The cathedral and the bazaar: musings on Linux and open source by an accidental revolutionary
The cathedral and the bazaar: musings on Linux and open source by an accidental revolutionary
Slash(dot) and burn: distributed moderation in a large online conversation space
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Self-selection, slipping, salvaging, slacking, and stoning: the impacts of negative feedback at eBay
Proceedings of the 6th ACM conference on Electronic commerce
The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom
The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom
Creating, destroying, and restoring value in wikipedia
Proceedings of the 2007 international ACM conference on Supporting group work
Analysis of social voting patterns on digg
Proceedings of the first workshop on Online social networks
Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
Many online communities ask their members to do work for the good of everyone on the site. On social voting sites like Reddit, this means that users judge a stream of incoming links by voting them up or down. The links with the most up-votes bubble up to the main page, pointing everyone toward the best content. A threat to all sites designed this way, however, is underprovision: when too many people rely on others to contribute without doing so themselves. In this paper, we present findings suggesting that widespread underprovision of votes is happening on Reddit, arguably the internet's largest social voting community. Notably, Reddit overlooked 52% of the most popular links the first time they were submitted. This suggests that many potentially popular links get ignored, jeopardizing the site's core purpose. We conclude by discussing possible reasons behind it, and suggest future research on social voting sites.