From kim.rose at vpri.org Tue Sep 8 09:22:35 2009 From: kim.rose at vpri.org (Kim Rose) Date: Tue Sep 8 09:22:33 2009 Subject: [etoys-dev] Re: [squeakland] account signup fields In-Reply-To: <9E35EC46-AC4B-4C7A-A21A-DFBEE71A0629@waveplace.com> References: <2D449778-7092-421F-93FC-9C265CDEFAE2@squeakland.org> <9867C6B9-EB4B-4039-88BA-E50F1DC0D1BC@squeakland.org> <9E35EC46-AC4B-4C7A-A21A-DFBEE71A0629@waveplace.com> Message-ID: <7B26DA43-DDA9-4578-A2D5-76964204B5AD@vpri.org> I think the Scratch site is a great one to follow -- I am sure they are doing all they need to be "fully compliant" with all current rules and regs. Kim On Sep 8, 2009, at 9:19 AM, Timothy Falconer wrote: > Summarized: > > 1. Scratch requires an email address for all signups > > 2. Scratch doesn't give you an option to opt-out of emails in the > signup or website (i assume they do in mailings) > > 3. Scratch requires a birth month & year, and switches the field > label from "Email" to "Parent or guardian's Email" if too young > > Anyone with problems with doing things exactly like this? (though > I'd still keep the "newsletter" and "weekly highlights" checkboxes. > > > > > On Sep 8, 2009, at 12:13 PM, Timothy Falconer wrote: > >> Looks like we need a link from within the Etoys signup box to the >> privacy policy on the website. >> >> Someone should also think long and hard about this: >> >> http://www.coppa.org/comply.htm >> >> "The notice to parents must contain the same information included >> on the notice on the Web site. In addition, an operator must notify >> a parent that it wishes to collect personal information from the >> child; that the parent's consent is required for the collection, >> use and disclosure of the information; and how the parent can >> provide consent." >> >> "Before collecting, using or disclosing personal information from a >> child, an operator must obtain verifiable parental consent from the >> child's parent. This means an operator must make reasonable efforts >> (taking into consideration available technology) to ensure that >> before personal information is collected from a child, a parent of >> the child receives notice of the operator's information practices >> and consents to those practices." >> >> >> We're not planning on disclosing any of this information, but it >> seems to be saying here that we need proof of a parent's permission >> before the email address is collected. >> >> Scratch requires: birth date, email, gender, and country, with >> optional state/prov, and city. >> >> If you put in a birth date that's less than 13 years old, it >> switches the label from "email" to "email address of parent or >> guardian". >> >> http://scratch.mit.edu/signup >> >> Scratch's privacy policy is explicit: >> >> ---- >> >> When you register for an account on the website, we ask for some >> information. The only required information is your username, >> password, gender, country and your month and year of birth. >> >> We also ask for your city and state or province, but this >> information is optional. We do not ask for your name, phone number, >> or home address. >> >> If you are 13 or over, we ask for your email address so that we can >> tell you when there are important changes or new features in >> Scratch. However, you do not have to give us your email address to >> use either Scratch or the Scratch website. If you are under 13, we >> do not collect your email address. >> >> We do not make any of your profile information public on the >> website, except your username and country. >> >> ---- >> >> It doesn't come right out and say it, but email address (yours or >> your parents) *IS* required, if you want to post projects to the >> scratch website. (They actually seem to contradict this.) >> >> >> On Sep 8, 2009, at 10:06 AM, Timothy Falconer wrote: >> >>> My personal opinion on all this: >>> >>> Within Etoys: >>> >>> * username >>> * password (twice) >>> * email address >>> * send me Squeakland's quarterly newsletter >>> * send me weekly showcase highlights >>> >>> (general announcements = either newsletter or showcase box checked) >>> >>> >>> On the web signup page: >>> >>> (all of the above) >>> >>> * tell us about yourself >>> * first name >>> * last name >>> * country >>> * want friends see friends >>> * public first/last name >>> * public friend list >>> >>> >>> The only one I'm not sure about is "country", which might be good >>> within Etoys also. >>> >>> >>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 9:48 AM, Timothy Falconer wrote: >>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> We're debating which squeakland.org account fields to include >>>> when people sign up for a showcase account. Such signup could >>>> occur within Etoys itself ("create an account, it's free!") or on >>>> the website itself. >>>> >>>> Some constraints that have come up in the current conversation: >>>> >>>> 1) we want to limit the fields within Etoys because of vertical >>>> space limitations in the dialog box >>>> >>>> 2) we want to limit the mandatory fields to allow quicker signup >>>> >>>> 3) we want to assure that private information from children >>>> remains private (last name, other descriptive stuff, perhaps >>>> photos) >>>> >>>> >>>> Here's the central issue at hand, from my perspective . . . >>>> >>>> Signup is the key moment for Squeakland and Etoys from a >>>> community-building, user research, and publicity standpoint. >>>> >>>> It's the time when we'll get the largest number of people to: >>>> >>>> 1. subscribe to our newsletter >>>> >>>> 2. tell us about themselves (where they live, how they're using >>>> etoys, etc) >>>> >>>> 3. allow us to later email them questionnaires or announcements >>>> (squeakfest), etc. >>>> >>>> >>>> The vast majority of people that signup for a showcase account >>>> WILL NOT join the forums, or separately subscribe to the >>>> newsletter, or visit the chat channel, or join a mailing list. >>>> >>>> The people that will do these things should be considered >>>> "enthusiasts", and hence, people that we really don't need to >>>> convince ("preaching to the choir"). >>>> >>>> We could allow people to come back to their profile page and add >>>> this stuff, but MOST won't. Only enthusiasts, people we don't >>>> need to convince. >>>> >>>> >>>> Imagine hundreds of people who are mildly curious . . . the >>>> signup to check out their daughter's project on the showcase, >>>> which is otherwise hidden. They're intrigued enough to download >>>> Etoys. Like MOST PEOPLE, they go to sleep and forget all about >>>> it for months. Then comes our quarterly newsletter, and they >>>> read a cool story about Uruguay. The open up Etoys again and >>>> start playing around again. Maybe this time they'll stick with it. >>>> >>>> This is the essence of publicity and marketing . . . the >>>> drumbeat, the heartbeat, of our own activity, reminding people >>>> we're still here and doing great stuff. >>>> >>>> >>>> So that said, here's the fields we're considering: >>>> >>>> * username >>>> * password (twice) >>>> * email address >>>> >>>> These are the bare minimum, and the only required fields. >>>> >>>> More fields: >>>> >>>> * first name >>>> * last name >>>> * tell us about yourself >>>> >>>> These are currently on the newsletter subscribe form. >>>> Currently, none of this collected information appears on the >>>> website. We can keep these fields private in account profiles as >>>> well, to protect children. Nearly everyone who signs up for the >>>> newsletter writes a very useful description about their location, >>>> interest in Etoys, affiliated organization, etc. We have >>>> hundreds of these comments, which is invaluable for our community- >>>> building work. I'm strongly in favor of keeping the "tell us >>>> about yourself" field and not showing it unless explicit >>>> permission is given. >>>> >>>> * checkbox for newsletter >>>> * checkbox for general announcements >>>> * checkbox for weekly showcase highlights >>>> >>>> We want as many YES's for all three as we can get. More YESes >>>> mean more audience. People can always opt-out from any mailing, >>>> but it's in our best interest to at least ask them for a YES. >>>> >>>> To keep the in-Etoys box short, we could leave these out, but the >>>> question remains . . . what's the default? If all NO's, then we >>>> lose a major source of people who would otherwise have said YES. >>>> >>>> (I know that most of us have grown accustomed to always saying NO >>>> to such forms, but in our case, with our worldwide enthusiastic >>>> audience, it's more likely people will say yes, than no.) >>>> >>>> >>>> Other fields we could add by flipping a switch: >>>> >>>> * organization >>>> * address >>>> * address_two >>>> * city >>>> * state >>>> * zip/postal code >>>> * country >>>> * time zone >>>> * home phone >>>> * work phone >>>> * want my friends to see my friends >>>> * show my first/last name to public >>>> * show my friend list to public >>>> * photo/avatar >>>> >>>> >>>> The address fields were used for squeakfest registration, but >>>> likely shouldn't appear in showcase accounts, except perhaps for >>>> country. Likewise with the phones . . . we shouldn't ask. >>>> >>>> The last three are things we could add to the profile, defaulting >>>> to the most private settings. The underlying software has much >>>> of the functionality of sites like Facebook, etc. My current >>>> plan is to allow people and groups to "friend" other people, >>>> which will allow them to see their private Etoys projects. Such >>>> a thing happens when you "tell a friend" and include a message >>>> that's email to someone, which is a great way to build community. >>>> >>>> >>>> Lastly, we have full questionnaire support as well, so we can add >>>> any questions we want, though only to the web profile. Again, >>>> most people won't go back to fill out their profile, but we *can* >>>> send an announcement saying "Tell us more about yourself, fill >>>> out this quick questionnaire", but only if someone has said YES >>>> to general announcements. >>>> >>>> Anyway, let me know what you think about all this. We want this >>>> to be a community conversation. >>>> >>>> Take care, >>>> TIm >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> squeakland mailing list >>>> squeakland@squeakland.org >>>> http://lists.squeakland.org/mailman/listinfo/squeakland >>> >> > > -- > Timothy Falconer > Waveplace Foundation > http://waveplace.com > 610-797-3100 > > > > _______________________________________________ > etoys-dev mailing list > etoys-dev@squeakland.org > http://lists.squeakland.org/mailman/listinfo/etoys-dev From kim.rose at vpri.org Wed Sep 30 08:20:56 2009 From: kim.rose at vpri.org (Kim Rose) Date: Wed Sep 30 08:20:52 2009 Subject: [squeakland] Re: the reasons for ranking In-Reply-To: <1254322695.m2f.11554@squeakland.org/forums> References: <1254322695.m2f.11554@squeakland.org/forums> Message-ID: Hey, John, Nice to see you are still around and interested -- hope you are doing well. Thanks for the comments. As for me and Viewpoints -- there is one reason only for ranking and that is filtering in an attempt to bring the best educational examples and those illustrative of etoys' strengths to the attention of the community. So, I, for one, am hoping that those "voting" are not voting for any particular child, author or person, but for the example itself -- I hope those voting/ranking are asking "is this a fine exemplar to help teach a concept, principle, or powerful idea?". The more the example answers back with a "yes" the higher the rank. Also, the more complete an example the higher the rank. How disclosing of what the Etoy is meant to do is in the example? Does it have an explanation of what it is? If it is a game does it have instruction on how to play and the goal of the game? I hope that teachers who encourage their students to upload projects will *only* allow sharing if their student provides an "About" flap, or some intro/explanation of the Etoy and some instruction on where to start, the aim of the project, etc. The most beautiful simulation of something will fall completely flat with someone if they have no real idea of what they are looking at or what the script they are playing with is meant to do. Etoys are intended to teach and help us learn; learning cannot occur without context. No author should assume their project will be self disclosing; it will not. Our users have a variety of levels of expertise in both Etoys and subject matter areas; providing more context can only help. If there is no "ranking" in place and everything is posted the offerings soon get overwhelming and most difficult to navigate. We found this years ago when we had an active "super-swiki". Projects that were no more than a single sketch with no script at all were posted and only "muddied the waters" for those wading in an attempt to find something with some meaningful content. I hope the community will bear this in mind when "ranking" what gets uploaded and understand that not everyone can be represented in a featured showcase. -- Kim On Sep 30, 2009, at 7:58 AM, voiklis wrote: > Hello all, > > I apologize for joining this conversation so late; I am a longtime, > though recently quiet, member of the community. > > I understand that the ranking system is an attempt to enable people > to judge the quality of a contribution (or contributor) based on > some directly observable measure of reputation. On first sight, one > could argue that such a system overcomes the problem that in the > face-to-face world reputation is not directly observable. In order > to get an honest assessment of a person's reputation, one has to > invest a lot of time building trust with the people familiar with > that person. Even then, a trustworthy assessment requires direct > observation of the person's actions. > > A ranking system would appear to reduce that effort by half; knowing > the person's reputation among his/her peers, one only needs to > assess the work. > > The problem with that reasoning is that electronic ranking systems > are highly susceptible to manipulation. Building reputation becomes > the goal of the activity for many people and they use all sorts of > seemingly harmless social and technological means to inflate their > numbers. Our lab has been studying this phenomenon through both > observational studies of online communities and laboratory > experiments. The two papers below report on the phenomenon as it > presents itself in Digg, the news aggregation site. > > The first paper demonstrates that a tit-for-tat game of reciprocity > inflates the reputation of contributors and their contributions > without reflecting anything substantive about their contributions. > The second paper really brings out the negative consequences of this > phenomenon. The paper reports on an experiment where people judged > how interesting they found the contribution. The ranking values of > the articles were set by the investigator; sometime the rank of the > article was set high, at other times low. Experimental subjects > rated higher-ranked contributions as more interesting than lower > ranked contributions. The same article was rated as highly > interesting when its rank was set high and uninteresting when ranked > low. Duncan Watts (of small-world networks fame) observed the same > phenomenon with music rating. > > What this means in the present discussion is that people will likely > ignore low ranking contributions. Worse still, when they do actually > look at those contributions they are likely to see what the ranking > value led them to expect rather than the qualities of the > contribution itself. > > Unless we can find scientific research that demonstrates any > benefits to ranking, I think we should be wary of using such systems. > > All best, > > John > > Sadlon, E., Sakamoto, Y., Dever, H. J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2008). > The karma of Digg: Reciprocity in online social networks. In R. > Gopal and R. Ramesh (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th Annual Workshop > on Information Technologies and Systems. http://cog.mgnt.stevens-tech.edu/~yasu/papers/reciprocity.pdf > > Sakamoto, Y., Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2009). 2377 people like > this article: The influence of others' decisions on yours. In N. > Taatgen, H. van Rijn, L. Schomaker, and J. Nerbonne (Eds.), > Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science > Society.http://cog.mgnt.stevens-tech.edu/~yasu/papers/cogscidigg1.pdf > > Salganik, M. J., Dodds, P. S., and Watts, D. J. (2006). Experimental > study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural > market. Science, 311(5762):854-856. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1121066 > [/url] > > > > > -------------------- m2f -------------------- > > (from forum) > http://squeakland.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=11554#11554 > > -------------------- m2f -------------------- > _______________________________________________ > squeakland mailing list > squeakland@squeakland.org > http://lists.squeakland.org/mailman/listinfo/squeakland Viewpoints Research is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to improving "powerful ideas education" for the world's children and advancing the state of systems research and personal computing. Please visit us online at www.vpri.org