cooperative activities like food-sharing, mating and hunting together.

So, a fourth rule emerges: reputation is the secret ingredient in cooperation.

The Cyberspace

It seems, that the way we react, when being part of a community is something coded in our DNA.
But is it really so?
The web is a place, where the conventions of identity, rules, society, space and time are very flexible. If these fundamental rules of collaborative societies would have value in the cyberspace, then we - the cyberspace inhabitants - could learn a great deal about our interactions in this non-world.

If we were to see cyberspace under the perspective of rational self interest strategies, then bloggers and users would:

• link only their friends or people who linked them first

• they would submit someones content only if he/she submitted their own

• never participated in any open source or free project

• they would never post in forums

Is there penalization in the web?
I can easily have multiple accounts in any community. I can promote my content tenfold, I can leave annoying comments on other blogs, I can delete wiki submissions and with a simple change of my IP address, remain unpunished. The only punishment is not even in the realms of the cyberspace; it incorporates the real world.

If the group behaves generously and penalizing, then this tendency will influence the individuals to be also generous. But if there is no penalty for any misbehavior, then - the game rules say - users have no reason to be generous. Instead, they act according to their self-interest.
Luckily, that’s where the stabilizing factor comes along: Reputation.

Maybe the punishment laws of the cyberspace are loose, but it works so well due to reputation.

Users with high reputation are highly acknowledged and trusted by other users. If a user has low reputation he is not trusted by many users, but it is a trust he/she can built with generosity. Similarly, when a trusted, popular user ‘misbehaves’ may not be directly penalized, but he/she will lose his/her popularity.

The lesson

If you have reached reading so far, then the lesson is pretty self-explanatory. Consider your goals when being online. Why do you participate in all these communities? Why do you blog?
To reach your goals, you have to first give something to the community. You must start building on your reputation. It is a slow process, because web users are very cautious (remember they can’t really punish you), but it is worth. In the end you will get back what you gave. Your generosity will be repaid. If you want:
…more traffic to your blog, then start by sending traffic to other blogs. Help other users start their blog, participate in their discussions.
…your submissions to reach the front page, vote other submissions first.
…better software, help the community develop better software. Send your feedback, the bugs you find,your code.

To succeed your goals in cyberspace you must be generous and patient.

They don’t know it but the comments of Terry and Paul inspired me for this post.

Howard Rheingold’s book “Smart Mobs” has been a valuable resource.

Before you start reading, take a look at your subscriptions and count how many blogs in there are problogs.
In my aggregator I follow 98 blogs and news sites; 84 of them are blog. 37 of these blogs are pro-blogs.

There are thousands how-to-become-a-problogger lists, which advocate for quality content and good design, that promotes usability.
I don’t know how you see it, but some of these pro-blogs are full of ads – so many that you sometimes miss the content; and the content isn’t of the highest quality. Still these pro-blogs, remain problogs.
Why?
A discussion I had with Paul M. Banas made me think about it. I concluded, their success relies on 5 reasons:

1. Authority

Pro-bloggers have established their position in the blogosphere. They have high ranks in PageRank, in Technorati in everything. Being linked from a problog is a guarantee of 15seconds of popularity and maybe some additional subscribers. A link from a problog increases your rank significantly.

2. Discussion

Due to their high popularity, they host the most interesting discussions. Even if a post is inadequate, poorly researched or naive, people will still comment. Either by expressing their disregard or by correcting the mistakes. They will provide additional links, so that the writer (and co-commentators) will get better informed. After all, an active participation in a pro-blog community increases your popularity in the blogosphere.

3. Buzz

Problogger posts can create a buzz; they can be the news. Several people were kicked out of Facebook before Scoble, but it was Scoble’s post that made the news and started such a buzz. If you follow pro-blogger news, you stay up-to-date. When ReadWriteWeb writes about an internet brain implant, it becomes the news of the day.

4. Information

Information comes to Probloggers. The best advertisement for you is to write a great article in a problog as a guest blogger. The same counts, for a new web platform: after a first launch, they send a link to probloggers and ask for a review. ProBloggers are the gate keepers. They are the Reuters of the blogosphere.

5. Quality

A direct consequence of ‘information’ is quality. I don’t mean writing quality content (that is not an absolute necessity anymore). I mean identifying quality. When all kinds of information come to them, they have a vast variety to choose. They choose the most interesting blog posts to link to and the most innovative services to promote. This keeps them on top.

Conclusion

Don’t take this as an assault to probloggers (I like Scoble’s news and am a fan of RWW). But, when I see the quality of a few problogs being so low it makes me wonder why they remain on top. Have you ever stopped a subscription in a problog? Me never.
I know, that if I want my blog to be heard, I have to follow these blogs. They will provide the right input, what ticks each day.
Paul M. Banas posed the question:

I guess I’m wondering if there isn’t a better way to identify quality, that’s all.

I think that’s the hard part. I believe to do that, you have to spend hours and hours researching the blogosphere, finding interesting niche blogs.
But I’m afraid the only way to get heard, is to listen to the problogs as well.

Stanley Kunrick Kubrick (love you; yes you) was once asked, why did he decide to make films. His answer was:
I saw the films produced and thought to myself: I can do that.

Do you say I can do that, when you read a problog post?
When you do it, does it bring similar results?

IT IS UNOFFICIALLY OVER.

I’m done writing my Master Thesis. The subject is Attention and Participation in the social Web.

A subject, which interested me in several posts of mine in this blog, as some of you might have noticed. A question, that is in every blogger’s mind:

When there are so many blogs out there, how do I get attention to my blog?

And I don’t mean, these “33 Ways to increase your blog traffic”. I find these posts very useful, don’t misunderstand me. They are speaking from experience. But, my main point in this thesis was to approach these questions more…well…scientifically.

My Problems

The issue, that occured to me while writing was, that many disciplines are involved in understanding and decoding the blogosphere and social networks in general: Sociology, social psychology, mass psychology, network theory, emergence, media studies.

Due to limited time (and pages), I had (and have) the feeling that I approached each discipline only at the surface. That before getting deeper into a subject, I got out and continued with another. I didn’t get to the core of each field. I saw each study, only from the perspective of attentiveness. Logical you might assume, since any other approach would abstract me from my main subject. But, still it is a worry I have.

The Wikilutions

That’s why (before presenting the thesis to my professors), I’m giving it to the public. So that everyone can read it, see how this whole network works and give something back.

It would be absolutely selfish to just give a pdf document of the thesis and simply asking for feedback. It is of course an option (you can download the *pdf here), but primarily it is about interaction. So I have uploaded the whole thesis as a wiki.

The purpose of the wiki is twofold.

1. to create a database, explaining in ’scientifical terms’ the functions and structure of social networks.
2. to invite people from different disciplines to add to the project.

Read and Participate

• So if you’re the reading/printing type of guy: download the thesis as pdf here.
• If you’re more the participate/write/critic type of guy: join the wiki community here.

Your feedback and contribution will be highly appreciated

Most blogs start low. Low traffic, low number of subscribers. But some of them, indeed just a few, manage to increase these numbers. As in most cases, the key to success is simple (and threefold).

1. Linkage

In the digital age, where most blogs ride the long tail of information, word of mouth is the best way to get your content noticed. Malcolm Gladwell in his book “The tipping point” identifies three types of people, who are responsible for a successful distribution:

Connectors; Most of you have already heard of the ’six degrees of seperation’. We are all connected with one another in approximately six steps. Well the truth is, that the connectors are linked to everyone else with just a few steps; the rest of us are connected to those special few. They are social glue.

Mavens; Mavens are active aggregators of information. They know things, that the rest of us don’t; and they like to share them. They are data banks.Salesmen; Salesmen have the skill to persuade us, when we are unconvinced of what we are hearing. They are…salesmen.

 

Locate the connectors and mavens in your niche and convince them (or put a salesman to do it) to talk about your content and provide you insights. You’re one step closer to success.

 

2. Stickiness

The quality of the content is of utmost importance. But it just isn’t enough to make your blog explode. Take your information and package them in such way, that they are irresistable. Use eye-grabbing headlines (one of my favorites: 33 Reasons why chocolate is the new milk), write controversial posts, improvize. Make it stick in people’s memory.

Always consider the circumstances under which you post. Learn to read between the lines of the news. Find the hot topics, before they become hot; and write about them.

Write sticky content, while it’s still hot.

 

3. Stay in Context

While you’re at it, keep an open eye for hot trends too (before they become hot). Be one of the innovators, who will test new technologies, new social networks, new services (Do you smell the coffee?). See what the community needs and what the technology provides. Is it worth it? If so, jump on the wagon; and write about the ride.

Innovate.

[Image taken from Noor Ali-Hasan]

Lets say you are a blogger. You just wrote a post, which you find really enlightening. The public should read this post. The question comes: Should I go and digg myself?

That’s a tricky question. Unofficially the rule says “don’t digg yourself”, although Daniel Miessler thinks otherwise. He considers it necessary for the promotion of quality content. Stan Schroeder sees it as a dilemma, although he finally supports self-digging. He argues that quality content should not get buried, despite its self-submitted. He thinks

…that the good stuff is easily recognizable from spam and that the quality of content should be the only merit for digging or burying a site.

But the subject that derives from this discussion, is if it is actually worth it.

Digg has some very specific attributes, which constitute digging very complicated.

Digg is highly community-driven

If you are not an active part of the community, your posts have less chances of being noticed. The debate some of us witnessed months ago is an example. Very active contributors have followers, which can assist in boosting their diggs.

As doshdosh explained:

In order to appeal to and attract the attention of all (or most) social media users, you’ll need to leverage the all-familiar brand of the community site while addressing the collective/individual persona directly. Talk to everyone by talking through an identity that everyone instinctively relates to.

Digg consists of a certain group of contributors

Most digg users are still in high school or college.

Very few media and technology professionals — or professionals of any kind — read Digg, and Digg’s high school/college student audience has little interest in the business of media and technology (with the exception of some Apple and Google stories).

It seems that the digg public is not that diverse and therefore concentrates on specific topics. If you manage to decode the structure and form of these topics, you may get yourself digged. But do you want to customize your interests (and consequently posts) for more traffic? It sounds like selling out.

Diggers scan headlines and keywords

The two (out of three) specifications for submission in the clarifies:

• Be controversial and make false promises (it sounds bad, but it works!).

Example: If an article was called “Professor says days of ‘no oil’ are nearing” you may want to use this as the digg title “Days of no oil are nearing”.

• Use keywords in the title that diggers love and that are also relevant to the story.

Example: Amazing high resolution photos of the Sun.

The research of xedant.com on the subject says it all, i think.

Conclusion

• If you are not an active member of the digg community (something that requires time. lots of it) you should let digging to the digg members. Maybe having a digg button next to your posts can assist diggers do their worker easier.
• Out of mainly ethical reasons, I wouldn’t provide material specifically targeted to the digg community. Do your thing and let other do theirs. If you’re good, you’ll get the proper attention.
• There are many ways to get noticed on the social web. Finally it comes down to this: interaction, content and patience.

Digg as every social network is a comlex system and sometimes unpredictable. Although we can study the behavior of its users, we cannot really determine how they will react to every post. The parameters are just too many. But our assumptions can provide some guidelines.

The blogosphere has constructed an interesting paradox.

• On the one side readers/viewers/subscribers are mostly interested in quality content. There are numerous blogs and little time; we want to spend our online time – and consequently attention – on blogs that provide quality information. At least that’s what several blog posts are argumenting (How to boost your blog traffic).

• On the other side though, writing a perfect post seems like a trap. When the entry has said it all, then there isn’t much more to say. The blogosphere is mostly an interactive medium (if it can be called a medium) and perfect posts just don’t encourage this interaction (why you shouldn’t be a perfectionist).

Imperfection; the web paradigm
The World Wide Web is human. It is made by humans, for humans and shares a universally human characteristic: imperfection. It consists of millions connections created by people who are willing to communicate.
These connections, as a human construct, are very often broken. It occurs quite often while ’surfing’ to reach a dead-end link, a link that does not exist anymore, is deleted or replaced with completely different material as expected. But no one is annoyed, simply because that is how the web is built; imperfect.
Users happily sacrifice the perfection of a centralized system for an imperfect decentralized network. It is this decentralized structure of the web that makes it so interesting, so democratic and so polyphonic. There is no single power, which chooses who posts what, where and when. Anyone can be part of the web. This fact makes us see perfection under a new lens.

The blogosphere; being informal
In the web, we are facing an ambiguous attitude towards perfection. On the one hand people want to express themselves informally - a sign of interaction between individuals, between human beings. Communicating according to specific rules and suggestions homogenizes the public, a feature highly avoided in the social web.
Everyone wants to have its own, personal voice. This multitude of expressions and voices gives the social web its power; sometimes it is not only intriguing to see what one says, but also how it says it. But being informal also comes along with mistakes.
This does not mean that the users will not get interested to an imperfect post. On the contrary, they will comment on it and propose improvements. The web fascinates users, because it provides direct, informal interaction not because it provides perfect content.

Imperfection as a means of communication
It is true that knowledge is highly praised (offline and online), but this does not mean that it will draw the attention of the crowd.

Material provided by an expert, is usually accompanied with a sense of authority, meaning that it is not open for discussions; it is supposed to be perfect. Users have nothing to add to it, so they just passively read it. But this is not the purpose of the social web. People want to interact, to discuss and argue about subjects – they want to be productive. Perfect content refrains from such a discourse. Occasionally, professionalism stands as an obstacle to development.

The collective intelligence
Of course the presence of experts is needed in the social web to encourage knowledge and provide solutions. But when we are dealing with a collective intelligence, communication and participation can, at times, have much better results. In a group, the individual knowledge loses its importance and the collective wisdom becomes the center of focus. Sometimes when our imperfect judgments are aggregated in the right way, our collective intelligence is often excellent.

The problem

I still don’t get it though. Do readers prefer authoritative posts (so that they don’t look around for other sources), or they like an imperfect post, which encourages a discussion?

I just discovered an entry (me and approximately 1000 diggers) posted by Collis Ta’eed, which gives designers tips to get web design jobs (The secret to getting a lot of web design work). But what draw my interest was not the 6 points the article is proposing but the introductory note:

“Each week I get two or three requests for design work. They come sometimes from contacts, but more often than not they come from random people. Sometimes they even come from web-famous people or well-known companies. What is interesting about this though is that I no longer freelance, advertise for work or even have a portfolio.”

It reminded me of the influential work of Mark Granovetter: The strength of weak ties. Granovetter says that most people find jobs not from their close friends, but from random acquaintances (weak ties).

It is based on a key principle of real networks (like friendships for example): clustering (most of your friends are to some extent friends to each other). This suggests that, looking for a job with the help of your close friends will not be of great assistance, because any openings they might know, you them too. But your acquaintances are moving in different circles than you and therefore have access to different information. He, nonetheless, does not disregard the role of strong ties (close friends); he suggests an equilibrium.

Could Granovetter’s study be applied in the blogosphere? When you first posted your blog, did you tell all your close friends? Or did you also send a short mail to distant acquaintances?