‘Build it and
they will come’

and other myths

Greg Sutcliffe, Community Analyst

Red Hat

2025-01-06

Agenda

How can we get people to contribute to specific tasks/efforts
How do we motivate & recognise contribution
How do we encourage the right behaviour and norms, and deal with those who break the rules
How do we integrate newcomers with our existing members

Myth 1

Build it and they will come

Specific tasks (1/2)

We have a job that needs doing. How do we get it done?

“In an online chat room requests for help are answered up to 50 percent faster when a recipient is addressed by name than when the request is broadcast to everyone present in the chat room.”¹

Specific tasks (2/2)

“Research on bystander interventions in emergencies shows that bystanders are much more likely to help if they are singled out and given a specific request than if the help request is broadcast to a group as a whole.”¹

Myth 2

People will contribute according to their time, skill, and alignment

Motivatation & engagement (1/3)

“Social Proof - people follow the lead of similar others”¹

Also known as the “network effect” for websites/tools
Can also be “reversed”, i.e. “no one wants to be first”

Motivatation & engagement (2/3)

Goal setting is amazingly effective

Picking a target is better than leaving it open
Even unrealistic targets are better then none

Motivatation & engagement (3/3)

“Goals are more effective when accompanied by frequent feedback about progress.”¹

Hackathon / bug squash day:

Have a defined goal for the day, and for members
Provide a progress bar of some kind
Don’t start from zero?!

Myth 3

Enforcing conduct scales with the behaviour frequency

Moderation & norms (1/4)

In defense of Codes of Conduct:

“… online community members are more satisfied with moderation decisions if they are delivered through fair procedures. Thus, legitimacy is enhanced if criteria for moderation are clearly spelled out and consistently applied.”¹

Moderation & norms (2/4)

What to do about problem behaviour? How do we enforce a CoC?

“Descriptive norms refer to what others do, or the behaviors they engage in. Conversely, descriptive norms can also include the behaviors people do not do.”¹

“… prominently displayed or excessively detailed rules may also convey the wrong descriptive norm. A natural inference is that the rules were created in response to problematic behavior.”²

Moderation & norms (3/4)

Drawing attention to incorrect norms can enforce them¹

Seeing actors drop litter in a clean area decreased littering
The same in a messy area increased littering

Moderation & norms (4/4)

Allowing face-saving can impact the end result significantly

… a carefully structured standard note to alleged perpetrators … “Someone using your account,” the note begins, “did [whatever the offense is].” The u.y.a. note … then explains why this behavior … violates … policy … “… User Accounts can help you change your password … If you were aware … then please make sure that this does not happen again.”¹

Two interesting outcomes ensue. First, many recipients of u.y.a. notes go to User Accounts, say their accounts have been compromised, and change their passwords—even when we know, from eyewitnesses or other evidence, that they personally were the offenders. Second, and most important, u.y.a. recipients virtually never repeat the offending behavior. This is important: even though recipients concede no guilt, and receive no punishment, they stop. If we had to choose one lesson from our experience with misbehavior on the MIT network, it is how effective and efficient u.y.a. letters are. They have drastically reduced the number of confrontational debates between us and perpetrators, while at the same time reducing the recurrence of misbehavior. When we accuse perpetrators directly, they often assert that their misbehavior was within their rights (which may well be true). They then repeat the misbehavior to make their point and challenge our authority. When we let them save face by pretending (if only to themselves) that they did not do what they did, they tend to become more responsible citizens with their pride intact. (Jackson 1994)

Myth 4

Lowering barriers to entry is critical to success

Welcoming newcomers (1/3)

Initiation rituals are bad… or are they?

“We don’t want non-technical people”
“If people can’t handle Git they don’t belong here”
“I don’t want to have to explain my choices to clueless people”
“We use IRC and you can just deal with NickServ”

These create barriers-to-entry, and may deter newcomers who would otherwise turn out to be useful to the community.

Welcoming newcomers (2/3)

So why do we do it?

“Cognitive dissonance” is described as the mental discomfort people feel when their beliefs and actions are inconsistent and contradictory

“People come to like things for which they suffered because this is the only way they can reconcile their views of themselves as intelligent people with the actions they have performed.”¹

Welcoming newcomers (3/3)

There is an upside!

“More interestingly, new users who were assigned to do more work as part of their registration process were four times more likely to provide tags once they become members and contributed more than ten times the number of tags as those in the control condition.”¹

Wrap up

Hopefully helpful!
Research can really help us thing about how we design our communities
Do talk to me if you want more of this stuff!

Reading list

Get the slides:

https://emeraldreverie.org/myths.html

Chat with me:

matrix:u/gwmngilfen:matrix.org