Quadratic Surveys (QSs) elicit more accurate preferences than traditional methods like Likert-scale surveys. However, the cognitive load associated with QSs has hindered their adoption in digital surveys for collective decision-making. We introduce a two-phase "organize-then-vote" QS to reduce cognitive load. As interface design significantly impacts survey results and accuracy, our design scaffolds survey takers' decision-making while managing the cognitive load imposed by QS. In a 2x2 between-subject in-lab study on public resource allotment, we compared our interface with a traditional text interface across a QS with 6 (short) and 24 (long) options. Two-phase interface participants spent more time per option and exhibited shorter voting edit distances. We qualitatively observed shifts in cognitive effort from mechanical operations to constructing more comprehensive preferences. We conclude that this interface promoted deeper engagement, potentially reducing satisficing behaviors caused by cognitive overload in longer QSs. This research clarifies how human-centered design improves preference elicitation tools for collective decision-making.

Peer Reviewed

Research into community content moderation often assumes that moderation teams govern with a single, unified voice. However, recent work has found that moderators disagree with one another at modest, but concerning rates. The problem is not the root disagreements themselves. Subjectivity in moderation is unavoidable, and there are clear benefits to including diverse perspectives within a moderation team. Instead, the crux of the issue is that, due to resource constraints, moderation decisions end up being made by individual decision-makers. The result is decision-making that is inconsistent, which is frustrating for community members. To address this, we develop Venire, an ML-backed system for panel review on Reddit. Venire uses a machine learning model trained on log data to identify the cases where moderators are most likely to disagree. Venire fast-tracks these cases for multi-person review. Ideally, Venire allows moderators to surface and resolve disagreements that would have otherwise gone unnoticed. We conduct three studies through which we design and evaluate Venire: a set of formative interviews with moderators, technical evaluations on two datasets, and a think-aloud study in which moderators used Venire to make decisions on real moderation cases. Quantitatively, we demonstrate that Venire is able to improve decision consistency and surface latent disagreements. Qualitatively, we find that Venire helps moderators resolve difficult moderation cases more confidently. Venire represents a novel paradigm for human-AI content moderation, and shifts the conversation from replacing human decision-making to supporting it.

Attracting new members is vital to the health of many online communities. Yet, prior qualitative work suggests that newcomers to online communities can be disruptive – either due to a lack of awareness around existing community norms or to differing expectations around how the community should operate. Consequently, communities may have to navigate a trade-off between growth and development of community identity. We evaluate the presence of this trade-off through a longitudinal analysis of two years of commenting data for each of 1,620 Reddit communities. We find that, on average, communities become less linguistically distinctive as they grow. These changes appear to be driven almost equally by newcomers and returning users. Surprisingly, neither heavily moderated communities nor communities undergoing major user-base diversification are any more or less likely to maintaining distinctiveness. Taken together, our results complicate the assumption that growth is inherently beneficial for online communities.

Social media sites like Reddit, Discord, and Clubhouse utilize a community-reliant approach to content moderation. Under this model, volunteer moderators are tasked with setting and enforcing content rules within the platforms' sub-communities. However, few mechanisms exist to ensure that the rules set by moderators reflect the values of their community. Misalignments between users and moderators can be detrimental to community health. Yet little quantitative work has been done to evaluate the prevalence or nature of user-moderator misalignment. Through a survey of 798 users on r/ChangeMyView, we evaluate user-moderator alignment at the level of policy-awareness (does users know what the rules are?), practice-awareness (do users know how the rules are applied?) and policy-/practice-support (do users agree with the rules and how they are applied?). We find that policy-support is high, while practice-support is low -- using a hierarchical Bayesian model we estimate the correlation between community opinion and moderator decisions to range from .14 to .45 across subreddit rules. Surprisingly, these correlations were only slightly higher when users were asked to predict moderator actions, demonstrating low awareness of moderation practices. Our findings demonstrate the need for careful analysis of user-moderator alignment at multiple levels. We argue that future work should focus on building tools to empower communities to conduct these analyses themselves.

With a plethora of off-the-shelf smart home devices available commercially, people are increasingly taking a do-it-yourself approach to configuring their smart homes. While this allows for customization, users responsible for smart home configuration often end up with more control over the devices than other household members. This separates those who introduce new functionality to the smart home (pilot users) from those who do not (passenger users). To investigate the prevalence and impact of pilot-passenger user relationships, we conducted a Mechanical Turk survey and a series of one-hour interviews. Our results suggest that pilot-passenger relationships are common in multi-user households and shape how people form habits around devices. We find from interview data that smart homes reflect the values of their pilot users, making it harder for passenger users to incorporate their devices into daily life. We conclude the paper with design recommendations to improve passenger and pilot user experience.