For those of you who do not know, Google has a relatively new feature known as Google Image Labeler. It is an application/game in Google’s Image section which embraces the notion that sometimes certain tasks are just meant for humans and not machines and computer software. The essence of this game/application is to help make Google’s system of labeling and sorting the millions of images available on the internet more comprehensive by allowing individuals around the world to pitch in an effort. Anyone can choose to go and use this feature and they will be randomly assigned a partner and be given a little under two minutes to appropriately label and identify random images from the net. You will only move onto the next image and “get points” if you and your partner get matches on the keywords you use to describe the picture. I recently was introduced to this very interesting Google feature and have been wasting hours of my time on it ever since.
Google Image Labeler exhibits many of the characteristics associated with problematic internet use (PIU). The three elements outlined by Wallace that are internet and not individual related are all present in the Image Labeler case. The notion of Operant Conditioning is very apparent because of the point system and the random assignment of partners. It is a toss up each time whether or not you will be paired with a good partner, which can be defined as a fast typer with an extensive vocabulary. This leads to unpredictable results, good and bad, and serves as a variable reward schedule. This reward schedule is more important in synchronous psychological spaces, like the real time Image labeler, and promotes a behavior which is more difficult to extinguish. This all supports the labeler’s predisposition to PIU.
Maintenance of virtual presence is also evident in the Google Image Labeler because of the highly visible high score feature. It shows the top scores of the day as well as the overall cumulative high score standings. Individuals who are on the high score rankings and want to remain virtually present must continue to play the “game” with the same positive results. Additionally, the notion of newbie disease exists with Google Image Labeler because since this Google feature is still relatively new. Therefore, it makes sense that individuals are feeling the addictive wrath of this labeler game. I have been playing this evil, time waster frequently, but will most likely stop in the near future. This goes along with the Newbie disease because it notes that levels of non-adaptive behavior fluctuate. This means there is still hope for me and 3_2BeerDayNUtah, the all time high score holder and top contributor to the game.
The Google Image labeler also epitomizes some of the dimensions outlined by the Davis, Flett, and Besser study, including distraction/procrastination and social comfort. The procrastination factor is pretty self explanatory in this circumstance; when you’re bored, it is very effective to waste your time helping Google identify images. For the latter dimension, social comfort, the game does provide some interaction with other individuals. There is a necessary degree of team work and even though you do not your partner, it is still an enjoyable, somewhat social experience.
Caplan’s PIU model does not apply that well in the case of Google’s image labeler except for the element of anonymity. The game is given a heightened sense of excitement and appeal because each time you play you are paired with an entirely new and different stranger. Caplan’s notion of mood alteration can also relate to the labeler game because it is a lot of fun and rewarding when you get a good score. This usually puts a smile on my face, serving as a nice escape from writing boring class assignments like 245 blogs—I kid because I love.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Your blog is really interesting. I haven’t heard about this new Google application yet, but I could definitely see myself doing a lot of procrastinating there as well. You do a great job connecting the application to Wallace and the other theories that we learned about in class, especially the factors relating to the internet. You raise a really good point in the last paragraph by saying that Caplan’s model doesn’t fit the application as well. I think the main reason that it doesn’t fit Caplan’s model as well is because even though you have a partner in the application, you aren’t necessarily interacting a lot with that partner, and it would much less likely to develop a preference for internet interaction in this case. Great job.
Mathew,
Good post and great decision to do something interesting like this! Also, I found it interesting that, for the most part, you considered Wallace's approach, in which she takes more empathy for the user and puts the brunt of what she calls "Internet Addiction Disorder" on the Internet herself. I think that its relatively new entrance into the online world makes it a case for Wallace's analysis more than Davis or Caplan's propositions because it hasn't had time to really garner some of the extremely addictive users. As you said, some of the users may be suffering from "newbie disease" and we may see the usage drop in the future. However, I do agree that Google Image Labeler has all the characteristics of PIU. I think that your description of "operant conditioning" is most important in your discussion because as far as analyzing the actual application, this seemed to be the most inherent "addictive feature," preceding the visual presence aspect of the game. I thought you had a great discussion on a unique topic and it might be interesting to see if 3_2BeerDayNUtah is still playing a couple months from now!
Post a Comment