Qian Wu
ABSTRACT
Community question-answering (CQA) enables both information retrieval and social interactions. CQA questions are viewed as goal-expressions from the askers' perspectives. Most prior studies mainly focused on the goals expressed in the questions, but not on how responders' expectations and responses are influenced by the goal-expressions. To fill the gap, this research proposes the use of framing theory to understand how different expressions of goals influence responses. Cues of questions were used to identify goal-frames in CQA questions. Social network analysis was used to construct response networks whose nodes represent postings and connections represent responses. Our results reveal that goal-frames with high complexity, high specificity, and rewards tend to increase the centrality of questions. In contrast, low complexity and low specificity tend to generate extensive conversations. Implications for both researchers and practitioners are discussed in the final section.
- Snehasish Banerjee. 2017. Study of authentic and fictitious online reviews (Doctoral dissertation). Available from https://dr.ntu.edu.sg//handle/10356/89391.Google Scholar
- Katriina Byström and Kalervo Järvelin. 1995. Task complexity affects information seeking and use. Information Processing & Management 31, 2: 191--213.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Fabio Calefato, Filippo Lanubile, and Nicole Novielli. 2018. How to ask for technical help? Evidence-based guidelines for writing questions on Stack Overflow. Information and Software Technology 94: 186--207.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Erik Choi, Vanessa Kitzie, and Chirag Shah. 2012. Developing a typology of online Q&A models and recommending the right model for each question type. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ok-Kyu Choi and Erin Cho. 2019. The mechanism of trust affecting collaboration in virtual teams and the moderating roles of the culture of autonomy and task complexity. Computers in Human Behavior 91: 305--315.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alton Y.K Chua and Snehasish Banerjee. 2015. Measuring the effectiveness of answers in Yahoo! Answers. Online Information Review 39, 1: 104--118.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Shengli Deng, Jingjing Tong, Yanqing Lin, Hongxiu Li, and Yong Liu. 2019. Motivating scholars' responses in academic social networking sites: An empirical study on ResearchGate Q&A behavior. Information Processing & Management 56, 6: 102082.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Miles Efron and Megan Winget. 2010. Questions are content: A taxonomy of questions in a microblogging environment. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hengyi Fu and Sanghee Oh. 2019. Quality assessment of answers with user-identified criteria and data-driven features in social Q&A. Information Processing & Management 56, 1: 14--28.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dominik Gutt, Tobias von Rechenberg, and Dennis Kundisch. 2020. Goal achievement, subsequent user effort and the moderating role of goal difficulty. Journal of Business Research 106: 277--287.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Grace YoungJoo Jeon and Soo Young Rieh. 2015. Social search behavior in a social Q&A service: Goals, strategies, and outcomes. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology Google ScholarCross Ref
- Blooma Mohan John, Alton Yeow-Kuan Chua, and Dion Hoe-Lian Goh. 2011. What makes a high-quality user-generated answer? IEEE Internet Computing 15, 1: 66--71.Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Richard Landis and Gary G. Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 1: 159--174.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Irwin P. Levin, Sandra L. Schneider, and Gary J. Gaeth. 1998. All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76, 2: 149--188.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kok Khiang Lim and Chei Sian Lee. 2021. Investigating learner's online learning behavioural changes during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology 58, 1: 777--779.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Fu-ren Lin and Hui-yi Huang. 2013. Why people share knowledge in virtual communities? The use of Yahoo! Kimo Knowledge+ as an example. Internet Research 23, 2: 133--159.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Siegwart Lindenberg and Linda Steg. 2007. Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues 63.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mark Newman. 2018. Networks. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, USA.Google Scholar
- Zhongdang Pan and Gerald M. Kosicki. 1993. Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political Communication 10, 1: 55--75.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chirag Shah. 2017. Chapter 4 Online Question-Answering (Q&A). In Social Information Seeking: Leveraging the Wisdom of the Crowd. Springer International Publishing, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
- Chirag Shah, Sanghee Oh, and Jung Sun Oh. 2009. Research agenda for social Q&A. Library & Information Science Research 31, 4: 205--209.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sei-Ching Joanna Sin, C. S. Lee, and Y. Theng. 2016. Social Q&A question-and-comments interactions and qutcomes: A social sequence analysis. ICADL. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kok-Sing Tang and P. John Williams. 2019. STEM literacy or literacies? Examining the empirical basis of these constructs. Review of Education 7, 3: 675--697.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dov Te'eni. 1990. Perceived costs and benefits as determinants of user behaviour: an experiment with matchmaking. Behaviour & Information Technology 9, 1: 31--45.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Stanley Wasserman and Katherine Faust. 1995. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications (Structural Analysis in the Social Sciences). Cambridge University Press, New York, USA.Google Scholar
- Robert E Wood. 1986. Task complexity: Definition of the construct. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 37, 1: 60--82.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Qian Wu, Dion Hoe-Lian Goh, and Chei Sian Lee. 2020. Generating collective online information sharing: The framing effect of questions on response network. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 246--252.Google Scholar
- Qian Wu, Dion Hoe-Lian Goh, and Chei Sian Lee. 2020. The framing effect of questions in community question-answering sites. HCI International 2020 - Posters, 246--252.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Asking for help in community question-answering: the goal-framing effect of question expression on response networks
Recommendations
Summarizing Answers in Non-Factoid Community Question-Answering
WSDM '17: Proceedings of the Tenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data MiningWe aim at summarizing answers in community question-answering (CQA). While most previous work focuses on factoid question-answering, we focus on the non-factoid question-answering. Unlike factoid CQA, non-factoid question-answering usually requires ...
A community question-answering refinement system
HT '11: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM conference on Hypertext and hypermediaCommunity Question Answering (CQA) websites, which archive millions of questions and answers created by CQA users to provide a rich resource of information that is missing at web search engines and QA websites, have become increasingly popular. Web ...
Vote calibration in community question-answering systems
SIGIR '12: Proceedings of the 35th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrievalUser votes are important signals in community question-answering (CQA) systems. Many features of typical CQA systems, e.g. the best answer to a question, status of a user, are dependent on ratings or votes cast by the community. In a popular CQA site, ...
Comments