Would You Like To Play A Game? – What is Gamification

Would you like to play a game?

Gamification is the process of taking a task or a series of tasks that must be completed and applying game design principles to engage and motivate people, or players, to completion.

When people are motivated they will often complete tasks faster and by increasing engagement with a task we see that repeated performance often leads to increased efficiency as well as improved accuracy overall.

If we consider day to day tasks in the workplace it may be possible to take a mundane or boring task and apply game principles to bring a new sense of interest or enjoyment, increasing user engagement and productivity. Gamification of a complex process can also aid in the learning process as complexity can be broken down into smaller stages or levels.

Gamification is a relatively new concept first conceived in the early 00’s, and as such, often confused with Game Theory, which is defined as “the study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between decision makers”, and was first proposed in the 1930’s.

Principles:

If we look at a task from beginning to end with various steps or stages that must be completed or passed, this story makes up the pitch or board on which the game is played as well as identifying the parameters which can be called the game rules.

The most common terms in Gamification are:

• Points,
• Badges,
• Levels,
• Leader boards,
• Challenges

Players are motivated by a combination of these terms. Completing minor tasks or minor elements of a task will earn the player points. More efficient play often rewards more points.

Points mean prizes:

The earliest form of gamification we are aware of is the frequent flyer programmes. Miles were equal to points and points could be converted into more flights, services and various prizes.

Of course the notion of points is completely arbitrary and completely at the discretion of the company who produces the programme.   

Badge of honour:

Earning points can be seen as an entry point in gamification techniques and thought of as personal motivation for the player. The next stage is the introduction of badges. A Badge is more of a social motivation.  

Badges are usually associated with player profiles, an outward display of the players individual success that is accessible by other team members of in some cases by the public. 

Badges are often earned for completion of specific tasks for example:

• Earning a certain level of points,
• completing a task under a time limit, or
• completing multiple or repeated tasks.

Badges are an identifier which is beneficial for highlighting a players best attributes within the game or task. Has this player earned a badge for accuracy, speed or number of tasks completed etc. While the player seeks to achieve the associated badges for personal gain, from the perspective of the company or person who is analysing the game statistics it can be extremely beneficial to review badges accumulated by the players. People with specific badges can be identified as high potential candidates for example 

Follow the Leader:

Taking this to the next stage we often see the addition of challenges and leader boards. While we are personally motivated to complete a task at a local or personal level, by adding a leader board we bring the game into a wider group or social context. Leader boards for the most part often equal little in the way of additional monetary reward but generally rely on pride as a motivator. Sometimes a grand prize for the top competitor is awarded, but for every other position comes the bragging rights associated with being one step ahead of a rival.  

The Applications:

Gamification has been on a steady rise over the last few years across almost every sector, but most visibly within retail if we take the example of the rewards card. We have now entered the age where purchasing your morning coffee along with your petrol means you can be a step closer to a holiday voucher, or picking up a specific fabric detergent at the weekend means double points added to your total shopping spend. Gamification has converted the mundane task of running out for shopping into a quest.

The Author Mark Twain in the classic tale of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn tells a story where Tom is charged with painting a fence as a punishment. By using reverse psychology on a group of other children he convinces them that painting the fence is great fun and they complete the task for him. Perhaps this is an early seed of the gamification philosophy

“Work consists of whatever a body is obliged to do, and that Play consists of whatever a body is not obliged to do “ – Mark Twain

The Dark Side:

If all of the above can be seen as positives it would be remiss to complete this article without at least pointing to potential negative uses. For example now that everything can be made into a game are you happy to be a player, or are you even aware that you are playing? Are special offers aimed at regular engaged players, or in some cases, is an offer only given to attract new players as a way to build habit and attract more regular play? Can the player be manipulated into actions which benefit the distributor more than the consumer?

The next time you are offered a rewards card or a special offer you may as yourself is this a game you want to play. Whatever the case may be and however you look at it, gamification is here to stay,

So get your game face on.            

“Originally Posted to the GemPool blog ” 

Another stupid Idea!

Let me start by saying that while I don’t really watch much RTE, I will publicly state that I do have a TV licence and will continue to pay my due so my points are not about the fairness of the payment or the quality of the service.

“The evasion rate was estimated at 12%”

If my hairline wasn’t already receding I would worry because every day the government manages to come up with another stupid rule or law that makes me want to pull my hair out, and this week we have reached that point again.

Our state broadcaster RTE is funded mostly by TV licence* subscriptions, a payment per household, for the convenience of having a broadcast receiving unit (Ye olde television). But some people don’t pay and have unlicensed TV’s in their homes, the rotters!. Anyhoo, By recent estimates we’re talking around 12% of the economy doesn’t pay. Now if you look at the statistics for poverty and people living under poverty line, according to actual sources this number is 16%

Poverty statistic for Ireland

So by looking at both rough figures we can still estimate, not taking into account the odd rich pr1k who won’t pay, that there could be up to 4% of limited income or poor folk who still pay their licence fee.

Get to the point you say?

Well the government announced today that they want to grant An Post the power to access your Sky and UPC account details. They want to use this information against the TV license registry to see who has an entertainment subscription but doesn’t have a licence. An innovative idea you say!

Let me say this, if this government have shown time and time again that they have little regard for data protection. A high profile example of course was that Alan Shatter, ex-Minister for Justice, did breach data protection guidelines when he discussed Mick Wallace’s police caution live on TV. The Data Commissioner called foul!

Let me tell you that your data is worth more than you think it is. Name and address details. Credit card, bank account, contact number. Payment history, payment method. Your mobile phone number. For a start if we combine all the Sky and UPC accounts per household, thats a lot of information to handle. This would be live data which needs to be stored and cross referenced.

Secondly, by what method are they planning to do this analysis? If we’re talking about storing and cross examining millions of licence holders and millions of sky and UPC accounts then I can promise you An Post is buying, or has already bought, a new system to do this processing.

Its not believable to assume that this process could be done manually without a massive number of staff so the only logical conclusion is that yet again a state body has been spending money on consultants and private sector expertise. Anyone care to order an FOI for me? (Usual questions attached, was there a tender process, who bid etc.)

To catch a small number of people who are not paying, around 10%, (and who knows, with all the empty houses in Ireland this figure could be lower), our government is willing to change laws and access private data. Where is the data commissioners statement on this??

The problem once again in my opinion is stupidity in government, or worse, misdirection. First of all are advisers from the private sector continually selling expensive solutions to every problem we encounter? Every time some new initiative or working group is set up the first piece of news we hear is oh no, they have already spent X million on consultants.

The second problem stems from having read the shock doctrine . Access to private data has been steam rolled by the government to deal with the scourge of payment evaders. Let me state again, if this figure is 10-12% and the national poverty line is 16% then while this evasion figure is notable, its also expected and easily explained. In my opinion we are just opening a legal door that side steps data privacy and could have very little to do with TV licences in the long term. Without any consultation or public debate your private information has been scooped up by An Post.

Ok Enda, you always give out but you never give answers?

Well let me make a proposal. If the TV licence is an unavoidable government payment, a Tax if you will, and the evasion figure is similar to the national poverty line where people cannot afford to pay, why not make it tax deductible. Tie it to your PPS. Let it come out of your gross income rather than net. I guarantee you this, If you made this change, not only would you see an increase in compliance, you would see a lot of people actually happy to pay

*Are they calling this a broadcast licence now?

You can read more about this story here

You cen see more on TV licences in Ireland here

Go forth and Wear!

Modern convenience?

I just don’t get Google Wear. Maybe its tech that will pass me by, or maybe I’m just waiting for version 2.0

Along with the smartphone that lasts less than a day with fairly standard use, why not also get yourself a new wrist watch that also only lasts 1 day between charges. Wrist watches, remember them? In fact if there was one thing I remember about the last time I wore a watch it was the inconvenience that the battery only needed to be replaced once every year or two……said nobody ever.

Sorry Google, I’m not going to be an early adopter this time.

Get your Gear…here:  Google Shop (Ireland)

Are you feeling Happy Or Sad yet?

By now I hope you will have heard of a new negative story about Facebook that from my perspective is absolutely shocking.

According to Facebook, they recently ran a wide scale psychological experiment through the site by manipulating the news feed of almost 700,000* Facebook users.

Without telling anyone, Facebook selected or censored content that was either deemed positive or negative to see what impact this would have on the viewer. Would continual exposure to mostly negative stories make a user more likely to post their own negative status update, or conversely would exposure to mostly positive stories promote a more positive outlook in the users updates.

The results of the study did in fact corroborate the hypothesis, but to be fair, the idea of mob mentality is nothing new. There is of course the novelty factor involved in applying this to a social media platform but in my opinion there are incredible negative connotations to be associated with this story.

As yet I haven’t found out the criteria that were used in the selection process, and it may be the case that they simply chose users at random, but this starts to get to the main points that most will find unacceptable. People involved in the experiment were not told that they were being experimented on. The psychological states of people were being manipulated on a grand scale and Facebook seems to be fine with this. Its completely irresponsible to play with random peoples emotional state in such a flippant manner. Without full transparency, could there have been people suffering from actual psychological conditions such as depression who were exposed by a bombardment of negative stories while being blocked from receiving positive stories? While I accept that I’m drawing out the most negative potential outcome from this type of manipulation we have to accept that without warning or consent the emotional states of hundreds of thousands of people were actively manipulated by Facebook.

Cornell university initially reported that the study had received funding from a number of external sources, including the US military, but they have since updated this to say that the study received no external funding. Now that the cat is out of the bag, which do you believe?

The Cornell paper can be viewed here

The full Story report here

* (Actual figure = 689,003 user profiles)

Thats not good Google!

YouTube, managed by Google, is about to fall out with a lot of people.

I know some people who you would call “Apple Fan-boys”, those guys who have picked up every piece of hardware apple have produced and refuse without discussion to pick up anything android based.

I, on the other hand, would probably consider myself a Google-ite. From my android phone to my chrome browser, gmail, Google Music, Docs, Keep and Google books, there is very little they have done in recent years that hasn’t completely won me over.

The Background:

I’ll start by pointing out that YouTube wasn’t always a Google company, just in case you didn’t already know. Over the years Google have brought YouTube deeper into the big G family. Google recently annoyed the entire internet by forcing people to set up a Google+ account in order to comment on a video. Google were saying this was to try and eliminate internet trolls and was an anti bullying tactic, but most saw through this as an effort to grow the Google+ user base, a platform that is only used by Google employees, nerds, and me.

The move was such a disaster that Google had to roll back the plan. People would rather not comment than be forced into something they don’t want. While the real world has bricks and mortar shops and buildings with limited space and options, an internet service is purely a link on your laptop and the web is absolutely chock full with links, so if this one doesn’t work lets see what is next. Every day small companies are trying to build the next video sharing platform that will kill YouTube and eventually one will succeed.

Lets be honest, the internet is all bout content, and with that the content producers. Everyt time you upload a new cat video you are actually putting money in Googles pocket. Its all fine and well have the most technically impressive website, but if the content isn’t cool or relevant you won’t have returning customers. Facebook mixes your personal contact content with your interests, but if everyone in your family and friends list suddenly stopped posting updates, or moved to a different platform wouldn’t you want to know what was going on there instead?

A historical lesson is VHS vs. Betamax (Ask your parents).

Sony produced a superior quality unit, but JVC built stronger links with the content producers, the movie studios. As the movie rental market exploded and all of the latest movies were available on VHS but not so much on Betamax, you didn’t really care that it had a barely noticeable difference in resolution.

Even in more modern times across the console wars, all that kids care about is can I get this game on my console. If the answer is no, either your parents are going to have to buy a second console or you are going to have to decide which console you support and which one you don’t, and in the latter case that means one console looses.

But lets get back to YouTube.

Google are are about to launch a new premium music video service and recently reached out to all of the music labels who have content on YouTube. I have yet to see anyone repost these contracts so I guess there is a lot of legal stuff they don’t want repeated. They had a number of new rules and regulations that they wanted everyone to sign up to, but for unknown reasons a lot of the indie labels decided not to respond.

From various sites I’ve seen that this accounts for roughly 10% of the labels, possibly 10% of the music too. Of course this means 90% of the labels did respond so with that kind of majority why aren’t people focusing on Googles latest victory. I guess when you hear that artists like Adele, The Arctic Monkeys and Radiohead are part of the 10% you have to start asking questions.

The artists mentioned above are extremely well known so I’m guessing they aren’t relying on YouTube for revenue to feed their families, but there have to be smaller labels who received letters from YouTube management that simply left them with no choice but to sign up or else. I don’t think that the 10% figure of holdouts is an accurate picture of the discontent.

Don’t Be Evil

Googles tag line in business is “Don’t be evil”. While not quite “always do good”, which would sound more like a proactive call to arms, its more of a guideline for how they do business. With some of the recent changes and events at Google you have to wonder if they can continue to not be a little bit bold.

YouTube is a content drive platform which is currently free due to built in advertising. The free music service would deliver strictly music video content minus the ads. A video Spotify premium if you will, but again its content driven. The customer pays for the premium tier so they can access the content, but only if the content we want is there.

Good Music – Real Music.

As a DJ and music fan I spent many hours in record shops and flea markets looking for music and while not specifically shunning all commercial radio, I didn’t expect to hear all the underground gems I was searching for sandwiched between all the twee pop tracks.

I don’t think its just a personal opinion that most commercial music doesn’t have an edge.

I think a sharp edge is scary, and can be a hard sell. I think when you’re considering profit as the most important aspect (And it is called the music business) its far easier to take the safer option, the lowest common denominator in most cases. This generally means the larger labels, despite their larger budgets, rarely take risks. So where does this leave the underground music, the raw sound, the sharp edge? Why of course, the indie labels.

Small, flexible, risky, this is the indie label. They are the first platform, the engine room, the incubator for musical freedom. Not concerned with marketing or focus groups they often have a very strong core message that the major labels lack.

Final Thoughts?

If TV is the new radio and video killed the  radio star, then YouTube is the platform where so many young people will be searching to find that new and unique piece of music that reaches inside and touches them at a personal level. While thats a lot of ifs I still have one more to add. If Google’s new deal for YouTube premium will effectively block a lot of indie labels and underground music, shouldn’t someone remind Google that denying access to content or information is censorship, and that most people consider unjustified censorship as evil.

While a minor change to YouTube annoyed a lot of people, a major change that blocks or limits certain content could make a lot of people look elsewhere. The internet at the end of the day is still all about free choice.

More on the story here

We’re listening

We’ve recently emerged into a new post Snowden era.

Once upon a time we believed that some evil governments in far off countries were targeting the phone lines of specific terrorists and troublemakers, however, in the new digital age it has transpired that governments all over the world have actively recorded and analysed all data traffic at a wholesale level.

On the back of “anti-terrorism legislation” we have seen governments claim justification for listening in on every phone call and email sent around the globe. All the “worst case scenario” security concerns of the digital age, where all of our personal data is stored in the cloud, have been realised and now privacy has been exchanged for a cheap cloth blanket of pseudo security. You are safe, but we are watching.

Vodafone, one of the largest global network providers has recently gone on the offensive by naming and shaming the governments and agencies who have been requesting user information and call data.

Across Europe there are very strict guidelines for data protection and more again at a national level. Germany of course has some of the strictest in Europe. Facebook recently came into conflict with the Irish data regulations when users started requesting files on what data Facebook had stored on them.

I think all Irish Vodafone users should be concerned by one line in the press release:

“Irish authorities have asked Vodafone not to publish information on what sort of data is intercepted here”.

Under the data regulations we have a personal right to know how our data is being used or accessed by the company, while at a national level we also have a right (for the moment at least) to freedom of information on most matters relating to government activities.

While it is a certainty that lawful investigations are being carried out on criminal activity around the country, the concern starts to creep in that perhaps unlawful surveillance is being carried out on a larger scale. It is certain that if our authorities are requesting silence or censorship from Vodafone that something is happening that they do not want the general public to know.

Surely those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear? True, but we do live in a society where you are innocent until proven guilty.

More on the story here: BreakingNews

 

The Things I Hate About Social Media (Ironically in a blog)

Preamble 

Historically I’ve always been that person who leaps to Facebook every time I get a nice plate of food, or someone flashes an inflammatory headline my direction. I guess I’ve moved from the kid who wanted to ban the news from TV to the man who wants to hear the headlines from the political party conference and I’m finding it difficult to pinpoint where the switch happened, but I assume it was probably around the time I got married and started thinking about starting a family of my own.

Its an interesting segue too because this was around the time the social media was really beginning to sprout, specifically the demise of Bebo and the explosion of Facebook. Bebo as a platform had pretty much run its course. Cluttered with spam, riddled with viruses and I feel somehow the makers just seemed to lose interest in how the information was delivered. Once Facebook opened its doors to the general public there was an exodus. Facebook was clean and fresh. In comparison to Bebo, it was grown-up, mature and professional. At least in the beginning.

Entropy

The desire of any system designer should be longevity hand in hand with efficiency. To deliver the best simple solution with the least amount of resources which will last the longest amount of time and for a social media platform this approach is exactly the same. How do we make it easy to share and how do we make it easy for people to view content without irritation.

But there will always be the bell curve that maps out the rise and fall, the entropy driven heat death of the universe that see’s the natural end to a system as it collapses into a shambles. As an example Consider the game of Jenga. The perfect game can last a long time, but its the minute differences in placement or balance that collapse the tower prematurely.

Let me finish this section by saying I do believe that the glue that holds us in place, or the gravity that draws us into social media is the fear we would miss something. Gossip. Something the Irish in particular really love. If a tree falls in a wood and everyone else heard it except you, what sound did it make?.

So after thinking about what draws us in and keeps us tied to social media we finally get to my list. The things I hate, and the things that irritate. Basically the elements which start off potentially as features or attractions and eventually become the bugbear that makes you dread clicking on the link to visit the site. Ultimately the things that drive us away from social media interaction.

The List (In No Particular Order)

• Context,
• Brevity,
• Group-size,
• Content,
• Quality,
• Privacy,
• Family

You may not agree with me, and you may have more to add, but read on and I’ll offer further commentary

Context

So much commentary and quotation these days is out of context the use of reference is almost pointless. I can easily grab a single line from a larger quote, stick it into a meme generator and attribute an authority figure to back up my argument. If this is one possible context issue, consider Facebook posts, or worse still, tweets. A couple of phrases to make a statement highlighting your current mood or situation. But its a one dimensional representation in most cases. Posting is often driven by emotion. But after the fact, on reflection, would you have posted, and now in the cold light of day has the context been lost, would others understand where you were coming from. If a comment is a one dimensional representation, what exactly is a like? While you might think you understood the reason someone told a joke or made a comment, when we return a comment, or worse post a negative response, do we think about the emotional state that person is currently experiencing. Perhaps you yourself have had a bad experience and the comment or tweet you read is the final straw so you unleash that state on someone else. Good old context.

Brevity

Hand in hand with context this is really a killer for me. Ok perhaps I don’t fully get Twitter. But reducing comments, and interaction to 140 characters, including hastags and “@whoevers” is a potential minefield. Its troll fodder. It sparks conflict. I’m not specifically saying its all twitters fault here. Brevity leads to lack of context. There’s the assumption that people know what you mean, what you’re talking about, why you posted what you did but consider someone turning on a laptop and catching a twitter exchange mid conversation. Brevity in social media, especially real-time platforms such as Twitter is something I can’t abide.

Group-size

Remember Facebook year one? It was quiet. You really didn’t know that many people who were on it and as your friends list grew slowly your news feed was relevant and entertaining. People you linked in with shared your experience, or you had shared an experience and wanted to keep in contact. A lot of it, from my perspective at least, was converting the old Bebo contacts into Facebook friends, at least the ones I wanted to keep. But on the new platform of Facebook, isn’t Un-Friending someone a bit of a social no-no. Unless you’ve really fallen out with someone you don’t just cut them off. So the social group grows and grows. And do you remember why you friended that guy from that night out or that girl you spoke with on holiday, and did you know they were into those awful sites or stories or “likes” that keep popping up in your feed or that they are so upset by that last topic you liked or commented on? I’ve heard the word “cull” being used a lot recently. People taking to their “friend” list with a fine tooth comb and reducing it to people they actually “real world” know.

Content

Funny cats, Food Pics, “Look I’m on holiday”, Meme’s, Reposts, Urban legends, Inaccurate content and lies. The swings and roundabouts of “I really care”, to “I couldn’t care less”. The like farming, the social engineering. Skimming through comments takes its time, but sitting through hours or video and audio clips because 10 people thought it was funny so you have to click and listen. Now Facebook is even launching video clips when you scroll over them to pre-empt your decision to play. Less is actually more, but to find less quality do you need to consume more. Entropy. Chaos!

Quality

Or lack there of . See Content.

Privacy

You laughed when your friend fell over in that club. Someone took a picture. Now there’s a picture of you on the internet, drunk in a club, almost wearing your clothes, laughing as your best friend falls over and gets injured. Oh if only that was the worst picture you had on the net. How many comments have you added. How many forums or groups have you joined. How many threads were you involved in that descended into chaos. If your boss searched just your name how long would it take to find a negative comment. In the real world we forgive and forget. Sometimes we forgive because we forget. So don’t we have the right to forget. Can we delete and clear the slate?

Family

Its great to meet family. Its great to talk about the weather, and the shared experience of childhood. But now that Mum is a “friend” are you really sure she wants to read all your past and future posts. Multiply that across the family spectrum. Aunty Nora was great fun last Christmas, but she is almost embarrassed to meet you next week because she saw those Ibiza pics of you doing the body shots of vodka off that bikini clad girl who wasn’t your fiancé. Yes, Family. Wasn’t it easier when you met up once a year and just talked about school and holidays?

Anyway, its getting late, I’m getting tired and I’ll probably return to this list in time, and expand on each.

I suppose brevity isn’t my strong point and I wanted to give you context. Also its my first new blog post so I thought I’d make it a doozy.