<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="results.xsl" ?><root>
<item>
	<title>Blogging at work and the corporate attention economy</title>
	<link>http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/scl/papers/blogging/chi2009</link>
	<minidescription>How do you get people to blog at work?</minidescription>
	<tags>
		<tag>blogs</tag>
		<tag>attention</tag>
		<tag>social media</tag>
		<tag>participation</tag>
		<tag>CHI</tag>
	</tags>
	<description>
		The attention economy motivates participation in peer-produced sites on the Web like YouTube and Wikipedia. However, this economy appears to break down at work. We studied a large internal corporate blogging community using log files and interviews and found that employees expected to receive attention when they contributed to blogs, but these expectations often went unmet. Like in the external blogosphere, a few people received most of the attention, and many people received little or none. Employees expressed frustration if they invested time and received little or no perceived return on investment. While many corporations are looking to adopt Web-based communication tools like blogs, wikis, and forums, these efforts will fail unless employees are motivated to participate and contribute content. We identify where the attention economy breaks down in a corporate blog community and suggest mechanisms for improvement.
		To appear at CHI 2009.
	</description>
	<author>Sarita Yardi, Scott A. Golder, and Michael J. Brzozowski</author>
	<pubDate>2009-01-20 16:33:00</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Friends and foes: Ideological social networkin  / Multiple relationship types in online communities and social networks</title>
	<author>Tad Hogg, Gabor Szabo, Dennis M. Wilkinson, and Michael J. Brzozowski</author>
	<pubDate>2008-01-12 0:00:00</pubDate>
	<description>Traditionally, online social network sites like Facebook and MySpace allow people to form links to "friends" but do little to qualify the semantic meaning of the friendship. As a result, many users "collect" friends on these sites, conflating "acquaintances" with "friends". Essembly, a "fiercely non-partisan social network", on the other hand, lets its users enrich the meaning of their relations to others by explicitly labeling them "friends", "allies", or "nemeses". Essembly then allows its members to post resolves reflecting controversial opinions on political issues. As a defining activity on the site, members can vote on these resolves on a four-point scale ranging from complete agreement to full opposition. We examined how the uncommon link semantics affects users in casting their votes. In particular, Essembly prominently highlights the activities of users' acquaintances, and the question arises if this makes them more likely to participate, and if so, how this information affects votes. It is widely assumed that social networks enhance, if not drive, the popularity of online services; what does an additional layer of link classification add to them?
	
	Papers appeared at CHI 2008 and AAAI Spring Symposium on Social Information Processing 2008.</description>
	<link>http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/idl/papers/essembly</link>
	<minidescription>Examines the usefulness of distinguishing between friends and similar/dissimilar users in propagating new content in an online social network, and suggests resulting design implications for social content aggregation services and recommender systems.</minidescription>
<tags>
	<tag>social networks</tag>
	<tag>voting</tag>
	<tag>essembly</tag>
	<tag>influence</tag>
	<tag>CHI</tag>
</tags>
	</item>
</root>