imnotteixeira
commented
3 years ago The tests were made in Waze (it has some differences to the zerozero.live target).
It was hard for users to recognize where the information came from (and if it was reliable). Users did not care much about their reputation when submitting info (maybe they heard about something and posted it without verifying) - maybe this is different in football matches?
When users knew the source of data, they tended to trust people they knew already (family+friends)
The app needs to better convey the reputation of the source to let the consumers know how much they can/should trust the source
https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84978879489&origin=resultslist&sort=plf-f&src=s&nlo=&nlr=&nls=&sid=b01323793c5d8cf83efca182be40683b&sot=a&sdt=a&cluster=scosubjabbr%2c%22COMP%22%2ct&sl=56&s=TITLE-ABS-KEY%28%28live+OR+real+W%2f1+time%29+reputation+system%29&relpos=94&citeCnt=3&searchTerm=
With the emergence of the Web 2.0, (digital) services are coverging and moving into the digital and mobile world, producing lots of information in real-time, such as traffic conditions, points of interests and so on. With the big amount of collected data from community-based applications, it becomes necessary to know wheather such content is trustworhty. When using applications such as Waze, we are supposed to trust in the information provided by unknown users, which act as digital content producers. However, it needs to be transparently clear where this information comes from and how trustable are its providers/endorsers. This paper presents the results of a two-step study to investigate how users recognize (or not) the signs and the reputation model of digital content producers in Waze app. We analysed and found out how the reputation is communicated to the users and the potential impacts on human computer interaction. © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016.