The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Results from deploying a participation incentive mechanism within the enterprise
Abstract
Success and sustainability of social networking sites is highly dependent on user participation. To encourage contribution to an opt-in social networking site designed for employees, we have designed and implemented a feature that rewards contribution with points. In our evaluation of the impact of the system, we found that employees are initially motivated to add more content to the site. This paper presents the analysis and design of the point system, the results of our experiment, and our insights regarding future directions derived from our post-experiment user interviews.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.57.9.705 · Cited by 7,766 · cited 4×
“Application of goalsetting theory can be observed in social-networking sites such as LinkedIn [9] which provided information about how complete a user’s profile is.”
BackgroundInfluential
Cited by
Does Gamification Work? -- A Literature Review of Empirical Studies on Gamification
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014) · 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · doi:10.1109/hicss.2014.377 · Cited by 5,201
Algorithms at Work: The New Contested Terrain of Control
Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2018.0174 · Cited by 2,732
Demographic differences in perceived benefits from gamification
Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2014) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.007 · Cited by 841
When social networks cross boundaries: a case study of workplace use of facebook and linkedin
Skeels, M. M., & Grudin, J. (2009) · Proceedings of the 2009 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work · doi:10.1145/1531674.1531689 · Cited by 602
Gamification of task performance with leaderboards: A goal setting experiment
Landers, R. N., Bauer, K. N., & Callan, R. C. (2017) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.008 · Cited by 474
“Working out for likes”: An empirical study on social influence in exercise gamification
Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2015) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.018 · Cited by 473
Mekler, E. D., Brühlmann, F., Opwis, K., & Tuch, A. N. (2013) · Proceedings of the First International Conference on Gameful Design, Research, and Applications · doi:10.1145/2583008.2583017 · Cited by 314
Christy, K. R., & Fox, J. (2014) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.05.005 · Cited by 276
Analysis of participation in an online photo-sharing community: a multidimensional perspective
Nov, O., Naaman, M., & Ye, C. (2010) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21278 · Cited by 263
Gamification of Mobile Experience Sampling Improves Data Quality and Quantity
van Berkel, N., Goncalves, J., Hosio, S., & Kostakos, V. (2017) · Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies · doi:10.1145/3130972 · Cited by 95
Designing interactive systems through a game lens: An ethnographic approach
Rapp, A. (2017) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.048 · Cited by 94
Does gamification engage users in online shopping?
García-Jurado, A., Torres-Jiménez, M., Leal-Rodríguez, A. L., & Castro-González, P. (2021) · Electronic Commerce Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2021.101076 · Cited by 81
Metadata
- Authors
- Farzan, R., DiMicco, J. M., Millen, D. R., Dugan, C., Geyer, W., & Brownholtz, E. A.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2008-04-06
- Pages
- 563-572
- OpenAlex
- W2121665678
- Cited by
- 256
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 21.48
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
