ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Flash forums and forumReader: navigating a new kind of large-scale online discussion
Full text PdfPdf (514 KB)
Source Computer Supported Cooperative Work archive
Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work table of contents
Chicago, Illinois, USA
SESSION: Communities table of contents
Pages: 232 - 241  
Year of Publication: 2004
ISBN:1-58113-810-5
Authors
Kushal Dave  IBM Research, Cambridge, MA
Martin Wattenberg  IBM Research, Cambridge, MA
Michael Muller  IBM Research, Cambridge, MA
Sponsors
SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
SIGGROUP: ACM Special Interest Group on Supporting Group Work
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 7,   Downloads (12 Months): 172,   Citation Count: 3
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1031607.1031644
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

We describe a popular kind of large, topic-centered, transient discussion, which we term a <i>flash forum</i>. These occur in settings ranging from web-based bulletin boards to corporate intranets, and they display a conversational style distinct from Usenet and other online discussion. Notably, authorship is more diffuse, and threads are less deep and distinct. To help orient users and guide them to areas of interest within flash forums, we designed ForumReader, a tool combining data visualization with automatic topic extraction. We describe lessons learned from deployment to thousands of users in a real world setting. We also report a laboratory experiment to investigate how interface components affect behavior, comprehension, and information retrieval. The ForumReader interface is well-liked by users, and our results suggest it can lead to new navigation patterns. We also find that, while both visualization and text analytics are helpful individually, combining them may be counterproductive.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
Baoill, A. Ó. Slashdot and the Public Sphere. First Monday 5, 9 (2000).
 
2
Dave, K. Using Cluster Analysis to Automatically Thread Discussion Board Messages. Senior thesis, Yale University, May 2002.
 
3
Dieberger, A. and Russell, D.M. Context lenses: Document visualization and navigation tools for rapid access to detail. Proceedings of INTERACT 2001.
 
4
 
5
Dorsett, L., Fontaine, M.A., and O'Driscoll, T. Redifining Manager Interaction at IBM: Leveraging massive conversations to exchange knowledge. KM Review. September/October 2002: 25--28.
 
6
Eick, S. Graphically Displaying Text. Computational and Graphical Statistics 3, 2 (1994):127--142.
 
7
8
9
10
 
11
Halavais, A. The Slashdot Effect: Analysis of a Large-Scale Public Conversation on the World Wide Web. Ph. D Thesis. University of Washington. 2001.
 
12
Halverson, C., Newswanger, J., Erickson, T., Wolf, T., Kellogg, W.A., Laff, M., Malkin, P. WorldJam: Talk Among 50,000+. Poster ECSCW 2001.
 
13
14
15
 
16
Jones, Q., Ravid, G. and Rafaeli, S. Information Overload and Virtual Public Discourse Boundaries. Proceedings of INTERACT 2001.
 
17
Kerr, B. ThreadArcs. Proceedings of InfoVis 2003.
18
19
 
20
McFedries, P. Flash Mob. The Word Spy. July 14, 2003. http://www.wordspy.com/words/flashmob.asp (Accessed 6/23/04).
 
21
Millen, D. and Fontaine, M. Multi-team Facilitation of Very Large-scale Distributed Meetings. Proc. ECSCW 2003.
 
22
Miller, B., Riedl, J., and Konstan, J. Experiences with GroupLens: Making Usenet useful again. Proceedings of the 1997 Usenix Winter Technical Conference. Jan 1997.
 
23
Neustaedter, C., Smith, M., and Venolia, G. Grand Central Usenet: The Design and Evaluation of a Thread-Based Usenet Browser. Microsoft Tech Report, MSR-TR-2003-89, 2003.
 
24
Newman, P.S. Treetables and Other Visualizations for Email Threads. Xerox PARC Technical Report, Sept 2001. http://www.parc.xerox.com/istl/groups/hdi/papers/psn_emailvis01.pdf
 
25
Nonnecke, B. & Preece, J. Why Lurkers Lurk. Americas Conference on Information Systems, 2001.
 
26
Payne, S.J. Congnitive strategies and design heuristics for dealing with information overload on the web. (IGR Report GR/M43002/01). http://www.cf.ac.uk/psych/home/paynes/InfoLoad/index.html
 
27
Pirolli, P. & Card, S.K. Information Foraging. Psychological Review 106, 4 (1999), 643--675.
28
 
29
 
30
 
31
32
33
 
34
 
35
Spira, J.B., Friedman S.M., and Ebling, S. IBM's WorldJam: How IBM Created a New Standard in Intracompany Communication. 2001.
 
36
37
 
38
Wan, Stephen. Summarizing Consensus in Decision Making Threads. Presentation to the Columbia University NLP Research Group Nov. 13, 2003. http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/ swan1/nlpgroup-20031113.ppt (accessed 6/23/04).
39
40


Collaborative Colleagues:
Kushal Dave: colleagues
Martin Wattenberg: colleagues
Michael Muller: colleagues