The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Competition Among Virtual Communities and User Valuation: The Case of Investing-Related Communities
Abstract
Virtual communities are a significant source of information for consumers and businesses. This research examines how users value virtual communities and how virtual communities differ in their value propositions. In particular, this research examines the nature of trade-offs between information quantity and quality, and explores the sources of positive and negative externalities in virtual communities. The analyses are based on more than 500,000 postings collected from three large virtual investing-related communities (VICs) for 14 different stocks over a period of four years. The findings suggest that the VICs engage in differentiated competition as they face trade-offs between information quantity and quality. This differentiation among VICs, in turn, attracts users with different characteristics. We find both positive and negative externalities at work in virtual communities. We propose and validate that the key factor that determines the direction of network externalities is posting quality. The contributions of the study include the extension of our understanding of the virtual community evaluation by users, the exposition of competition between virtual communities, the role of network externalities in virtual communities, and the development of an algorithmic methodology to evaluate the quality (noise or signal) of textual data. The insights from the study provide useful guidance for design and management of VICs.
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
The Effect of Word of Mouth on Sales: Online Book Reviews
Chevalier, J. A., & Mayzlin, D. (2006) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmkr.43.3.345 · Cited by 6,003
Socially Shared Cognition at Work: Transactive Memory and Group Performance
Moreland, R. L., Argote, L., & Krishnan, R. (1996) · What's Social about Social Cognition? Research on Socially Shared Cognition in Small Groups · doi:10.4135/9781483327648.n3 · Cited by 456
Cited by
Service innovation in the digital age: Key contributions and future directions
Barrett, M., Davidson, E., Prabhu, J., & Vargo, S. L. (2015) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2015/39:1.03 · Cited by 956
Tweets and Trades: the Information Content of Stock Microblogs
Sprenger, T. O., Tumasjan, A., Sandner, P. G., & Welpe, I. M. (2014) · European Financial Management · doi:10.1111/j.1468-036x.2013.12007.x · Cited by 561
Kang, J.-W., & Namkung, Y. (2019) · International Journal of Hospitality Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.10.011 · Cited by 343
Factors affecting adoption of online banking: A meta-analytic structural equation modeling study
Montazemi, A. R., & Qahri-Saremi, H. (2015) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2014.11.002 · Cited by 293
Scientists@Home: What Drives the Quantity and Quality of Online Citizen Science Participation?
Nov, O., Arazy, O., & Anderson, D. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0090375 · Cited by 254
Metadata
- Authors
- Gu, B., Konana, P., Rajagopalan, B., & Chen, H.-W. M.
- Venue
- Information Systems Research
- Published
- 2007-03
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 68-85
- ISSN
- 1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5536
- OpenAlex
- W2137906974
- Cited by
- 241
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 42.00
- Type
- journal article
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Competition Among Virtual Communities and User Valuation: The Case of Investing-Related Communities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/isre.1070.0114
- The paper
- Gu, B., Konana, P., Rajagopalan, B., & Chen, H.-W. M. (2007). Competition Among Virtual Communities and User Valuation: The Case of Investing-Related Communities. Information Systems Research. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1070.0114
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.