Collaborative Catalogue for Online Tools

Worth exploring:

ParticipateDB is a collaborative catalogue for online tools for participation (often referred to as tools for web-based engagement, online participation, e-participation, e-consultation, online dialogue, online deliberation etc.).

Their goal is to build a comprehensive directory that allows people to easily share, discover, explore and compare the tools available today and how they can best be applied.

Group-building Collaboration Tool

Here’s a collaboration tool that allows a person or organization to invite others to Help Me Investigate a topic. It deals mainly with civic matters in the UK.  They don’t offer collaborative document editing, but reports can be posted to show the results of investigations.

What interests me is the ease of simply posing a seed idea that could develop into a collaborative group. Could serve as a model for promoting groups on Virtual Home.

Top 5 Web Design Debates

At Virtual Home we’ve had our share of healthy differences of opinion on best practices for web design.   At web design blog Line25,  they break down both sides of the argument for the Top 5 Web Design Debates That Cause the Most Riots.

  • Should links open in a new window?
  • Should links use the words ‘Click here’?
  • Should Bold <b> and Italic <i> tags be used?
  • Should a logo be enclosed in a <h1> element?
  • Should a site should be viewable in IE6?

Let’s play: An Expertise-Tagging Game

Researcher Jun Zhang and colleagues designed a social game to engage people in contributing to expertise profiling for themselves and their colleagues. In „Expertise­Tagging Game: Identifying Expertise Networks in organizations“ (2007) they describe how it works and a pilot study. Playing the game a user gets certain points when his or her input matches with other users’ input.

Thinking about our newly launched expertise finder system UCSF Profiles, a ‘game’ approach might be an interesting idea to explore. UCSF Profiles builds on a good set of data retrieved from Pubmed and already allows passive networks based on that information. However, active networking mechanisms will be helpful to retrieve ‘local knowledge’ that goes beyond scientific publications.

Here is how the game works: “A person’s expertise tags are presented in a masked tag cloud when the game starts. A user starts playing this game by typing a keyword in the text field following ‘John is a good person to talk to about (X) ‘ once a time. If a tag he sent matches a tag input by that individual or by other users who have played the game, the matched tag is revealed and the user earns some points based on how many other people have also tagged the same keyword.  The goal is to reveal all the masked words in the tag cloud. Top players are named as ‘top connectors’ in the landing page of the game site. Top players for a specific game are also listed in that game’s page as ‘who knows person (X) best’. A network visual-exploration interface  helps people discover the expertise networks around them.” The pilot study showed “that a lot of users were motivated by different fun factors, such as enjoyment of problem solving (revealing the tag cloud) and competition (being a top connector).”

By the way, some senior users expressed concerns of deploying a game into a corporate environment, so the authors  repositioned the ‘game’ as a “system for people to recognize their colleagues by recommending their expertise using tagging as well a means of self-expression by self-tagging and approving peers’ tags”.

And while we are at it, here is a second one: “The Dogear Game” (2007).  Individual players receive entertainment and learn about their colleagues’ bookmarks. The player’s colleagues, on the other hand, receive recommendations of websites and documents of potential interest to them. The numbers are impressive: The game was implemented as a plug-in to a corporate instant messaging client used by over 100,000 employees. Read on.

Science 2.0

It is exactly what you think it is.  The term was brought up in todays demo by Mendeley, which has a product similar to EndNote but with some crowd-sourcing capabilities to categorize content.  You can google the term yourself of course, but here is a good introductory article on “Science 2.0”: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=science-2-point-0-great-new-tool-or-great-risk

A Tool to See How Others View our Website

Last month we launched our new home page. We pondered about what content should be above the fold, and how the new design will play out using different browsers. At that time, I did not know about the new tool Browser Size launched by Googlelabs. Browser Size makes it possible to test how others view our page, taking in account different sizes of monitors, browsers that are not always full screen and toolbars. It looks like a helful tool to save time during testing across browsers.

Here is how it works according to the creators: “Special code collects data on the height and width of the browser for a sample of users. For a given point in the browser, the tool will tell you what percentage of users can see it. For example, if an important button is in the 80% region it means that 20% of users have to scroll in order to see it.”

Keep reading at Introducing Google Browser Size

Email vs RSS subscriptions: 12 to 1

Inbound marketing software provider HubSpot published some interesting stats on blog subscriptions. Analyzing data from 605 of their customers with blogs (mostly small- and medium-sized businesses), the average email subscriptions for these blogs were 12 times more than the average RSS subscriptions. In a breakdown by industry, the medical / biotech sector shows an even greater ratio of email to RSS subscribers. While not entirely surprising, this data sample further underscores the value of utilizing email as a tool for disseminating blog and open forums content. (CTSI Virtual Home is in the process of evaluating tools for converting RSS feeds into email subscriptions.)