To improve the user experience, it is appropriate to re-examine

"Do you know if it has become a forum?", "What's the difference between knowing and Baidu?", "What is the essential difference between knowing and Liyi?" Zhihu.com appear such novice questions, always let those senior users have a feeling of being offended, and their answers often will bring a little disdain and despise: "Such a problem if more, the two really no difference." ”

In fact, there is at least one obvious difference between the two, which is explained in the guide: "Knowing that some places are really like Wikipedia, and that community members can edit together." For example, topics, questions, supplemental explanations of issues, topic descriptions, and so on, and each community member can modify them more accurately and appropriately to contribute to the community. ”。 That is to say, the problem that the user raises can even be modified by other user.

However, this feature has recently produced a huge controversy. Because a new user asked a question: "My boyfriend is coming to Beijing and we are now predicting we have a 99% chance of living together, so what should I do to prepare?", in fact, the user's intention is the boyfriend from the field, cohabitation needs to do what life preparation, but was modified by other users as " What am I supposed to do with my boyfriend?, resulting in a large number of responses being quickly directed to the sex life guide, such as "anti-racket burglar ready set!", "buy some toilet paper to enjoy the climax", and even more excessively: "Who Wants to marry a girl who has been kept by others for years?". The questioner changed the question back to the other user many times, the last questioner unbearable, put forward the last question to quit: "Know now more and more boring, those people at will change other people's problems, really let a person disappointed." Quit, no longer know, do not know whether there are the same angry people? ”。

The issue was answered unanimously by a large number of senior users: "Go and send." , and the problem was quickly modified by other users: "How do you see the public editing function that you know?", "Does the user have the right to modify other people's problems?" again, deviating from the original question. A subsequent protest by a "malicious user" continued to escalate the incident, and he wrote in an "in-person" way directly in the supplementary note to the question: "... A problem everyone change to change, as long as they think that the person than the questioner can come to show a small hand, such as I add this one. That's right?。。。 , then many users involved in the modification and controversy, and some senior users bounce-type proposed: "Know whether should be rejected low-end users?" Finally, the "malicious user" in the ensuing controversy was reported by many people, the administrator froze the account, the incident was dismissed.

It is known that the foreign social question and answer community quora.com in the domestic cottage version, from the functional settings and user interface style are the same. Although there are some problems with the operation of Quora.com, there is no such controversy. The larger, more successful stackoverflow.com is more enviable, users can easily in a large amount of questions and answers to find their content of interest, the problem can be edited by other users, but both new and old users can live in harmony. Moreover, Wikipedia, as one of the originator of the user's free editing content, has no controversy over the success of its overall operation. So why do the same functions bring different results?

In fact, the operation of these mature network systems is only for the platform itself, basically does not involve the user to create content process. In other words, Yun-Wei is only responsible for setting up the stage, and not to intervene in the performance, content generation and maintenance by the user spontaneous completion. This requires that the background is smart enough to recognize the behavior of different users and give different priorities.

For example, StackOverflow to each user set a reputation value, reputation high users can obtain higher permissions, and reputation value is based on its answer by all users of the vote, than the loading of the personnel directly involved, is a relatively fair result.

Similar examples are the recent foreign travel site Orbitz through data mining found by user Terminal classification (MAC) different consumption habits to recommend different grades of hotels (link), and Amazon.com's analysis of user buying behavior is categorized as a variety of features, although the privacy protection is widely criticized, but so that Amazon has the ability to do "than you know You", which reflects the network platform to use the data capabilities.

In fact, the pros and cons of the background design for the user experience is indirect, but it is decisive, and many internet entrepreneurs in China do not realize this, the focus on the user experience focus on the interface, this is trifles behavior.

If you give it a second divergence, the recent attempt to increase revenue through a fee-for-membership system has been linked to the lack of revenue from personalized, personalized advertising tailored to the user's characteristics, as promised for a permanent free Facebook, to some extent revealing the inadequacy of its backstage core competencies. A common phenomenon can be seen in the Internet industry: it is only one example of a domestic web site that can only fake the UI of Silicon Valley peers and never get the real core competencies-back-end data mining, analytics, and the consequent ability to fully exploit the business value of the data that users contribute. Because of the openness of JavaScript and CSS, the UI is easy to copy, but what if a community network doesn't become smarter as users contribute more and more, can it develop sustainably?

It is from the direct user experience, in some traditional BBS to social network migration trend (for example, the water and wood Community added @ hint and reply reminder function, etc.), know that the difference between the traditional BBS forum is decreasing, at least from the experience of ordinary users indeed. If you know that there are some professionals to provide a higher quality of the answer, the traditional BBS's essence also accumulates a large number of high-level users contribute valuable information. But both have the same "rule of man" abuses: in the traditional BBS, novice need a senior user acceptance process, otherwise it will be ignored. For novice and old users of the conflict, the version and station staff will favor the old user, for example, the violation of the old user will often be ignored, or immediately after the punishment, the new user's punishment is very strict; in the same situation, the same function, such as the modification of the problem, the use of senior users is to "help improve the problem" or even "Help others improve", the new people often is "disruptive" and "incorrect use", or even be deducted "malicious user" hat. This can cause a splitting of the user base. In the knowledge often see old users criticize new users "Ask the question too water", "Use the wrong way of knowing," you should read carefully before you ask questions ", or even" go back to Baidu Bar to play, this is not for you "and so on, this user experience is not conducive to the growth of the number of active users.

From the SOFTWARE product design point of view, a software based on the permissions set to provide users with the function should be available, users do not need to pay special attention to the use of a bunch of subjective "principles." If the "problem" is used, the product developer should think of ways to improve, rather than blaming the user for "improper use", which is the correct way to do the product. It is now known that the programmer does not make the legality judgment, the user enters a letter in the digital box, the system is down. So the programmer found that the wrong user to scold, said this user does not see the hint, mean to trouble! This basic conceptual error should not exist in an entrepreneurial team.

It is not too late to mend, if you know that the team is constantly analyzing problems to improve product awareness, this event should be of great value, at least it exposes the following deficiencies:

1. The background of the data analysis of the lack of mining ability to understand the user's ability to identify deficiencies, can only through the operation of a large number of human intervention to maintain the "order."

2. The operation and maintenance team has assumed such a large responsibility, but the reality is that their level is insufficient, the handling style is not uniform, unprofessional. Operation and maintenance personnel can not deal with the problem rationally, guide the direction correctly, but with tendentious intervene the dispute, the unfair treatment way often cannot solve the problem, but will intensify the contradiction.

3. Due to the lack of technical background, the management team it is customary to attribute some problems in the community to "malicious user" malicious behavior, rather than from the perspective of functional design to look at the problem, that the system designed to expose these vulnerabilities to the user out of the problem will naturally disappear, and then lost the opportunity to optimize the system platform.

4. The contradiction between maintaining an early atmosphere and expanding the size of users. Emotionally, it's about trying to maintain an atmosphere of early coterie, but as an entrepreneurial team, it's expected to expand market share and bring rewards to investors and entrepreneurial teams. In the case of a certain problem in the platform, there are quite a lot of contradictions in these two directions, and the inconsistency between the early circle and the new circle is one of the causes of the tension between the new and old users.

5. The case of copying Silicon Valley blindly, the lack of innovation, and even the lack of customized features adapted to the characteristics of domestic users, which fundamentally limits its growth space.

In short, as a network Community system, should have set up a perfect system of rules, so that users to operate as simple as possible, good at automatic screening and display high-quality content, as far as possible to eliminate the operation and maintenance intervention content creation process. From this point of view, the knowledge of the functional design is very bad, especially the background data analysis is basically missing, resulting in community fragmentation, latent rules rampant, in fact, the formation of majority tyranny, in the name of justice to do evil.

In order to improve the user experience, we need to know the team to re-examine the product design, focus on the background data analysis function, perfect the rule system, the whole product reconstruction. In addition, the need for professional training to improve the level of operators, so that they from the BBS moderator management thinking into the network community service thinking, so that the platform can have a future.