In my opinion, if we want to utilize a status marker for motivating participation and contribution, several things could be considered

   1. The status marker should be obvious for every online user. For instance, everyone could see their own and others’ vineacity, which makes the comparison process less cost and more directly.
   2. The status marker should be updated frequently based on the theory that reward should be given in time
   3. The status marker should be entitled with some benefits/privilege. However, how to design this point is very tricky because of the confliction between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation.

John Blair

1)  For something to be an effective marker throughout the community, I think it has to be easily visible to other members of the community.  For instance, if I'm the only one in ITtoolbox to see that my profile is 65% complete, I don't really get that bothered by it, but I do have an urge to get to 100% for some reason, but it's really only my own internal status associated with wanting to get to 100%.  I might be more motivated if other members also saw it and could comment on it when I posted (thus perhaps seeing me as less committed than themselves).  They would then act as a motivator to achieve 100%, since I wouldn't likely want to be represented poortly in front of them.  The covet component I believe is a personal issue that one would feel proud of having achieving, and then enjoy the accolades of others.  If it didn't mean anything to you, you likely wouldn't attempt to achieve it in the first place.

2) ITtoolbox has community awards for best of blogs, wiki's, groups, etc.  I believe these serve as status markers because they are published to the community and do motivate some people I think.  In the case of my community I don't sense any sort of resentment or detrimental boundaries being placed as a result of the awards.

3) In the case of ITtoolbox, one motivator is money.  The award winners recieve a check for up to $500, depending on the award.  Foregoing that rather obvious motivator, I think it's really up to the individual.  if they feel strongly about a community or making contributions to it, they will do so, despite any status associated with it.  Some people may view the status marker as a competition and see them as an upward comparison (ie, the next target in line to the top).  If the community is composed of groups, there may be some group alignment with the status that they want to be the best group, or the group with the most rewards, status markers, etc.

1. This may seem fairly obvious but the different seems to be that status markers are visible and easily recognized. In the same way that Rolex watches and Escalades are status symbols in real-life, and online status symbol usually entails a users being able to upgrade his profile in a way to contain a badge or other visual marker. Whether or not these visible markers are coveted or ignored remains an isue of psychology since a lot of status markers aren't useful (after all my Timex keeps the same time as your Rolex.) However, my guess is that status symbols appeal to our sense of privilege, which is often hidden in some way. The fact that he drives an Escalade means he can probably afford better things, get tickets to the big game, etc. So online a person with a badge on his profile may have access to things in the community that I can only guess at.

1. Facebook as a site definitely doesn't give status markers; and as an instructor I don't privilege some students over others. However, it could be argued that the more friends a user has the more status he has. This may be irrelevent to a great number of people but this obviously translates into others' ideas of popularity and attractiveness even though it has no bearing on the users' ability to use the site in any functional way. This is clearly where everyday illogical psychology intersects with rational thought on a mechanical system.

1. As mentioned in my first answer, I think status markers hint at some hidden privilege, and I feel like this mystery is what motivates people most. A badge or ability to add function X to your profile may be nice, but ultimately aesthetic. It's the uncertainty of other users that these status markers may reveal other privileges that allow users to do more than I can that may motivate me to reach for these otherwise trivial things online.

1. I think so far the responses have nailed part of number 1, that something ought to be visible to be considered a status marker. Friendcount, post count, or levels may all be coveted features because they indicate a long term committment to the community (typically - though you could just bring your social network with you somewhere.) These are sort of universal status measures that everyone has. There are also status markers that only some have, such as in PBS, various kinds of volunteers or "Member of the Month" badges may appear by a users' nickname. I can imagine negative status indicators (dunce, newbie, etc. forced upon annoying or new players) that would cause ridicule.

2. The volunteer badges seem to generate respect for the individuals with them, as do high post counts in the forums. Some users allow others to see the total number of books they've swapped and this can similarly create respect for an experienced swapper or reluctance to participate in a swap with a newbie. The reluctance to swap with new users in the only boundary that I can think of being created by the status markers - though there may also be a certain reluctance to contact busy busy volunteer coordinators if one has a sense for the magnitude of their contributions.

3. I think the people on PBS are mostly motivated by wanting to do good and contribute to the community, but in many communities it may be that having a status marker by your name that shows you are a moderator or other important figure may generate a desired effect of being respected. The special privileges that go along with some status markers may also be the item of desire.

Perhaps one design claim would be that status markers motivate people to contribute when higher status also is correlated with more respect from or more interaction with other members in the community.

Addressing question 2: The only status marker I can think of in LibraryThing is number of books in a person's library. People can see how many books are in another person's library, and this is a sort of status marker showing how involved the person is in the community. More than that, though, you know that if someone has more than 250 books in their library, they have a paid membership for LibraryThing b/c you can only have up to 250 books without paying. The payment is nominal, but it is definitely a marker of someone who is very invested in the LibraryThing community. I am not sure what the effects of this marker are. I would conjecture that people would be more prone to listen to people with a lot of books in discussions, but I haven't seen any strict evidence of that.

1.  In order to function, a status marker must be unbiased, require considerable effort to attain, and should correlate directly to the core purpose of the site.  Indicators may be ignored or ridiculed if they are biased (seen as favors to a site admin's friends), too easy to attain ("So what, I hit level 10 in a week."), or irrelevant to the core activity of the community (I got an A in underwater basket weaving, but no one at SI seems impressed).

2.  Some of the most sought after symbols in my community are those that take the form of gear for your character.  Unique and rare items are particularly valued, because they indicate the time spent and wealth accumulated within the community.  As I mentioned earlier this week, some of the status symbols provided within the game are also viewed as barriers, such as prename titles.  These are toggled off by many users, to allow them to associate more freely.

3.  I think this question is more or less the same as #1.  Status markers motivate when they are true indicators of a person's status within the community.  Other members will work toward a status symbol if it is likely to yield the respect due a person in such a position.  In order to confer such status, a status symbol must achieve the properties outlined in #1.

 1. I think in many ways status markers in online communities are fairly similar to status markers in off-line communities.  Although I've consciously tried to reduce the degree to which I'm brand conscious, I do notice  symbols of material wealth such as clothing brands and quality-of-car.  I think I subconscioulsy make assumptions about people at times based on these symbols, ie., "he's driving that car, he must be intelligent enough to have a well enough paying job to afford that car." Although as a social worker, I would like to say I have risen above character assessments, I think when you don't have more to go on about who someone is on the street, you work with what you can see....

The same would go for online status symbols.  Whereas offline, there are a wide range of subtle cues that can be picked up when meeting someone new, in online communities, the reliance on status symbols would naturally go up because there are fewer cues for assessing someone's status.  In terms of which cues are considered more coveted then others, I think there's a wide range of norms in terms of how the cues the do exist are interpreted.  For instance, status markers in open source communities tend to be explicitly subtle, rather than vividly apparent badges or wizard names and such.

2. On the CIC site, there are few explicit status markers.  The only slightly relevent thing I can think of is limiting the ability of users to post feature items.  When I initially became a member of the CIC, I could post to my own blog and post comments and events, but I didn't have the capability to post "feature items" that would appear of the site's homepage.  Initially, I found out who had the capacity to post feature items and started emailing things I wanted featured to him. This did create a kind of tension, in that it wasn't made explicit what one had to do to achieve the right to post feature items. I think it makes more sense to give everyone the right to post feature items from day one. Eventually, I knew him well enough offline to request that I recieve the ability to post feature items independent of his oversight.

3. I think status markers will motivate people when acquiring them seems to be a feasible task.  If you are using a system such as vineacity's, adding notches-to-the-best so to speak, I think the first few should be easier to obtain quicker than the higher levels.  This at least provides some initial reinforcement and may facilitate a sense of belonging for users of the site 

Lisa McLaughlin

1. Question 1 has been answered quite thoroughly by everyone, so I summarize: Status markers must be visible, applicable, and fairly determined.

2. On Yahoo! Answers, such status markers are a user's level (based off of Yahoo! Answers' points system), their status as a "Top Contributor" in up to 3 specific "categories/topics", if any, and their "best answer %". All 3 status markers are visible, but are debatable as to whether they are applicable or fairly determined. For example, the points system is based on the number of questions you answer, questions you ask, and the number of your own questions that you resolve (by picking an answer as the best answer). Because points can be accumulated through a variety of means, many highly ranked individuals have obtained high levels and point simply because they post frequently (sometimes posting pretty useless answers). The "best answer %" is also a pretty biased statistic because there is definitely a feedback loop where answers given by users with better reputations (higher "best answer %" or higher levels) often get selected as "best answers". Given the fact that Yahoo! Answers status markers are somewhat flawed, I would imagine many users would feel resentment or not take the status markers seriously. For example, having made such an observation, I am not to interested in gaining a high level. Instead, when comparing two somewhat flawed status markers, I would be more interested in obtaining a higher "best answer %". For Yahoo! Answers, status markers do not seem to create barriers because overall, the community is pretty casual.

3. As described by many for question 1, I think a successful status marker will motivate people if it is is indeed acknoweldges good behavior and best practices of a community. In essense, if a status marker measures contributions and rewards users accordingly, then that might be a good motivator. A balance would need to be found between providing too few and too much acknowledgement. Acknowledging small contributions will likely help retain and encourage new users to contribute, but at the same time, that might lead to people complaining about disproportionate acknowledgement for larger contributions.

The previous posts have many good points. I will play the devil's advocate here. Some possible negative effects of status marker and privileges might include:

• It might discourage new comers when it seems impossible to get a high status marker.
• It might increase the tension between new comers and old timers.
• The design of the status marker might neglect some important factors so that users might pay less attentions to those important factors. E.g., if a community only takes into account the # of posts to calculate user's status, then it might discourage users to help each other offline or via personal email.
• It introduces incentives for users to game the system to get a higher status

I think status markers are a sort of visible manifestation of what people put into a community. Sort of like flair on an apron.

They're important because they present a sort of cost to members thinking of leaving a community. "But I have 5/6 vineacity vines! I need to stay!" People fundamentally want to be recognized for what they do. Status markers are a way for users to be easily recognized as a contributor.

In my online community, I suppose the only status marker is ownership of a blog that is indexed by the site. Even that honor is not shown well. I think I need to work on improving the visibility of user contributions. 

I will start with the 2nd question. One thing I observe as a status marker in the Last.fm community is the record of a user, such as how many tracks has been played, and how many posts and journals has been created. If a person has played many tracks or created many posts, he might be seen as an oldtimer with higher status in the online community. For example, the moderators tend to have played many tracks and made many posts. I would say in order to be a moderator, it’s required to have the evidence to show your involvement in the Last.fm community. However, a user having the record to show he has been deeply involved in the community may not be a moderator. So the status of being a moderator is kind of decided by the administrators, but most users still listen to what moderators said since they are given the power, and they demonstrate that they are loyal users of Last.fm.

 For the 3nd question, as mentioned above, a status maker may motivate people to contribute to an online community if people may benefit from getting higher status, such as power to govern the site, reputation, or recognition.

In terms of the 1st question, I wonder if the process of improving status should be clear to every member in the Last.fm case. For example, if administrators of Last.fm set clear rules that if a person plays tracks 4 million times and make 5,000 posts can be a moderator candidate. I wonder if this will motivate people to cheat in order to enjoy the privilege of being a moderator.

SourceForge.net once implemented a system of "coder ratings" based on avagadro's reputation system.  The SF developers themselves were seeds, and they "recommended" all their friends who were OSS developers, expecting that they would do the same.  This resulted in a list of "Top Coders" which was basically a proxy for "Social Distance" from the SF.net core team.  It changed very little, and was eventually scrapped after a couple years since it had only been used by a few dozen people.

This was a *bad* status marker -- it had solved the problem of "game-ability", but the recommendations didn't spread, partly because the social network may not have had a giant component.   There was also the general feeling that the SF developers shouldn't be the ones to choose the "best coders" on the site as their own close friends.

Monk Levels on PerlMonks, on the other hand seems to work fairly well as a status marker:

- it is fair, since anyone who receives the set number of upvotes will progress through the system

- it is earned by each users, instead of being arbitrarily bestowed

- it is achievable by anyone who writes good material and gets up-votes from the community.

If we consider status markers as signals, the Monk Level turns out to have a decent signal/noise ration when it comes to determining major participants in a community, as opposed to SF top developers which was strictly a signal of association, and not a good indication of true contributions. 

--------------------------------------------------------------

oostendo@umich.edu

--------------------------------------------------------------

As mentioned in earlier posts, the status marker should be visible publicly. Additionally, the markers should be difficult to achieve. The markers will be valued if the community members have some idea about the effort and skills required to achieve the marker.

In Ubuntu Forums, the number of posts and number of thanks received are two clear established status marks. Moreover, the admins intentionally provide obfuscated status markers. In all the posts, below the user name (of the poster), a title is given. Supposedly this title is given for "fun" and to keep the users interested. The title are based on some forums usage metrics like number posts, duration of membership, etc. But the admins keep changing it and discourage the members from reading too much into the titles.

When the status markers are valued by the members it will motivate members to contribute. Status markers will be valued when the demand for the marker far exceeds the supply. Having a Gmail account was coveted when it was by invitation only account. Today it has lost its value in possession.

The status marker should be easier for community members to recognize and understand. Also, it should be associated with certain privileges which are enough incentives to motivate member's participation. In a lot of communities, the status marker is determined by a lot of parameters, take bbs.taisha.org for example, a lot of things counts, such as the time a member stays online with the community, the number of posts, number of best posts, etc. It seems that among these parameters, some should be designed reletively easier for new members to achieve which are usually in terms of the quantity of participation especially for forums while others should consider more about the quality of one's participation. In that way, new membes get certain incentives to participate at their early periods and existing members should also be motivated to stay longer and this may maximize community's benefit.

Good indicators of status support the activities that the culture values. This is a rather hazy response but I think that an excellent motivator for one community could completely fail in another.

I have seen in Newsvine a lot of allegation of people gaming Vineacity, but I’m not sure I’ve seen evidence of it. I think that, like in any community, if there is a perception that the rewards are distributed unevenly people will resent the reward structure.

Status markers will motivate contribution if the community acknowledges the status marker as valuable. A status maker that is not deemed significant by a community won’t serve to motivate contributions. I know this is another hazy answer, but its clear that wearing “bling” is a status marker in some communities, but I doubt that people at SI would think my status as a student were higher if a started wearing a diamond coated “grill”. Likewise, I somewhat doubt that a rapper would get famous by rapping about his high GPA.
 

I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library.

-Jorge Luis Borges

1) For something to function as a status marker in an online community, some people must have it and others must not.  In other words, if everyone has a particular status marker, then no one is different from each other.  Status markers often represent desired behavior.  Also, a status marker must be earned for engaging in an activity or making a contribution.  The marker may signal effort (as in collecting 43 goals) or luck (as in lottery winners).  Some ways that status can be earned:  through a fixed interval (for example, being a member for X amount of time), fixed ratio (for example, making X number of contributions), or recognition (for example, content that members vote on)

2) There are three types of status markers in 43 things.  Goals can be listed as something someone is doing (listed in a profile or on a goal page), something someone has done (also listed in a profile or on a goal page), or something given up on (listed in a profile, not on a goal page).  The first two status markers motivate people because they signal effort and success.   A status marker for a goal that has been given up on often demotivates people because they signal failure.  To remove this marker, members may opt to delete all of their blog posts related to a goal they've given up on.

3) Status markers will motivate people to contribute to an online community if they are visible.  If no one can see a status marker, it is useless for communicating rank or achievement.  Also, status markers will motivate contribution if they encourage positive emotions.  For example, a "most Wikipedia edits removed by editors" marker is negative.  Lastly, a status marker will motivate people to contribute if it grants a member more access or privileges.  For example, when I moderated community contributions at McAfee, the top 100 members (by number of contributions) received free subscriptions to premium software.

It’s already been mentioned that the status symbol should be something that some people have and some people don’t.
It is also important:
a.    The status symbol is a signal – not too costly for the right types – i.e. people who play by the rules of the community and put in effort should be rewarded justly and transparently.
b.    The people who are at the top most level of the symbol should be the kind of people / or have performed the kind of duties others in the community at some level aspire to.

2.  In PagalGuy.com there are status markers like Newbie Pagal, Trainee Pagal, Hardcore Pagal etc. which are badge displayed along with the profile and give an indication of how active a person is in the community and how useful his posts are. This does provide a positive motivation for contribution to the community. However, the presence of other status markers such as your reputation which is built by how well you perform in the tests – and which is not directly reflected in the system- by evident in social conversations is a far stronger status symbol.

3.  For a status symbol to motivate people:
a. It should be something they want – because the people who have it have certain positive attributes or are perceived positively by the community.
b. It should be something they think is attainable.
c. There should be intermediate stages which reward progress towards the status symbols.

In the Lego Space community, we don't use status markers.  Somewhere along the way we all decided that if you hang around for a while you get to know who has the status and who doesn't.

 Status makes things turn competitive, and we are not competitive in that way (at least I don't see it).

--------------------------------------------------------
PHartzog@umich.edu
--------------------------------------------------------
The Universe is made up of stories, not atoms.
--Muriel Rukeyser

1. What makes something function as a status marker in an online
   community? Some indicators may be ignored or even ridiculed; why are
   others coveted?
2. What are the effects of status markers in (your) online
   communities? Do they motivate people? create resentment? create
   boundaries that deter interaction as Dustin suggested this week?
3. Under what conditions will a status marker motivate people to contribute to an online community?

I agree with others - to be effective, status markers must be salient and visible to everyone on the community. It also helps to know all the different levels or possiblities of status icons, what they mean, and what it takes to achieve them. This can help new members know what to do to gain them.

On CouchSurfing,  the main status markers are the icons on your user profile designating whether you are vouched or verified and whether you hold any special volunteer posts. These do motivate people in that they are not necessary but recommended if you wish to have a host accept you as a guest. They show your dedication to the community and thus enable users to trust each other enough to surf or host with a stranger. 

The other more peripheral status marker in the community is the ability to rate a users' profile as 'interesting' by clicking the button 'This is an interesting profile'. The users who are most highly rated as interesting then appear on a special page - this is a way of showing status in that it showcases you and is a compliment to your personality. It also motivates users to fully complete their profiles to have a better chance of being rated 'interesting' - this is what the site wants since filled out profiles also help create trust.

For a status marker to succesed, I think it has to be tied in cohesively with some tangible aspect of community contributi on. Again, people need to know how a status marker is goined and what it means in order or it to work.

2) Within cgsociety.org there are
often various competitions going on simultaneously at various levels, from
novice to the most advanced.  Elected
winners are chosen by either a board of industry peers or by the forum leader
(again it depends on the group participating and their skill level) with a
specific competition focus (2D, 3D). 
Once elected, winners are given a badge that they can add to their
profile.  From what I have observed there
is no animosity displayed towards a cgs award winner.  Instead they become like the “town sage”
where their peers who are looking for advice and direction will look up to
these individuals for guidance.  Therefore,
a CGS Award serves more as a status symbol than anything else within the
community. It cements and individual as a leader and as a go-to person.  Naturally, it could be argued that this
creates boundaries as there is a clear separation from an award winner and a
regular artist.  But it could be argued conversely
just as well.

3)  Under motivations that reinforce the status
markers status and additionally where that individual can simultaneously
contribute.  There is something to be
said about reciprocity and the importance of it within an individual that holds
a certain level of status within a community. 
If that reciprocity uplifts the individual to a new height he/she will
certainly be further incentivized to act accordingly.

Status symbol has its purpose which may or may not suit a perticular
community. A community (like Digg) where most of the content is created
by top 50-100 users, it is very important to use a status symbol. This
would act as a motivator for them to work harder and maintain their
status.

This symbol could be very powerful for some communities. In few
cases, people even maintain their status outside of the community. For
example: Muhammad Saleem from Digg is a well known digger; and people
respect him and give more value to his opinion (in conversations
outside of Digg). Status in a community could be a good potent
marketing tool for an individual. # of friends in Twitter or Facebook
are big status symbols (atleast for some people).

For my community, ImmigrationPortal, there are implicit leaders.
There are no symbols (specified by the admin) but leaders emerge from
within the community. These leaders become very influential people and
have impact on events that happen even outside of the community.