Final project feedback

Now that we have all (hopefully) finished our group projects, I thought I’d use this last entry to talk about the peer feedback that we provided in class as compared to the feedback from the organizations with which we worked. While our peer feedback may seem more valuable given that it is provided by a group of students who are studying online communities, I am more inclined to say that the feedback from the organizations is more important.

The final project involved creating or improving a non-profit organization’s internet presence to include characteristics of Web 2.0. Our creations were meant to be relatively easily-accessible, usable by all members of the organization. Because people have varying degrees of technical expertise, it was important to create websites that were easy to use. Any feedback that we recieve from the organization will likely include information on how usable our site has been.

On the other hand, feedback from our peers will likely be on a different level. At least, the feedback will be focused on different things. Feedback from our peers will likely include suggestions or criticisms at a fundamental level. The organizations provide feedback from the end-user perspective and peers provide feedback from a fundamental and academic perspective. Obviously, both the organizations and our peers are important sources of feedback. However, because our projects were intended to help a certain organization, not cater to the wants and desires of our peers, I feel that any feedback provided by the non-profit organization in question is more valuable than our peer feedback.

The importance of passive feedback

I believe that online feedback can be split into two different categories: active and passive. Active feedback would be when a user takes the initiative when providing feedback. This could be writing an e-mail, leaving a comment, or any other method of providing feedback in which the user takes the first step. Passive feedback, on the other hand, would be when content providers collect feedback without users being made aware of it. With the help of cookies, content providers can remotely monitor the activity of users when they browse their site. The user does not have to do anything other that use the site as they normally would. Content providers can then use this information to discern where most users go on the site and what they spend most of their time doing. This kind of information can play a valuable role in the refining and revision of a site.

The context of feedback

Context can be very important when dealing with feedback. For instance, Amazon.com might not value the feedback of users who do not purchase things from their site as much as that of paying customers (although I suppose such data might be helpful in discerning why visitors don’t buy anything, but whatever). The identity of a feedback-giver can sometimes indicate how reliable or trustworthy that feedback can be. If a user has no interest in a site’s content or subject matter, then it is more likely that they will provide skewed or tainted feedback. This has to do primarily with the site’s intended audience. If members of a site’s target audience provide feedback, it is more likely to be more useful to content providers. Those outside of the audience may have trouble being heard because the content providers weren’t trying to attract them in the first place.

Gathering Feedback: Random Online Surveys

One of the methods that website adminitrators will use to gather feedback is to take a survey of users who visit the site.  While most of these surveys will appear to random users, it is not uncommon for a site to provide a survey to every user.  These surveys allow admins to collect specific feedback from users that actually visit their site.  Surveys often inquire about surfing habits, website features that are most used, and website features that are most desired.

What makes website surveys much more effective than surveys in other mass media is that the surveys are administered directly to users of the website.  Neilson boxes on televisions only record what is watched, and radio surveys are not very specialized in their administration.   Website surveys are given directly to the end user, the person who visits the website.  In this way, feedback provided on the internet can be more specialized and better administered.

The Effects of Feedback: Video Games

Certain video games, particularly those on PC, are able to connect to the internet and recieve updates. These updates can be anything from new levels and characters to behind-the-scenes bug fixes. Oftentimes, developers will take into account feedback gathered from the community. Most games come with a registration card that helps to enable a line of communication between the consumer and the developer. Developer websites usually list numerous methods of contact, as well. Furthermore, it is not uncommon for developers to monitor both company and third-party internet forums, picking up on common feedback in the community. One game that does this and more is World of Warcraft.

World of Warcraft is a massivly multiplayer online role-playing game, or MMORPG, or MMO, that has a userbase of several million players. Each player pays a monthly subscription fee to play with thousands of other people in a virtual world. This income enables Blizzard, the game’s developer, to create and release new content for the game. This is done via downloadable patches that are released once every few months or so. Patches usually incorporate bug fixes and game balance changes, but they will sometimes include new features intended to enhance gameplay.

“But hey now. What does this have to do with feedback on the internets?” you may ask. Well, it is not uncommon for some of these features released in patches to have been culled from any number of user-created UI, or user interface, modifications, or mods. Blizzard will monitor the sorts of mods that people are using, what features they are wanting. They essentially take user-created content and repackage it as their own. For legal reasons, Blizzard is not able to say which user-created mods they are using for inspiration. In the end, the functionality of user-created content is released as proper game content. There is no right or wrong to this as Blizzard owns all the rights to its software, and the mods to the UI interface fall somewhere within those rights. It is simply interesting to note how much of an impact end-users can have on an official release of a piece of software.

Feedback and Google

One of the reasons that Google has become so popular is its use of feedback, especially when testing new features. Features like Gmail, Froogle, and Google Books all went through, or are still going through, a lot of beta testing. Beta testing involves distributing unfinished versions of software while gathering feedback about the software. This allows developers to make their product as bug-free as possible when the software launches. However, in addition to hammering out bugs, this feedback also lets developers know what “works” about the software, what makes it more valuable than other software on the market.

Google has used this to craft some very nice features. For instance, Froogle, while still in the beta phase, is a very useful method of online shopping. It scours the internet for the best prices on a given good and compiles them all in one place. Because it is still in the beta phase, the programmers at Google are likely working with feedback from users regarding the functionality and stability of Froogle. This, in turn, allows them to put the final touches on a piece of software. In this way, Google uses feedback on the internet as a means of improving service.

Feedback for Joystiq.com

Since this blog revolves around feedback, I figured I’d post some feedback regarding a blog that I frequent, Joystiq. This was my answer to the second question on our exam last week.

The outside blog that I will critique is Joystiq.com. It is a blog/news site related to video games. I selected this blog because I, as a “dude,” am interested in video games. Additionally, I am already familiar with this blog. This makes it somewhat easier to critique. Because it is a blog that is maintained outside of our class, it does not specifically relate to our course, although there are some aspects of the blog that mirror things that we have discussed in class. For example, the use of an RSS feed can help me keep up with the latest entries. For each entry there are comments posted by readers, as well. Both of these are aspects of Web 2.0 that we have discussed.

Because the purpose of this blog is to cover video game news, it is usually updated several times a day. Stories cover everything from new releases and upcoming games to the development and politics of video games. Humorous off-beat stories are often covered, as well. Additionally, the style of writing for most entries is not only casual, but usually rather humorous. It helps the audience remember that video games are meant to be fun, not the center of controversy and drama.

I consider the writing style one of the strong elements of the blog. It is not too serious or too joking, but it conveys the news in an interesting way. It is not uncommon for entries to point out hypocrisy within the video game community. However, the site is never unreasonably biased in its reporting. Other strong points include the sheer number of entries as well as the integration of multimedia content within entries. Because the blog deals primarily with news, it is updated several times a day. It seems as though every time I log on there is something new to read, even if I just logged on an hour ago. This helps keep the blog fresh and interesting. Additionally, many entries relate to videos and other media which are often integrated right into the entry, itself. If this media is not contained within the entry, it is often easily accessible via hyperlink at the end of the entry. These are all strong points of the blog.

Because I like the blog so much, it is difficult for me to find fault in it. However, that does not mean that there aren’t areas that could use improvement. For instance, there is a list of previous blog entries that is placed after many, if not all, blog entries. This clutters up the entries and seems redundant, as you can simply scroll down to see the articles, themselves. I can understand how some might find it useful to have what seems like an ever-updating list of recent entries. Aside from the RSS feed and comments, there is little use of other Web 2.0 concepts. The blog entries and blog comments encompass just about all of the content on the site. If I were to suggest anything regarding the expanding of the site, I would suggest adding a podcast or forum or some other feature that relates to the Web 2.0 concepts that we have discussed. That being said, the site is not trying to be like GameFAQs.com or GameSpot.com, sites that feature several Web 2.0 concepts. Joystiq is meant to be a relatively stream-lined and simple blog. My last suggestion, and this goes for most websites, is to reduce ad clutter. Ads are a necessary evil with most, if not all, media, and the internet is no exception. The Joystiq ads do not add anything meaningful to the content of the site, aside, of course, from allowing the site to exist. Ads pay hosting bills, and as such they will always be a part of the internet.

Feedback and popular news organizations 2: Electric Boogaloo

While the websites of popular television news organizations may be lacking in their implementaion of the concepts of Web 2.0, it is interesting to note the effects that the internet has had on traditional television news programming. Nearly every news program that I see has a “tell us what you think” portion of the show where they prompt their viewers to submit comments via the internets. For most news programs, this simply lets viewers make their views known. For other programs, such as The O’Reilly Factor with Bill O’Reilly, these talk back sections allow the host of the program, in this case Bill O’Reilly, to respond directly to the viewpoints presented by his audience. In some ways, this mirrors the format of posting on blogs in which an author will post an entry, people will comment, and the author may respond to the comments. So while television news organizations’ websites might not take full advantage of the internet, the influence of the internet on their programming is clear. The line between internets and television gets more blurry every day.

Feedback and popular news organizations

In class, we’ve looked at websites that post news articles and allow for feedback from the audience. However, it would seem that traditional news outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News are not following suit. The top news stories on each of these news organizations’ websites each show this. There is no space for comments or questions regarding the article, nor is there any visible way for the audience to provide feedback on the article in question. The closest thing to a Web 2.0 concept can be found on the Fox News website, which allows users to rate news articles on a scale of one to five stars, with five stars presumably being the “best” rating.

However, there are several significant differences between news organizations such as CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News and the sites that we’ve seen in class such as Digg . For one, those news organizations are “grounded” in another media: television. That is where they came to prominence, and that is their primary outlet for content. Digg, on the other hand, is only a website. There is no traditional Digg television channel as there are with organizations like CNN. Because of this, the news organizations may not feel the same need to flesh out and expand content for the internet userbase like Digg.

Additionally, Digg, and most other news/blog sites, tend to be fairly specialized. Digg offers news related to computers and technology. CNN and the like are expected to report all kinds of news stories. Digg attracts a narrower audience than CNN, one that is likely to be more familiar with the concepts of Web 2.0. On the other hand, the community that looks to CNN is likely much more diverse than the audience of Digg. CNN has to post news in a manner that is easily understood by its much more diverse audience. This is why most major news organizations do not make much use of the concepts of Web 2.0 in their websites.

Advantages of allowing feedback

For most major online content providers, the ability to gather feedback can be invaluable. While most personal bloggers and other people who don’t need to shape content to satisfy advertisers don’t rely as much on this type of feedback, for businesses it can mean the difference between having one of the hottest sites on the internet and having a small space in a dark corner of the internet.

Customers can let businesses know what they think of their content, and executives can then reshape the business to better allign with consumer demands. Because most of these businesses operate primarily online, it can be much easier to reshape or redo things than with a business that uses physical stores and outlets. In this way, online feedback can be more valuable than that of a physical store.

Of course, with each happy customer comes more and more hits to the website. This helps to increase the revenue from ads. The site makes more money and is able to provide more, or more specialized, content. The ability to provide feedback online helps facilitate this process.