What to consider when creating moderation/arbitrage features?
English
Armenian
Russian
What to consider when creating moderation/arbitrage features?
Copy linkCopied!
Share
Possible answers (15)
. Most people believe that the world is fair and that everyone gets what they deserve.
. In a situation that implies doubting someone's words (for example, resolving disputes), people are tense by default. Their emotional reactions should not be interpreted as evidence of anything.
. Many people tend to exaggerate their level of competence. Such people are characterized by arrogance, a flattering self-image (), as well as a confident tone of speech. We should understand that these people do not lie or pretend. They are simply not able to objectively assess their abilities.
. Some people, while waiting for a decision on them, behave unusually and strangely. This is often caused by the fact that it seems to them that their actions are "visible to everyone."
. We can provide our support team with the ability to view user logs. This will help our colleagues much more than trying to figure out the logic of user actions.
. We should explain to users the degree of authority that the decision-maker has (e.g., Moderator, administrator, etc.). The more clearly we do this, the fewer users will be inclined to discuss their decisions.
. Even if, in most cases, the decisions made are in favor of a user, once the opposite, he could be outraged. There is no point to appeal to the fact that “in 95% of cases the decisions were made in your favor”, etc. Such user reaction is based on emotion and will eventually subside.
, . Ideally, the "wrapper" of any of our decision should always be consistent with our audience's beliefs and values. To use the element of conservatism in communication, we need to write out the key values that are common to our audience from the very beginning (preferably at the stage of creating the "Persona").
, . If a user uses "facts" in his arguments, which, according to the system's data, never existed, we should not immediately consider him a liar
. The decisions made should always include both external and internal factors. If we explain a decision made to the detriment of the user’s interests, by his personal shortcomings, it will cause a sharply negative reaction. If we explain our decision, made in his favor, by external circumstances, we will only reduce his level of satisfaction.
. The user could have made a mistake because of the advice of our system. So, we might not have noticed how the “tips” and “recommendations” we designed are powerfully pushing users to some kind of erroneous action.
. The decision to be made must be easy for understanding. The wording we use must be free from confusion ().
. We can use the effect of social desirability to nudge the user to accept the results of our decisions. Politicians widely use this technique.
. We shouldn't explain to the user that the problem is in his thought processes.
In the context of working with decision-making mechanisms, it will also be helpful to understand .
Related questions
#47.
What should we keep in mind when reaching out to a user directly?
#10.
Why do users complain about the quality of our support?
#11.
Users blame us for their own mistakes
#13.
Why don’t our users follow the safety rules?
#39.
How can we make our product users more responsible?
How useful you found this?
Not useful
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Not useful
Very useful
Thank you for your contribution!
Useful Links
Useful Links
UX CORE GUIDE
(UXCG - Finding solutions for your problems)
How to useUXCG is a free tool that helps teams detect cognitive bias-related UX problems across all product stages, whether you're prototyping, testing, or improving a live product
How to use UXCG
- Choose your product stage below;
- Find your question (either manually or through search);
- Read possible answers.
Each answer explains how cognitive biases relate to your specific situation. Since you understand your context best, you can apply the insights directly. While the tool doesn't provide ready solutions due to each case's uniqueness, it reveals new perspectives backed by cognitive science.
Label description
Questions related to in-house team members cooperation (product, development teams and others).
Questions related to product development stage (from concept to first public release).
Questions related to sales, marketing funnels, prospects and leads communication, and overall product packaging.
Questions related to user interaction with actual product and its features.
Questions related to product analytical data analysis.
Select your product stage
#10.
Why do users complain about the quality of our support?
#30.
What common mistakes do we make when dealing with product analytics?
#41.
What should we do if our colleagues’ stubbornness is hurting teamwork?
#43.
What to consider when planning product releases?
#45.
What to do if our team members do not share their opinion?
#50.
How to deal with an incompetent colleague/manager?
#59.
What should we consider when referencing political, social, or economic events in our messages?
#61.
What should we do if our team wastes too much time on minor details?
Be Kind. Do Good.