skip to main content
10.1145/3148330.3148344acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgroupConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Danmaku vs. Forum Comments: Understanding User Participation and Knowledge Sharing in Online Videos

Published:07 January 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Danmaku is a new video comment feature that is gaining popularity. Unlike typical forum comments that are displayed with user names below videos, danmaku comments are overlaid on the screen of videos without showing users' information. Prior work studied forum comments and danmaku separately, and little work compared how these two features were used. We collected 38,399 danmaku comments and 16,414 forum comments posted in 2017 on 30 popular videos on Bilibili.com. We examined the usage of these two features in terms of user participation, language used, and ways of sharing knowledge. We found that more users posted danmaku comments, and they also posted these more frequently than forum comments. Even though, in total, more negative language was used in danmaku comments than in forum comments, active users appeared to post more positive comments in danmaku. There was no such correlation in forum comments. It is interesting to find that danmaku and forum comments enabled knowledge sharing in a complementary manner, where danmaku comments involved more explicit knowledge sharing and forum comments exhibited more tacit knowledge sharing. We discuss design implications to promote social interactions for online video systems.

References

  1. Syed Sibte Raza Abidi, Salah Hussini, Wimorat Sriraj, Somboon Thienthong, and Allen G Finley. 2009. Knowledge sharing for pediatric pain management via a Web 2.0 framework.. In MIE. 287--291.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Rami A Al-Sa'Di and Jihad M Hamdan. 2005. "Synchronous online chat" English: Computer-mediated communication. World Englishes 24, 4 (2005), 409--424.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Dorine C Andrews. 2002. Audience-specific online community design. Commun. ACM 45, 4 (2002), 64--68. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Baidu Baike. 2017. Danmaku Terms. http://baike.baidu.com/item/%E5%BC%B9%E5%B9%95% E6%9C%AF%E8%AF%AD/18061202?fr=aladdin. (2017). Accessed by 07/02/2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Bilibili. 2009. Bilibili Danmaku Video Website. (2009). http://www.bilibili.com/ Accessed by 07/02/2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid. 1998. Organizing knowledge. California management review 40, 3 (1998), 90--111.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Pablo Cesar and David Geerts. 2011. Past, present, and future of social TV: A categorization. In Consumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC), 2011 IEEE. IEEE, 347--351.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Yue Chen, Qin Gao, and Pei-Luen Patrick Rau. 2015. Understanding Gratifications of Watching Danmaku Videos--Videos with Overlaid Comments. In International Conference on Cross-Cultural Design. Springer, 153--163.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Seungwoo Choi and Aviv Segev. 2016. Finding informative comments for video viewing. In Big Data (Big Data), 2016 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2457--2465.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Kimberly M Christopherson. 2007. The positive and negative implications of anonymity in Internet social interactions: "On the Internet, Nobody Knows You're a Dog". Computers in Human Behavior 23, 6 (2007), 3038--3056. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Ritesh Chugh. 2015. Do Australian Universities Encourage Tacit Knowledge Transfer? In KMIS. 128--135. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Tessa Dwyer. 2012. Fansub Dreaming on ViKi: "Don't Just Watch But Help When You Are Free". The Translator 18, 2 (2012), 217--243.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Yangchun Fu. 2014. The Studies of Bullet Curtain Language in Bilibili. (November 2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Russell Haines, Jill Hough, Lan Cao, and Douglas Haines. 2014. Anonymity in computer-mediated communication: More contrarian ideas with less influence. Group Decision and Negotiation (2014), 1--22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Maxwell F Harper, Daniel Moy, and Joseph A Konstan. 2009. Facts or friends?: distinguishing informational and conversational questions in social Q&A sites. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 759--768. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Shwu-Min Horng. 2016. A study of active and passive user participation in virtual communities. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research 17, 4 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Craig D Howard, Andrew F Barrett, and Theodore W Frick. 2010. Anonymity to promote peer feedback: Pre-service teachers' comments in asynchronous computer-mediated communication. Journal of Educational Computing Research 43, 1 (2010), 89--112.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Stefan Hrastinski. 2008. The potential of synchronous communication to enhance participation in online discussions: A case study of two e-learning courses. Information & Management 45, 7 (2008), 499--506. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Huixian Huang and Jie Zhu. 2015. Danmaku Community's Meaning Construction and Psychological Needs to Danmaku Language. Young Journalists 9 (2015), 73--74.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Yun Huang, Yifeng Huang, Na Xue, and Jeffrey P Bigham. 2017. Leveraging Complementary Contributions of Different Workers for Efficient Crowdsourcing of Video Captions. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4617--4626. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Yeonwook Im and Okhwa Lee. 2003. Pedagogical implications of online discussion for preservice teacher training. Journal of research on technology in education 36, 2 (2003), 155--170.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Seung-A Annie Jin and Namkee Park. 2009. Parasocial interaction with my avatar: Effects of interdependent self-construal and the mediating role of self-presence in an avatar-based console game, Wii. CyberPsychology & Behavior 12, 6 (2009), 723--727.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Peter G Kilner and Christopher M Hoadley. 2005. Anonymity options and professional participation in an online community of practice. In Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Computer support for collaborative learning: learning 2005: the next 10 years! International Society of the Learning Sciences, 272--280. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Alice Lam. 2000. Tacit knowledge, organizational learning and societal institutions: An integrated framework. Organization studies 21, 3 (2000), 487--513.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Alexander Leichtle. 2012. The Games-Howell Test in R. (2012). http://www.gcf.dkf.unibe.ch/BCB/files/ BCB_10Jan12_Alexander.pdf Accessed by 10/01/2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Chen Li. 2015. Can danmaku interation be introduced into live telecast? News World 95--96 (2015), 80--80.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. X Liu and G de Seta. 2014. Chinese fansub groups as communites of practice: an ethnography of online language learning. Asien: the German journal on contemporary Asia (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Xiaojuan Ma and Nan Cao. 2017a. Video-based Evanescent, Anonymous, Asynchronous Social Interaction: Motivation and Adaption to Medium. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. ACM, 770--782. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Xiaojuan Ma and Nan Cao. 2017b. Video-based Evanescent, Anonymous, Asynchronous Social Interaction: Motivation and Adaption to Medium. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 770--782. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Zhihao Ma and Jinping Ge. 2014. The Review of The Japanese Animation Barrage: A Perspective of Parasocial Interaction. Journal of International Communication 8 (2014), 116--130.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Mark Mabrito. 2006. A study of synchronous versus asynchronous collaboration in an online business writing class. The American Journal of Distance Education 20, 2 (2006), 93--107.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Amy Madden, Ian Ruthven, and David McMenemy. 2013. A classification scheme for content analyses of YouTube video comments. Journal of documentation 69, 5 (2013), 693--714.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Moegirlpedia. 2017. Danmaku Terminologies. (2017). https://zh.moegirl.org/%E5%BC%B9%E5%B9%95 Accessed by 07/02/2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Helen Nissenbaum. 1999. The meaning of anonymity in an information age. The Information Society 15, 2 (1999), 141--144.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Rachel O'Donovan. 2016. "To boldly go where no psychologist has gone before": effects of participation in fandom activities on parasocial relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology and Social Science 2, 1 (2016), 41--61.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Eli Omernick and Sara Owsley Sood. 2013. The impact of anonymity in online communities. In Social Computing (SocialCom), 2013 International Conference on. IEEE, 526--535. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. David Osimo. 2008. Web 2.0 in government: Why and how. Institute for Prospectice Technological Studies (IPTS), JRC, European Commission, EUR 23358 (2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Xiaofu Ouyang. 2016. Study on Xiamen Tourist Environment Image Based on Visitors' Microblog Data Analysis. Ph.D. Dissertation. Xiamen University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Sirous Panahi, Jason Watson, and Helen Partridge. 2012. Social media and tacit knowledge sharing: Developing a conceptual model. World academy of science, engineering and technology 64 (2012), 1095--1102.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Lionel P Robert and Alan R Dennis. 2005. Paradox of richness: A cognitive model of media choice. IEEE transactions on professional communication 48, 1 (2005), 10--21.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Hamano Satoshi. 2008. How information systems have been designed so far. In Architecture of the Ecosystem. BIGART. ISBN: 978--4--7571-0245--3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Katharina Steininger, David Ruckel, Ewald Dannerer, and Friedrich Roithmayr. 2010. Healthcare knowledge transfer through a web 2.0 portal: an Austrian approach. International Journal of Healthcare Technology and Management 11, 1--2 (2010), 13--30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Emily Sun, Rodrigo de Oliveira, and Joshua Lewandowski. 2017. Challenges on the Journey to Co-Watching YouTube. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. ACM, 783--793. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. John C Tang, Gina Venolia, and Kori M Inkpen. 2016. Meerkat and periscope: I stream, you stream, apps stream for live streams. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 4770--4780. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Yan Tang, Yibing Gong, Li Xu, Qingheng Zhang, Huaxin Liu, Sheng Wang, Qian Wang, and Xiaofeng Gao. 2017. Is Danmaku an Effective Way for Promoting Event based Social Network?. In Companion of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. ACM, 319--322. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Mike Thelwall, Pardeep Sud, and Farida Vis. 2012. Commenting on YouTube videos: From Guatemalan rock to el big bang. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63, 3 (2012), 616--629. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Yuan Tian. 2011. Fansub cyber culture in China. Georgetown University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Peiyun Tu, Meiling Chen, Chilan Yang, and Haochuan Wang. 2016. Co-Viewing Room: Mobile TV Content Sharing in Social Chat. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1615--1621. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Cindy Boyles Tucey. 2010. Online vs. face-to-face deliberation on the global warming and stem cell issues. (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Dorothy Van Soest, Robert Canon, and Darlene Grant. 2000. Using an interactive website to educate about cultural diversity and societal oppression. Journal of Social Work Education 36, 3 (2000), 463--479.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Anthony J Viera, Joanne M Garrett, and others. 2005. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med 37, 5 (2005), 360--363.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Jerry Wellman. 2009. Organizational learning: How companies and institutions manage and apply knowledge. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Yaxing Yao, Jennifer Bort, and Yun Huang. 2017. Understanding Danmaku's Potential in Online Video Learning. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 3034--3040. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Bingjie Yu and Leon Watts. 2017. Designing Commenting Mechanisms for Dynamic Media: Synchronous Overlay and Adjacent Scrollable. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference Companion Publication on Designing Interactive Systems. ACM, 18--22. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Danmaku vs. Forum Comments: Understanding User Participation and Knowledge Sharing in Online Videos

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      GROUP '18: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work
      January 2018
      422 pages
      ISBN:9781450355629
      DOI:10.1145/3148330

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 7 January 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      GROUP '18 Paper Acceptance Rate22of94submissions,23%Overall Acceptance Rate125of405submissions,31%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader