The world of User Generated Content (UGC) is growing and this week's readings discuss some predictable trends and suprises.
Back in November 2006 Gemma Simpson pointed out that YouTube was the fastest growing website. This is not a suprise becuase YouTube is a fun wesite to see entertining videos and it illustrates the entertainment value of UGC.
Current TV, a venture led by Al Gore is not that popular however, this is also quite predictable. Current TV is essentially a television version of YouTube with random UGC videos playing one after another. The reason it is not successful is that the videos are not easily searched or shared, which are two things that help make YouTube successful, so I'd rather see Gore spending his time build clean energy windmills.
A suprising fact was the credibility that other place in UGC. I was suprised to find that 62 percent of IT professionals place more value on UGC than traditional sources. I find this suprisong because we do not know the credibility or the motives of the UGC poster. For example, what if my girlfirend works for HP and I try to gain points with her by making up a story about by Dell laptop bursting into flames and post it as UGC on a computer review site.
I do not disbelieve every UGC posting but never just accept it as pure fact either. So is the best way to determine the credibility of UGC is to see other people sharing similar info? If so, what is to prevent one guy from pretending to be others?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Whenever you are writing paper or doing research, people always say "cross-check" and in response to your question at the end of the post, I think that it is absolutely necessary to do this.
Going to your example about making up a story about a product burning, just to make it appear bad. In response to this: I think talking about products people need to realize that strange things can happen, and you can't always rely on one persons' critique. Seeing if it becomes repetitive among commenters would be important and that would mean something. So I think believing these posts, when cross checked and corroborated through other information and sites is the best way!
I agree with Jill's comment
UGC must be taken with a grain of salt. Cross-checking is a great way to ensure the worthiness of the information you are reading, and you must also have the maturity to understand the possible discrepancy's that can occur when reading reviews on products online. As most people say, the best way to find out something is through "word of mouth". UGC, is simply word of mouth on the internet
Jill & Murtuza,
I agree with your cross-checking idea...but, what about my point that I could do multiple post pretending to be different people and foil your cross-checking strategy.
This is true. You never know the credibility of what has been said. But what is so good about UGC is that there is a wide variety to choose from. While conventional sources such as advertisements or marketing of the product will only tell you the good aspects of a product, UGC will tell you both its benefits and flaws. It is people like you who have used and tried the product and know how good it is.
If it wasn't for UGC we would be forced to make a decision based on what the company says about their own product, and of course, it will only be good.
Of course there is going to be a boyfriend posting good things about the girlfriend's company, but if you don't trust one comment. you read the next!!
Post a Comment