Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Who is Authoritative? Understanding Reputation Mechanisms in Quora

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1204.3724 v1 pith:QWUXIIFT submitted 2012-04-17 cs.SI cs.HC

Who is Authoritative? Understanding Reputation Mechanisms in Quora

classification cs.SI cs.HC
keywords userscontentquorareputationsocialjudgepromotequality
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

As social Q&A sites gain popularity, it is important to understand how users judge the authoritativeness of users and content, build reputation, and identify and promote high quality content. We conducted a study of emerging social Q&A site Quora. First, we describe user activity on Quora by analyzing data across 60 question topics and 3917 users. Then we provide a rich understanding of issues of authority, reputation, and quality from in-depth interviews with ten Quora users. Our results show that primary sources of information on Quora are judged authoritative. Also, users judge the reputation of other users based on their past contributions. Social voting helps users identify and promote good content but is prone to preferential attachment. Combining social voting with sophisticated algorithms for ranking content might enable users to better judge others' reputation and promote high quality content.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Voting Biases in Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) Governance

    cs.CY 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Author-selected Snapshot choices show a 58.8 pp higher voting-power share than non-author choices, exceeding approval (27.1 pp) and first-list (7.7 pp) associations.