(Mon, 05/19/2008 - 17:32 | 7 comments)
Building a sense of community
|Opened by:||Keith E. Laidig|
|Opened on:||Monday, May 19, 2008 - 17:32|
|Last modified:||Friday, January 6, 2012 - 19:57|
Lads, I'd like to suggest a few things that folks responding to the Rosetta@home site have found favorable:some metrics on the front page providing a sense of the size of the project some metric that provides a sense of the number of folks playing at any particular time some metric that provides a sense of the 'amount of computing' being done some metric that provides a sense of the improvement being made at the moment find some way to get a group, collaborative game going... These sorts of things would help to build the sense of the size and activity of the community. For example, when folks access the site and note that, say, 10K folks are playing at the present they might find it worth waiting for a slow game to load to take part in the hot action rather than just get impatient with a site that is just slow. I also suspect that some folks would be drawn to projects that are undergoing rapid improvement at that moment while others would want to try to tackle a less active project to stake out their own territory. How do the find which is which? Perhaps a color coded, pictographic guide of the various puzzles with the ones that are really going somewhere in RED and those less active as BLUE, etc..... through which folks could click to get to the associated project... I'll wager you'ld get a fair bit of excitement with folks not only trying to improve their scores but also a group moving to increase the "temperature of improvement" and drive the project color towards red hot... I admit I have no idea how one much determine such a thing as the site wide 'amount of computing', but folks are quite motivated by projects which seem to be doing something useful....perhaps 'folds/second' or 'structure improvement/second' or perhaps a metric that associates the breadth of searching as a function of time..... You should also hit up the scientists to do 'live' puzzles - the lazy @#&%^!. If they want to get folks to help them they should be online for specific times to provide a discussion stream on the possible reasons behind 'this action' lowering the energy or 'that change' increasing the number of hydrogen bonds and a general discussion of why a given protein is important and what they know about it..... etc. A successful project has to provide a lot of feedback with the user base to keep the interest level up. Finally, team playing might be a draw for groups. How can a group - say a predefined group - work together to play....? Anyway, just a couple of thoughts about the game...