Top keywords (global influence):
Top topics (local contexts):
Explore the main topics and terms outlined above or see them in the excerpts from this text below.
See the relevant data in context: click here to show the excerpts from this text that contain these topics below.
Tip: use the form below to save the most relevant keywords for this search query. Or start writing your content and see how it relates to the existing search queries and results.
Tip: here are the keyword queries that people search for but don't actually find in the search results.

- Similar set of thoughts: [[Article notes: Can we forget about [[gamification]] once and for all?]]

   edit   unpin & show all

 

- I played a lot of video games growing up. I played by myself, with friends, with strangers online. My parents always thought that it was a waste of time. Here are [[some of my favorite video games]].

   edit   unpin & show all

 

- They probably asked themselves many times, "what is it about these games that make him play so much?" But that's not what I was thinking to myself. I was thinking about how much I wanted to play, and how I could play it as well as I could.

   edit   unpin & show all

 

- ## Gamification tends to ignore [[behavior design]], or uses [[lazy behavioral science]]

   edit   unpin & show all

 

- [[[[Kurt Lewin]]'s Equation]] says that $$B=f(P,E)$$. In other words, "Behavior is a function of the interplay between [[person-side factor]]s and the contextual factors of their environment"

   edit   unpin & show all

 

- [[An app designer has control over a person's digital context]] "The designer has partial to complete control over the information that is presented to the user, how that information is framed, what choices are given to users, and what information people are paying attention to. As long as the user is paying attention to the app, the designer exerts influence over the user's behavior."

   edit   unpin & show all

 

- "The thing to remember is that game designers have been designing for digital behavior change for longer than just about anyone", so they have have recognized this on some level since the beginning.

   edit   unpin & show all

 

- The player of a game is interacting with the in-game world in order to [get what they want and further their goals]([[[[Expectancy Value Theory]] and its role in [[gamification]]]])

   edit   unpin & show all

 

- Games thoughtfully designs rules and interactions to influence how you get what you want[++](((vq7ICOkbp)))

   edit   unpin & show all

 

- {{[[TODO]]}} While "Games thoughtfully designs rules and interactions to influence how you get what you want[++](((vq7ICOkbp)))", gamification designers act like [[points]], [[badges]], and [leaderboards]([[[[leaderboard]]s are generally ill-advised or poorly executed]]) work in a vacuum and can just be placed on top of what already exists and magically create engagement.

   edit   unpin & show all

 

- We need to consider the role of goals more broadly so that mechanics are simply perceived as being [helpful in furthering their goals](((K2Qwi4e7n))).

   edit   unpin & show all

 

- Before taking "inspiration" from games, gamified apps, and their mechanics, game designers should consider [the context in which those mechanics were implemented](((vq7ICOkbp))).

   edit   unpin & show all

 

- ## Gamification isn't being inspired by games and behavioral science, but rather, by other gamification. [[There could be many genres of [[gamification]]]], but we're essentially stuck with the Foursquare genre.

   edit   unpin & show all

 

- Designers aren't being inspired by games, but rather, by other gamification that has been copy/pasted since FourSquare. Frankly, I think most designers of gamification don't even play games. What FourSquare did in 2009 is basically what’s going on today.

   edit   unpin & show all

 

- [According to a report by Gartner in 2012,](https://centrical.com/will-80-of-gamification-projects-fail/) by 2014, 80 Percent of Current Gamified Applications Will Fail to Meet Business Objectives Primarily Due to Poor Design”

   edit   unpin & show all

 

- Elaborating further on his claims, the report's author said: __"The focus is on the obvious game mechanics, such as points, badges and leader boards, rather than the more subtle and more important game design elements, such as balancing competition and collaboration, or defining a meaningful game economy. As a result, in many cases, organizations are simply counting points, slapping meaningless badges on activities and creating gamified applications that are simply not engaging for the target audience. Some organizations are already beginning to cast off poorly designed gamified applications.”__ #quote

   edit   unpin & show all

 

- In other words:

   edit   unpin & show all

 

- Gamification needs to broaden its toolbelt and get more nuanced in its understanding of the context surrounding game mechanics in games and the underlying behavioral science that drives it all.

   edit   unpin & show all

 

- ## Questions like "is gamification effective?" miss the point.

   edit   unpin & show all

 

- "When I hear people say "gamification does or doesn't work," I have the same reaction that many people would have if someone says "design doesn't work." Gamification isn't one thing as I define it, but rather an interplay between game design, human computer interaction, behavioral science, and [[behavior design]]."

   edit   unpin & show all

 

- Games aren't asking themselves whether they should use a leaderboard or not. They are [asking themselves how people should/could be playing the game](((vq7ICOkbp))), and how mechanics fit into an overall system meant to deliver an experience is far more interesting.

   edit   unpin & show all

 

- Games aren't made up of the additive effect of a bunch of individual mechanics working independently from each other. Instead, they function as a system of interacting parts where the player expresses agency in how they play.

   edit   unpin & show all

 

- Games don't implement mechanics for the sake of those mechanics. [[points]], [[badges]], and [[leaderboard]]s aren't effective in a vacuum. Mechanics affect change in the context of [the problems they are attempting to solve.]([[relations]])

   edit   unpin & show all

 
in graph:
     

    Show Nodes with degree > 0:

    0 0

    Filter Graphs:


    Filter Time Range
    from: 0
    to: 0


    Recalculate Metrics   Reset Filters
    mindviral immunity:
             
    Main Topical Groups:

    N/A
    +     ?

    The topics are the nodes (words) that tend to co-occur together in the same context (next to each other).

    We use a combination of clustering and graph community detection algorithm (Blondel et al based on Louvain) to identify the groups of nodes are more densely connected together than with the rest of the network. They are aligned closer to each other on the graph and are given a distinct color.
    Most Influential Elements:
    N/A
    +     Reveal Non-obvious   ?

    We use the Jenks elbow cutoff algorithm to select the top prominent nodes that have significantly higher influence than the rest.

    Click the Reveal Non-obvious button to remove the most influential words (or the ones you select) from the graph, to see what terms are hiding behind them.

    The most influential nodes are either the ones with the highest betweenness centrality — appearing most often on the shortest path between any two randomly chosen nodes (i.e. linking the different distinct communities) — or the ones with the highest degree.

    Network Structure:
    N/A
     ?

    Modularity
    0
    Influence Distribution
    0
    %
    Topics Nodes in Top Topic Components Nodes in Top Comp
    0
    0
    %
    0
    0
    %
    Nodes Av Degree Density  
    0
    0
    0
     


    Undo Select   Export: PNG SVG Gexf
    Action Advice:
    N/A
    Structural Gap
    (ask a research question that would link these two topics):
    N/A
    Reveal the Gap   ?
     
    A structural gap shows the two distinct communities (clusters of words) in this graph that are important, but not yet connected. That's where the new potential and innovative ideas may reside.

    This measure is based on a combination of the graph's connectivity and community structure, selecting the groups of nodes that would either make the graph more connected if it's too dispersed or that would help maintain diversity if it's too connected.

    Latent Topical Brokers
    :
    N/A
    ?

    These are the latent brokers between the topics: the nodes that have an unusually high rate of influence (betweenness centrality) to their freqency — meaning they may appear not as often as the most influential nodes but they are important narrative shifting points.

    These are usually brokers between different clusters / communities of nodes, playing not easily noticed and yet important role in this network, like the "grey cardinals" of sorts.

    Emerging Topics
    N/A

    Top Relations
    :

    ⤓ Download   ⤓ Directed Bigrams   ?

    The most prominent relations between the nodes that exist in this graph are shown above. We treat the graph as undirected by default as it allows us to better detect general patterns.

    As an option, you can also downloaded directed bigrams above, in case the direction of the relations is important (for any application other than language).

     
    Main Topics
    (according to Latent Dirichlet Allocation):
    loading...

    Most Influential Words
    (main topics and words according to LDA):
    loading...

    LDA works only for English-language texts at the moment. More support is coming soon, subscribe @noduslabs to be informed.

     
    download data: CSV  Excel
    Please, enter a search query to visualize the difference between what people search for (related queries) and what they actually find (search results):

     
    We will build two graphs:
    1) Google search results for your query;
    2) Related searches for your query (Google's SERP);
    Click the Missing Content tab to see the graph that shows the difference between what people search for and what they actually find, indicating the content you could create to fulfil this gap.
    Find a market niche for a certain product, category, idea or service: what people are looking for but cannot yet find*

     
    We will build two graphs:
    1) the content that already exists when you make this search query (informational supply);
    2) what else people are searching for when they make this query (informational demand);
    You can then click the Niche tab to see the difference between the supply and the demand — what people need but do not yet find — the opportunity gap to fulfil.
    Please, enter your query to visualize the search results as a graph, so you can learn more about this topic:

     
       advanced settings
     
    Enter a search query to analyze the Twitter discourse around this topic (last 7 days):

         advanced settings

    Sign Up