This reminds me of a really funny image I saw recently. It depicted the perceived consequences of a status update against the "reality". At the top, Obama was presenting to a cheering crowd and just below, Tom Hanks sat marooned on an island screaming desperately at his inanimate volleyball. It's easy to feel like the master of the universe when the whole world is there to cheer for you through digitally mediated approval metrics. But people are not toys sitting idly to provide us a convenient hit of oxytocin when we need it. It's crucial to be reminded of that! Providing a number to call someone and apologize for bailing on them is a spark of genius. Using all this digital stuff should enrich interactions in meatspace, rather than allow us to decouple from it. Bravo!
I rarely upvote things to boomark them, but this is exactly the kind of thing that I like to read about.<p>We are building a platform for groups of people come together, kind of like grouper does for 3 guys and 3 girls, but a different approach. And psychology is a huge part of it! Making people want to do what you want them to do, or not want to do what you don't want them to do, is an art. But it is also a science, and there should be some sort of knowledge base of psychological tactics, in social apps or otherwise.<p>Anyone know of anything like that?
For what it's worth, anyone who liked this post would probably really like this book:<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Building-Successful-Online-Communities-Evidence-Based/dp/0262016575" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/Building-Successful-Online-Communities...</a>
Let this be a lesson: not all your problems can be solved by code. Sometimes you need to take a step back and think about the root cause of the problem. Often times (as well as in Grouper's example), the solution is to reconstruct your model so that your incentives and/or consequences are clearer to your users.
This is so smart! A lot of tech is awesome but lets never forget that its humans with actual psychologies using the technology. These users face social pressures to be upstanding and responsible like we all do in real life - being online is not an excuse for bad behavior - this is a great example of the merger b/w virtual and real lives.<p>Seems like LinkedIn pioneered this, HN also does this to a great degree, but now Grouper is taking it to the next level as it holds you responsible for your online actions offline.<p>The wheels are turning in my head about ways to leverage people's desire to manage their personal brand into a mutually beneficial situation for all parties involved. Good job Waxman! You might have stumbled upon something profound here.
i dig how you changed the cancellation process, because it encourages ppl to do what your app is intended to do - get groups of 3 together in real life. your old policy was giving incentives for your core mission NOT to happen. i wonder how your service plans to thrive in nyc, where a similar service - ignighter - had to go to india to really succeed. would love to hear your thoughts.
So you give the canceller the 3 phone numbers of the other 3 people? I'm not sure if I'd want my number to be given away...<p>Or do you use another number that temporarily redirects/connects them to the other people anonymously? If so, I'm curious to know how you do that.
Did overall Groupers scheduled also go down once people realized they couldn't cancel without having to do it themselves? also, is the no-show rate still 0.2% after implementing this policy? I find it hard to believe these other metrics didn't move at least a little bit.
Cancellations through the service went down, but did actual cancellations (as in, the person just doesn't show) go down?<p>If you make it harder to cancel you're relying even more heavily on the integrity or conscience of the cancelling party to notify the other group members of their desire to cancel. 90% seems like a really drastic decrease which is why I bring this up.