11

I watched an interesting Google Talk video (warning about an hour of your time) about Gamification of whatever you are doing.

It's clear that the StackExchange set of sites employ quite a few of these principles. There's something compelling about making work fun, but I wonder how many problem domains can incorporate these ideas? They definitely apply to social applications, but is that all? The concept of a virtual loyalty program is also quite compelling.

Short description of Gamification:

There is a system of scoring and reward. For example, Reputation in StackExchange is a type of scoring. Badges are a type of reward. The additional priviledges you gain as your reputation goes up are also a type of reward.

An example of a loyalty program with no real redemption would be a promotion that a convenience store did a while back where you buy their products and get FarmVille credits in return. No real money or goods exchange hands, and the costs to the retailer are minimal at best. Yet it brings in real money for these virtual paybacks.

Shameless use of JohnL's link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamification

NOTE: The speaker refers to four classes of users which seem to have become the archetypes. They are Achievers, Socializer, Explorer, and Killers. The Achievers would most likely apply to all of us programmers--we like to get things done. Apparently 80% of people are socializers and like light, non-confrontational interactions. Explorers go to every corner of a game/application to discover whatever easter eggs and hidden features they can. Killers not only want to win, they want you to lose and get praise/status for beating you.

Berin Loritsch
  • 46,426

2 Answers2

11

It's necessary.

Look at the most popular user based (social?) sites today. Facebook, Twitter, SO / SE, LinkedIn, Reddit. What do they all have in common?

Numbers

On Facebook it's how many friends you have, Twitter how many followers. SO / SE sites are a bit more explicit, they have reputation. LinkedIn is a bit more obscure, they have connections. Its a giant dick measuring contest that works.

By nature we want comparison and judgment. These sites give us that and that is what keeps us coming back. Without that magic number I don't think these sites would be nearly as successful as they are.

Does this mean that sites without a native ranking system are not worth time? No, but it does limit the attraction to being a repeat visitor. Some sites bypass this by offering an valued service. Google for searches, Wired for content, etc. "Gaming" the users is a very effective way of building a user base that has lots of loyalty in terms of repeat visits and contributions. Sites built on these contributions (SO / SE, Facebook, Slashdot...) do much better when they have a number.

Josh K
  • 23,029
  • 10
  • 67
  • 100
2

I suppose the dangers are that people might become more concerned with playing the game than with actually making a worthwhile contribution to the site. This is similar to what is happening in politics -- is it truly that the most qualified leaders are getting elected or that the people who are good at manipulating and playing the game getting elected?

It would be tougher to do on a technical site like Stack Overflow obviously -- where the answer is 1 or 0 (it works or it doesn't) -- but probably easier at a subjective opinion site like this.

Of course the benefits are that the people who do contribute feel like they are getting something in return -- even if they are really getting nothing back (like playing video games).

Watson
  • 2,262