The Power of Rewards in Social Engineering

One of the projects I have been working this summer has been an extension of the concept of crowdsourcing - where groups of experts contribute to a problem and, like the probabilistic improvement of google search results, Wikipedia's completeness, YouTube's steadily growing collection of content, the overall problem grows more and more defined - leading to the theoretical asymptote of the "best answer". In particular, the project is focused on the concept of scientific data analysis - where enthusiastic supporters can make a difference and, while the percentage of expert contributors may not be high, the collection of a large number of people giving their opinion or best guess can be aggregated into a better solution than what is found from a few selected experts.

One such project that leverages this concept is the recently launched Stardust@home, an Internet-based collaboration project designed to leverage volunteer input in evaluating the potential locations of microscopic stardust particles captured in the aerogel collector from the Stardust mission. As mentioned in a recent press release, in just two short weeks, volunteers have already evaluated 7 MILLION images in search of the stardust particles. To put this in perspective, if this project had been started 20 years ago in the normally, tightly-controlled research effort, the research would still be occurring today. With this "crowdsourcing" technique, scientists assume the effort will be completed in the order of months, rather than years. As mentioned on their website:

This is a completely new approach to doing research. We are in utterly new territory—no one has ever done a project like this before, so we have no experience with it. As with any research project, we will be learning as we go. We will make mistakes (we guarantee it). We ask in advance for your patience. All we can promise is that we will do our best.

This wide-ranging community effort has been steadily refining their results, and even resolving potential "cheating" amoungst the volunteers through a process that tracks the performance of the "players" within the project. Since the community is able to see everyone's performance on their leaderboard, a shared sense of reputation is formed. And given the prize (a trip to the Berkeley lab) is not a four day, all-expense paid trip to some exotic location, the effort put forth by the community is one of altruism.

So, why didn't the Berkeley team use a wiki? When speaking with other people about how best to move forward with our community project, I found a number of attempts to corral the support of other scientific experts - and the easiest, most inexpensive groupware, collaboration tool is often a wiki. Speaking almost from the product specs, wikis simplify publishing, allow for version control and group evaluation/modification of content on the fly. Different from blogs or mailing list, wikis have been successfully used for group collaboration and problem solving - the standard model is to look at Wikipedia or some of the hosted wiki solutions like PBWiki or SocialText. But, does the use of a wiki guarantee group involvement? Will people naturally be inclined to contribute?

It is my assertion that the "Field of Dreams" theory (Build it and they will come.) does not hold true for most situations. In the world of wikis, presence does not guarantee community performance - it is the social engineering that often determines the growth and use of tools that are not part of the standard practice.

Space is a relative term
I am a frequent advocate of using wikis - just ask the students in my classes, the staff on my campaigns, and the business plan teams I have formed - but, I find I have to guide the team to work with the tool. And I am also a fan of my favorite "group comunications platform" (read: eGroups) - which is essentially a mailing list service. But people do not naturally spend time in a "tool", rather then spend time in a "space" - whether virtual or physical. One can establish a social structure, but it does not guarantee adoption of a new process or tool. In a small group where a social structure exists (like a project team), a leader and the team members can be leveraged to enforce the social norms. But, what happens when their is no formal or informal structure to enforce social norms?

I think the secret is found in the many social games that are found across the web and in our normal interactions. With Stardust@home, people are recognized for their contribution to the community. With online games, people are recognized via points or currency. How does it work on wikis? It is my supposition that, aside from Wikipedia is a unique instance of a wiki becoming a reputation game - which rarely happens in other cases. In Wikipedia's case, the unifying characteristic is the "community" of editors - the people who are behind the approval process and who are found on the "History" button of the 'pedia. As you perform within the Wikipedia application, your reputation grows by your contributions. When you are the reference for content that others agree with, you increase your personal standing.

Tags: wikis, social rewards, Stardust@home, crowdsourcing

Cute new game at Comcastic.com

Funny - I was looking at iFilm and saw a pop-culture icon on an ad that had terrific production values and decided, "Why not check out Mr. T?". To that end, I played the Comtastic Pop Culture test and got this:



Turthfully, it does not come close to "You Dont Know Jack" from Berkeley Systems - but it was fun any way. And their diploma - how could you not appreciate them?

Why post here? Simply - it is a terrific viral game that I think will get some traction.

Movie Review: Snakes on a Plane!

Okay - far too unusual a situation this evening. As I am walking home from an event, I decide to see what movies are coming out at the local cineplex. As I am trolling through the kiosk, I note Snakes on a Plane showing at 10pm. This has me amazed - after all of the hype I have seen. So, for the heck of it, I decide, why not see it? Even in FX, I see Julianna Margolis suggesting you might want to see it twice. With a swipe of the card, I purchase the ticket and go to the theater.

Mind you, I did not plan on going - with all the hype, my opinion was "nah, silly flick". But, curiosity got the best of me - and I decided to buy my Coke and find a seat. As i walk into the theater, I see an audience of college students, primarily male - and fully expect a lot of NY commentary as the film progresses. I say out loud, "This is an audience to see this film" and a man to my right says, "Yes it is." Who do I see but Joel Seigel from Good Morning America taking in the film with (I assume) his producer and someone else. (My guess is this was his chance to see the film for Friday's show, since the producers did not allow anyone to preview the film.)

Once the avalanche of previews is over (EIGHT in all), the movie starts with Jackson's name and then the title of the film - so not like what I expected. The film breaks up into five parts - Prologue, Acts 1, 2 and 3 and then the Epilogue. To fulfill the goal of this review, let me just say - cotton candy has the same amount of nutritional value as this film will have to stimulating your mind. I could see that the film has some rework done on it - my guess, the ending was certainly reworked to handle the crash landing sequence (Ms. Margolis looks like she got better makeup omn the second go-around).

Like the introduction of the Friday the 13th movies or Nightmare on Elm Street and its sequels, this film pushes some of the more unusual fright buttons. Do not let little kids see the film - this is not for them. But, I would suggest that yoou can have a lot more fun if you play passenger bingo to figure out who you think will live and who will become snake food.

SPOILERS BELOW!

• Prologue - set up for the story
  Eddie Kim is a bad man and unsuspecting surfer dude sees bad man do very bad thing. ten more minutes leads to getting witness to Los Angeles where he can testify and put bad man in jail.


• Act 1 - set up for characters on the plane
  Like a bad 70's film, there are almost all the stereotypes - and for some reason, they must have spent very little money on the actors - since almost all of them are B- or C- movie actors. There is the arrogant Brit, the fake Beverly Hills Lohan/Britney wannabee, the rapper and his entourage, the mother and her baby, the brothers flying on the plane alone for the first time, the whiny couple coming from their honeymoon in Hawaii, the too-perfect-to-be-true couple who you know will attempt the Mile High Club, and so on. We see the trap, the cage, the pheromones and the ticking down to the first wave of attacks of the snakes with some incredibly graphic depictions of attacks.


• Act 2 - survivors take a stand
  The survivors of the attack set their position and try to defend themselves. Unselfish valor, amusing defense occurs on the plane to get all of the survivors together and take a stand. Second thread is the FBI on the ground trying to find a way to save everyone from the 500 poisonous snakes and the many bites that have occurred. One of the better lines is uttered here: "Snakes on CRACK!?!" Some of this strains credibility, but then again - isn't this about suspension of disbelief? And then, what do you think happens next? Snakes attack AGAIN!


• Act 3 - survivors attempt to land the plane
  After the next wave and other brave acts, we get to learn that the book, Everything Bad is Good for You is actually true. I leave the remainder of the story to your experience, and will not spoil the ending - which has me chuckling as I leave the theater.

Should you see this movie? A qualified yes

...as long as you recognize this was originally a throw-away movie - and the plot has all the depth of a shallow pool on the street after a rainstorm. It is cotton-candy fare - and SHOULD be enjoyed with an audience who is looking to enjoy a Rocky Horror Picture Show kind of experience. This is a silly movie - and with the exception of Jackson and Margolis (who IMHO, originally did this on a lark for someone), the acting is not particularly riveting. But the snakes are a lot of fun - the CGI is excellent, their attacks are both vicious, hysterical and colourful (yes, colourful). And be prepared to feel the attacks - in some ways, there are such jolts that you will find your self jumping out of your seat to avoid them.

At some point, I will discuss the Internet hype on this movie - but, for the most part, it inspired me to go - especially after Howard's suggested campaign or "All Your Snakes Belong to Us".

UPDATE: Just saw Seigel's review - and wondered if he saw the same thing I saw. Funniest thing, he was not that excited when watching, but he was dead-on: this movie is for the 14-to-19 age range - which was who seemed to dominate the theater. And, yes - slitherly funny and frightful. I liked his connection of a combination of "Airplane" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark" - but I also must add "There's Something About Mary" to the mix...

Tags: Snakes on a Plane

Proof in the Data - Mind of the User?

Reading the NYT this morning, and found the following article, A Face is Exposed for AOL Searcher No. 4417449. Within the article, it states:

John Battelle, the author of the 2005 book “The Search: How Google and Its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our Culture,” said AOL’s misstep, while unfortunate, could have a silver lining if people began to understand just what was at stake. In his book, he says search engines are mining the priceless “database of intentions” formed by the world’s search requests.


“It’s only by these kinds of screw-ups and unintended behind-the-curtain views that we can push this dialogue along,” Mr. Battelle said. “As unhappy as I am to see this data on people leaked, I’m heartened that we will have this conversation as a culture, which is long overdue.”

In John's post, he also reiterates this concern - and the fact that the dialog needs to begin. Working with a firm last year on digital identity (Falkin started by Rob Marano), the entire concept of a persons identity was not simply their Social Security number and bank accounts - but the "intentions" that a person has. Without taking the story to a hysterical level, can it be perceived that your inner thoughts are available for analysis? Especially since the common-person perception is that what you do in front of your computer is private? When you can determine the identity of a person with three months of search query information - what do you think happens with google's incredible cache of information that extends from the search queries you submit - to the sites you visit (that have google AdWords installed) - to the sites that are being supported by google's free Analytics service (watching where people come from and what they do within the sites - and improve the AdWords performance).


As I mentioned yesterday, consider the breadth of information found within the google database. And with their advances in data storage and archiving, and couple that with the ability to map these intentions via a hashing algorithm (simplifying the intentions by a meta-index) - you now have a highly refined set of information that could allow google (or any agency) the ability to discern your intention. And, taking it slightly further - is this now allowing google to anticipate your needs - ina predictive fashion? Consider that the science of adaptive control, which focuses on understanding the constraints of variables within a dynamic system, is all about predicting and anticipating the optimal choice to allow for control. Extending that ability to human interaction on the web, with the many thousands of computers - are we not coming close to the processing power necessary for determining intention?

Tags: AOL data, Search intentions, Mind of the user

google getting more data with MySpace deal

At Marketing VOX, one snippit I found intriguing from the announcement:

"The real potential for a home run is combining Google technology with our demographic information," Peter Chernin, president and COO of News Corp., is quoted as saying. And Google CEO Eric Schmidt is quoted as saying, "It's important to move Google to where users are, and that is where user-generated content is."

Interesting to me is the fact that:

1. orkut - which is one of the liveliest social network sites and in the google orbit, is not beling plumbed for its rich data source (or is it)? And was the major issue that Latin American sites and advertising does not come anywhere near what is available in the US market?
   
2. "Google where the users are" plays directly to the fact that google needs to be seen in places were people are interacting (and since myspace did not offer the ability to add google AdWords before) to continue to build the relevance model for ad placement
   
3. google's banner ads and other ad placement technology (see video ads and others) have not had a real testing out - with 100M users interacting on myspace as well as the suite of sites within the FOX network, google gets a terrific testing environment.
4. Social networking and advertising SHOULD get a workout since the networking between users provides the mapping between people in the network - and coupled with google's rich data from interactions outside of the FOX network, targeting should be intriguing. And, to this discussion, you should listen to the Yi-Tan podcast where this weeks (#96) discusses the potential for the Future of Advertising and the potential untapped power of social networking.

More thoughts to come...