We examine how the behavior of software developers changes in response to removing gamification elements from GitHub, an online platform for collaborative programming and software development. We find that the unannounced removal of daily activity streak counters from the user interface (from user profile pages) was followed by significant changes in behavior. Long-running streaks of activity were abandoned and became less common. Weekend activity decreased and days in which developers made a single contribution became less common. Synchronization of streaking behavior in the platform's social network also decreased, suggesting that gamification is a powerful channel for social influence. Focusing on a set of software developers that were publicly pursuing a goal to make contributions for 100 days in a row, we find that some of these developers abandon this quest following the removal of the public streak counter. Our findings provide evidence for the significant impact of gamification on the behavior of developers on large collaborative programming and software development platforms. They urge caution: gamification can steer the behavior of software developers in unexpected and unwanted directions.

Software developers are social creatures: they communicate, collaborate, and promote their work in a variety of channels. Twitter, GitHub, Stack Overflow, and other platforms offer developers opportunities to network and exchange ideas. Researchers analyze content on these sites to learn about trends and topics in software engineering. However, insight mined from the text of Stack Overflow questions or GitHub issues is highly focused on detailed and technical aspects of software development. In this paper, we present a relatively new online community for software developers called DEV. On DEV users write long-form posts about their experiences, preferences, and working life in software, zooming out from specific issues and files to reflect on broader topics. About 50,000 users have posted over 140,000 articles related to software development. In this work, we describe the content of posts on DEV using a topic model, showing that developers discuss a rich variety and mixture of social and technical aspects of software development. We show that developers use DEV to promote themselves and their work: 83% link their profiles to their GitHub profiles and 56% to their Twitter profiles. 14% of users pin specific GitHub repos in their profiles. We argue that DEV is emerging as an important hub for software developers, and a valuable source of insight for researchers to complement data from platforms like GitHub and Stack Overflow.

Programming is a valuable skill in the labor market, making the underrepresentation of women in computing an increasingly important issue. Online question and answer platforms serve a dual purpose in this field: they form a body of knowledge useful as a reference and learning tool, and they provide opportunities for individuals to demonstrate credible, verifiable expertise. Issues, such as male-oriented site design or overrepresentation of men among the site’s elite may therefore compound the issue of women’s underrepresentation in IT. In this paper we audit the differences in behavior and outcomes between men and women on Stack Overflow, the most popular of these Q&A sites. We observe significant differences in how men and women participate in the platform and how successful they are. For example, the average woman has roughly half of the reputation points, the primary measure of success on the site, of the average man. Using an Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition, an econometric technique commonly applied to analyze differences in wages between groups, we find that most of the gap in success between men and women can be explained by differences in their activity on the site and differences in how these activities are rewarded. Specifically, 1) men give more answers than women and 2) are rewarded more for their answers on average, even when controlling for possible confounders such as tenure or buy-in to the site. Women ask more questions and gain more reward per question. We conclude with a hypothetical redesign of the site’s scoring system based on these behavioral differences, cutting the reputation gap in half.

In recent years crowdfunding has diversified and grown beyond most experts' projections. Originally aiming to serve venture ideas and entrepreneurs outside the focus of traditional capital markets, the crowdfunding marketplace has developed a complicated relationship with novel ideas. Yet, there is little to no research on the relationship between project novelty and success in crowdfunding. This paper measures the novelty of crowdfunding campaigns using the content and language of their pitches, capturing their tendency to combine different venture sectors and topics in distinctive ways. Using a unique data set that covers four years of activity on a leading equity crowdfunding platform, we investigate the link between novelty and success, as well as how novelty appeals to different kinds of investors. We find that novelty derived from campaign pitches is negatively related with fundraising success even when controlling for quality and style of writing. We also find that novel campaigns are more likely to attract less-frequent, large-sum investors. Our findings contribute to the long-standing debate related to the trade-offs between innovativeness and conventionality in maximizing chances of startup survival. Our results also have important implications for entrepreneurs writing fundraising pitches and for platform providers who wish to facilitate successful innovation.