Social media systems rely on user feedback and rating mechanisms for personalization, ranking, and content filtering. However, when users evaluate content contributed by fellow users (e.g., by liking a post or voting on a comment), these evaluations create complex social feedback effects. This paper investigates how ratings on a piece of content affect its author's future behavior. By studying four large comment-based news communities, we find that negative feedback leads to significant behavioral changes that are detrimental to the community. Not only do authors of negatively-evaluated content contribute more, but also their future posts are of lower quality, and are perceived by the community as such. Moreover, these authors are more likely to subsequently evaluate their fellow users negatively, percolating these effects through the community. In contrast, positive feedback does not carry similar effects, and neither encourages rewarded authors to write more, nor improves the quality of their posts. Interestingly, the authors that receive no feedback are most likely to leave a community. Furthermore, a structural analysis of the voter network reveals that evaluations polarize the community the most when positive and negative votes are equally split.
Our contributions come in the context of an extensive literature examining social media voting systems. One major research direction is concerned with predicting the helpfulness ratings of product reviews starting from textual and social factors @cite_5 @cite_0 @cite_31 @cite_39 @cite_17 @cite_38 and understanding the underlaying social dynamics @cite_13 @cite_3 @cite_27 @cite_25 . The mechanisms driving user voting behavior and the related community effects have been studied in other contexts, such as Q &A sites @cite_41 , Wikipedia @cite_14 @cite_26 @cite_36 , YouTube @cite_1 , social news aggregation sites @cite_29 @cite_23 @cite_37 and online multiplayer games @cite_6 . Our work adds an important dimension to this general line of research, by providing a framework for analyzing the effects votes have on the author of the evaluated content.
@cite_41 @cite_36 @cite_29 @cite_3 @cite_5 @cite_38 @cite_39 @cite_23 @cite_17 @cite_37 @cite_26 @cite_6 @cite_27 @cite_25 @cite_14 @cite_1 @cite_0 @cite_31 @cite_13
2155929351 2962764888 2597730742 2063248556
Social media systems rely on user feedback and rating mechanisms for personalization, ranking, and content filtering. However, when users evaluate content contributed by fellow users (e.g., by liking a post or voting on a comment), these evaluations create complex social feedback effects. This paper investigates how ratings on a piece of content affect its author's future behavior. By studying four large comment-based news communities, we find that negative feedback leads to significant behavioral changes that are detrimental to the community. Not only do authors of negatively-evaluated content contribute more, but also their future posts are of lower quality, and are perceived by the community as such. Moreover, these authors are more likely to subsequently evaluate their fellow users negatively, percolating these effects through the community. In contrast, positive feedback does not carry similar effects, and neither encourages rewarded authors to write more, nor improves the quality of their posts. Interestingly, the authors that receive no feedback are most likely to leave a community. Furthermore, a structural analysis of the voter network reveals that evaluations polarize the community the most when positive and negative votes are equally split. Social media systems rely on user feedback and rating mechanisms for personalization, ranking, and content filtering. However, when users evaluate content contributed by fellow users (e.g., by liking a post or voting on a comment), these evaluations create complex social feedback effects. This paper investigates how ratings on a piece of content affect its author's future behavior. By studying four large comment-based news communities, we find that negative feedback leads to significant behavioral changes that are detrimental to the community. Not only do authors of negatively-evaluated content contribute more, but also their future posts are of lower quality, and are perceived by the community as such. Moreover, these authors are more likely to subsequently evaluate their fellow users negatively, percolating these effects through the community. In contrast, positive feedback does not carry similar effects, and neither encourages rewarded authors to write more, nor improves the quality of their posts. Interestingly, the authors that receive no feedback are most likely to leave a community. Furthermore, a structural analysis of the voter network reveals that evaluations polarize the community the most when positive and negative votes are equally split. As crowd-sourced curation of news and information become the norm, it is important to understand not only how individuals consume information through social news Web sites, but also how they contribute to their ranking systems. In this paper, we introduce and make available a new data set containing the activity logs that recorded all activity for 309 Reddit users for one year. Using this newly collected data, we present findings that highlight the browsing and voting behavior of the study’s participants. We find that most users do not read the article that they vote on, and that, in total, 73 of posts were rated (i.e., upvoted or downvoted) without first viewing the content. We also show the evidence of cognitive fatigue in the browsing sessions of users that are most likely to vote. Our society is increasingly relying on the digitized, aggregated opinions of others to make decisions. We therefore designed and analyzed a large-scale randomized experiment on a social news aggregation Web site to investigate whether knowledge of such aggregates distorts decision-making. Prior ratings created significant bias in individual rating behavior, and positive and negative social influences created asymmetric herding effects. Whereas negative social influence inspired users to correct manipulated ratings, positive social influence increased the likelihood of positive ratings by 32 and created accumulating positive herding that increased final ratings by 25 on average. This positive herding was topic-dependent and affected by whether individuals were viewing the opinions of friends or enemies. A mixture of changing opinion and greater turnout under both manipulations together with a natural tendency to up-vote on the site combined to create the herding effects. Such findings will help interpret collective judgment accurately and avoid social influence bias in collective intelligence in the future.