I just learned about an interesting white paper, The Science of Web 2.0 and what it means for research. As I use (and teach about) Web 2.0 content for my clients' research, I need to remember to factor in what kind of skew I am dealing with when looking at collaborative, user-generated content spaces.
This report asked panelists about
• their use of social networking sites
• which Web 2.0 engagement features interested them
• their own suggestions of things they would like to see or do
Some of their findings include:
"Comparing group A and B for
each statement shown, the group shown the higher average score always
scored higher than the other group, whichever way round the high or low
score was allocated.
"The control group average score always
appeared in between the average scores for Group A and B for each
statement, which suggested that showing a higher or lower rating, did
have some influence on respondents' behaviour.
"Statements 1
and 2 were significantly more important to participants than statement
3. The difference here was marked. In both 1 and 2 the average scores
were around 3.9, but statement 3 was closer to 3.1. Ratings therefore
not being as popular as other features."
Comments