« July 2004 | Main | September 2004 »
August 31, 2004
4 minutes watching video stories and rating them
We're studying what makes online stories effective. You can help us bywatching and rating some online videos (time required: about 4 minutes) Thanks! Please visit Online Story Study
Posted by Angela Booker at 11:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 30, 2004
Top Web Behavior #2: Look at ads
The BehaviorWebsite ads come in a variety of forms: banners, pop-ups, videos, moving animations or simple text links. And nearly every top website has ads, and they are central to the present revenue models for Internet content providers.
What they gain (and you lose)
The main purpose of ads is obvious: generating revenue. But that's not the only value in Internet advertising. Most ads on the Internet are brokered through companies like DoubleClick, making it easier for advertisers and site owners to find each other. But this arrangement has another aspect: it allows for cross-site tracking. If a user visits a site on, say, fishing and sees a DoubleClick ad, DoubleClick will remember that the user is interested in fishing. Later, when that user visits an unrelated news site that's also shows DoubleClick ads, they might be shown a fishing ad. This cross-site profiling allows for more targeted (and thus, more expensive) ads, often without the user's knowledge. (Written by Adam Wright) Gallery
...
AOL.com
Google.com
MSN.com
Webshots.com
Yahoo.com
(Compiled by Joshua Ainslie)
Posted by Joshua Ainslie at 07:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 22, 2004
Top Web Behavior #3: Participate in community
The BehaviorThe web can be a lonely place, but many top websites are trying to change that. There are obvious forms of community, like Yahoo! and MSN games and chat. But even Amazon.com fosters a sort of community. Users are encouraged to write reviews and share their knowledge about their interests by creating lists. And reviews can be rated, creating a notion of trust (and prestige) in the community.
What they gain (and you lose)
The main goal of community is obvious: if you're a member of a community on a site, you're more likely to come back (and to stay longer when you do). But communities are also a rich source of free content. Yahoo! could hire editors to write political commentary, just as Amazon.com could to review books. But both take advantage of their respective communities to produce fresh content free of charge. (Written by Adam Wright)
Gallery
... Amazon.com
AOL.com
eBay.com
Match.com
(Compiled by Joshua Ainslie)
Posted by Joshua Ainslie at 09:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 19, 2004
'Interesting blog' � we're number one?
Scanning the statistics calculated from our web server logs, we noticed that we were getting referrals from searches for 'interesting blog'. Just to check this out, I googled those two words to find our notebook listed as the number one result! And we don't even have both terms anywhere on our page; we only have 'interest' and 'blog', separated by plenty of text. Rather, it is the homogeneous links to us that gave us this Google rank: one blog I know of linked to us with 'interesting blog' as the link text, and I've seen that post quoted elsewhere. Noting that we certainly aren't the most interesting blog on the net, I wondered why someone would search with those terms�would you really expect Google to know the Answer, to have the single universal ranking of interesting blogs? By crawling through the web and abstracting rankings from online content, Google becomes a barometer of language use. And for subscribers to popular "use" theories of meaning that tie the meaning of an expression directly to its use, Google is also cataloguing meaning on a global scale. But unlike those philosophers of language, Google has to actually choose a particular algorithm to draw something out of what is otherwise just millions of linguistic tokens stored in servers scattered across the globe. And this choice is certainly not uncontroversial, or without consequences. Since Google is so incredibly popular�40.9% of search referals in the US, over 65% in the UK, Germany, and China�the system that Google has chosen, or that is Google, has influenced many decisions about how to use language on the web: webmasters looking to get top search rankings optimize their sites specifically for Google, those with top rankings sell links on their highly PageRanked front pages not for click-throughs but for the boost in Google's algorithms provided to the linked-to site. Even Google's users modify their language use based on Google's choices as success and failure in searching influences their future choices of search terms�and perhaps even language use elsewhere. For me, the idea that global language use online�and Google's choices about what to draw from that use�can affect how we use language in the rest of our lives is an interesting one, especially because some of the algorithm choices Google has made give huge power to individuals like bloggers who, in any other system, would have very little influence over English semantics globally. "For a large class of cases--though not for all--in which we employ the word meaning it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language game."And the "meaning" of a name is sometimes explained by pointing to its bearer."
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, S43
[editted for spelling]
Posted by at 03:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 16, 2004
Top Web Behavior #4: Enter your ZIP code
The BehaviorMany websites encourage you to enter your ZIP code, either as part of a registration process, or just by itself. The stated purpose is usually to provide you with local news, events or weather.
What they gain (and you lose)
Like so many other behaviors, this one benefits site owners by allowing them to increase their ad rates. The design of the Internet allows site owners to roughly determine a user's location, but the information is often inaccurate. For example, to a website, all AOL users appear to be from Dulles, Virginia. But if a user volunteers their ZIP code (and thus their location), the site owner now 1) has a more developed demographic model for their user base and 2) can sell geographically targeted advertising. Both of these benefits allow the site owner to command higher rates for advertising. (Written by Adam Wright)
Gallery
... AOL.com
CNN.com
Go.com
MSN.com
Yahoo.com
(Compiled by Joshua Ainslie)Posted by Joshua Ainslie at 01:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 13, 2004
Try our new mobile phone app
Announcement: Our lab has developed a new service for mobile phones, and we need people to use it and give us feedback. Our innovation delivers information to your phone in new ways. Some of our lab members have used this app for the last few weeks, and we like it a lot. Now we need outside input. To participate in our trial you need a mobile phone that can access the web (in other words, you need a data plan). If interested, email bjfogg (at) stanford (dot) eduPosted by at 01:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 12, 2004
Readings on web credibility -- the best list ever compiled
Lab member David Danielson recently wrote a chapter on web credibility for the Encyclopedia of HCI. I reviewed the article while he was writing it. He did an excellent job bringing together the research relating to online trust and credibility. We can't share his article here, but David and I agreed that we can share his abstract and the sources he cited. This is the most comprehensive bibliography on web credibility ever compilled. Chapter Title: Web Credibility To be published in Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction in 2005Edited by Claude Ghaoui , Liverpool John Moores University, UK
For more info see
http://www.idea-group.com/encyclopedia/details.asp?ID=4467
Danielson's Abstract
Unique characteristics of the World Wide Web result in differences between the Web and traditional media with respect to (1) the evaluative processes users employ in making credibility assessments; (2) factors impacting the credibility of the Web as a medium; and (3) factors influencing credibility assessments of Web information sources. Web credibility research seeks to understand these underlying evaluative processes, assessments, and influences. This chapter provides an overview of Web credibility theory and research, covering (1) conceptualizations of credibility that have either been produced within the field or influential in Web credibility research; (2) unique features of the Web as a medium with respect to credibility; (3) evaluative processes underlying Web credibility assessments; (4) research on factors affecting user credibility assessments on the Web; and
(5) future trends in the field.
Danielson's list of sources
(please excuse that it's not formatted or linked right now) Abdulla, R.A., Garrison, B., Salwen, M., Driscoll, P., & Casey, D. (2002). The credibility of newspapers, television news, and online news. Paper presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Annual Convention, Miami Beach, FL, August, 2002. Andie, T. (1997). Why Web warriors might worry. Columbia Journalism Review, 36, 35-39. Burbules, N.C. (2001). Paradoxes of the Web: The ethical dimensions of credibility. Library Trends, 49, 441-453. Campbell, M.K., Bernhardt, J.M., Waldmiller, M., Jackson, B., Potenziani, D., Weathers, B., & Demissie, S. (1999). Varying the message source in computer-tailored nutrition education. Patient Education & Counseling, 36, 157-169. Cho, C. (1999). How advertising works on the WWW: Modified elaboration likelihood model. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 21, 34-50. Choi, S.M. & Rifon, N.J. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of Web advertising credibility: A study of consumer response to banner ads. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 3(1). Cialdini, R. (2001). Influence: Science and Practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Dutta-Bergman, M.J. (2004). The impact of completeness and Web use motivation on the credibility of e-health information. Journal of Communication, 54, 253-269. Eastin, M.S. (2001). Credibility assessments of online health information: The effects of source expertise and knowledge of content. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(4). Eysenbach, G. & Köhler, C. (2002). How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the World Wide Web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. BMJ, 324, 573-577. Flanagin, A.J. & Metzger, M.J. (2000). Perceptions of Internet information credibility. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 515-540. Fogg, B.J. (2002). Prominence-interpretation theory: Explaining how people assess credibility. Research report from the Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab, Stanford University. Available at: http://credibility.stanford.edu/ Fogg, B.J. (2003a). Prominence-interpretation theory: Explaining how people assess credibility online. Proceedings of CHI’03, Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 722-723. Fogg, B.J. (2003b). Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann. Fogg, B.J., Marshall, J., Kameda, T., Solomon, J., Rangnekar, A., Boyd, J., & Brown, B. (2001). Web credibility research: A method for online experiments and early study results. Proceedings of CHI’01, Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 295-296. Fogg, B.J., Marshall, J., Laraki, O., Osipovich, A., Varma, C., Fang, N., Paul, J., Rangnekar, A., Shon, J., Swani, P., & Treinen, M. (2001). What makes Web sites credible? A report on a large quantitative study. Proceedings of CHI’01, Human Factors in Computing Systems, 61-68. Fogg, B.J., Soohoo, C., Danielson, D.R., Marable, L., Stanford, J., & Tauber, E.R. (2003). How do users evaluate the credibility of Web sites? A study with over 2,500 participants. Proceedings of DUX2003, Designing for User Experiences Conference. Expanded Consumer WebWatch report available at: http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/news/report3_credibilityresearch/stanfordPTL_abstract.htm Fogg, B.J. & Tseng, H. (1999). The elements of computer credibility. Proceedings of CHI’01, Human Factors in Computing Systems, 80-87. Graefe, G. (2003). Incredible information on the Internet: Biased information provision and lack of credibility as a cause of insufficient information quality. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Information Quality, 133-146. Greer, J.D. (2003). Evaluating the credibility of online information: A test of source and advertising influence. Mass Communication & Society, 6(1), 11-28. Hovland, C.I., Jannis, I.L., & Kelley, H.H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Hovland, C.I. & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635-650. Johnson, T.J & Kaye, B.K. (1998). Cruising is believing? Comparing Internet and traditional sources on media credibility measures. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 75, 325-340. Kim, J. & Moon, J. (1998). Designing towards emotional usability in customer interfaces: Trustworthiness of cyber-banking system interfaces. Interacting with Computers, 10, 1-29. Klein, K.B. (2001). User perceptions of data quality: Internet and traditional text sources. Journal of Information Systems, 41(4), 5-15. Metzger, M.J., Flanagin, A.J., & Zwarun, L. (2003). College student Web use, perceptions of information credibility, and verification behavior. Computers & Education, 41, 271-290. Newhagen, J. & Nass, C.I. (1989). Differential criteria for evaluating credibility of newspapers and TV news. Journalism Quarterly, 66, 277-284. Nozato, Y. (2002). Credibility of online newspapers. Paper presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Annual Convention, Washington, DC, August, 2002. Payne, G.A., Dozier, D.M., & Nomai, A.J. (2001). Newspapers and the Internet: A comparative assessment of news credibility. Paper presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Annual Convention, Miami Beach, FL, August, 2001. Petty, R.E. & Cacioppo, J.T. (1981). Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches. Dubuque, IL: W.C. Brown Co. Publishers. Petty, R.E. & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). Elaboration likelihood model. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology: Vol. 19, 123-205. Riegelsberger, J., Sasse, M.A., & McCarthy, J.D. (2003). Shiny, happy people building trust? Photos on e-commerce Websites and consumer trust. Proceedings of CHI’03, Human Factors in Computing Systems, 121-128. Rieh, S.Y. (2002). Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53, 145-161. Rieh, S.Y. & Belkin, N.J. (1998). Understanding judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the WWW. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 35, 279-289. Roberts, L., Rankin, L., Moore, D., Plunkett, S., Washburn, D., & Wilch-Ringen, B. (2003). Looks good to me. Proceedings of CHI’03, Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 818-819. Robinson, T.J. & Kaye, B.K. (2000). Using is believing: The influence of reliance on the credibility of online political information among politically interested Internet users. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 865-879. Self, C.S. (1996). Credibility. In M. Salwen & D. Stacks (Eds.), An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research, 421-441. Shamdasani, P.N., Stanaland, A., & Tan, J. (2001). Location, location, location: Insights for advertising placement on the Web. Journal of Advertising Research, 41, 7-21. Slater, M.D. & Rouner, D. (1996). How message evaluation and source attributes may influence credibility assessment and belief change. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 73, 974-991. Stanford, J., Tauber, E.R., Fogg, B.J., and Marable, L. (2002). Experts vs. online consumers: A comparative credibility study of health and finance Web sites. Consumer WebWatch Research Report. Available at: http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/news/report3_credibilityresearch/slicedbread_abstract.htm Sundar, S. (1999). Exploring receivers’ criteria for perception of print and online news. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 76, 373-386. Tate, M. & Alexander, J. (1996). Teaching critical evaluation skills for World Wide Web resources. Computers in Libraries, 16, 49-55. Toms, E.G. & Taves, A.R. (2004). Measuring user perceptions of Web site reputation. Information Processing and Management, 40, 291-317. Tseng, H. & Fogg, B.J. (1999). Credibility and computing technology. Communications of the ACM, 42(5), 39-44. Wathen, C.N. & Burkell, J. (2002). Believe it or not: Factors influencing credibility on the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53, 134-144.
Posted by at 03:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 08, 2004
Subject: Top Web Behavior #5: Log in
The BehaviorNearly every top site (save for Google) encourages users to log in to an account. For sites like Hotmail, this is a natural request, because users are accessing personal data (in this case, email). But many news and portal sites also encourage log-ins, in many cases preventing users who haven't logged in from accessing even free content.
What they gain (and you lose)
Most sites say that they want you to log in order to customize your experience, or to give you access to exclusive content. But the real point is to track you. Without log-ins, site owners can only monitor the volume of traffic to their site. But with log-ins, site owners can accurately track how people move through their sites, how much time they spend there how often they come back. This information is of extreme interest to them, and especially to their advertisers.
(Written by Adam Wright) Gallery
... CNN.com
Match.com
Microsoft.com
Neopets.com
NYTimes.com
(Compiled by Joshua Ainslie)
Posted by Joshua Ainslie at 10:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack