By Mackenzie White | Ivey Research Office | June 17, 2025
When Recognition Outweighs Popularity: Zhang's Rethinking Social Design on Knowledge-Sharing Platforms
In the age of crowdsourced wisdom, platforms like Stack Overflow, Quora, and Zhihu are redefining how we exchange knowledge. They represent a digital commons where users voluntarily contribute answers, and advice without compensation. But as these platforms strive to maintain vibrant communities, a key question looms: What truly motivates users to keep contributing?
This is the question that intrigued Assistant Professor of Marketing Dr. Mengxia Zhang, an active user of Quora and Stack Overflow herself, in her article "Effects of Peer Voting and Followers on User Contribution to Online Knowledge Sharing Platforms: Evidence from a Field Experiment." Her curiosity began with a simple observation: Quora allows users to follow one another, while Stack Overflow deliberately avoids that design. Why do two knowledge-sharing platforms take such different approaches to social networking? What impact does this have on user engagement?
Zhang, an Ivey researcher focused on digital platforms and user behaviour, saw an opportunity to explore a deeper issue affecting online communities everywhere: the sustainability of user-contributed knowledge.
The Invisible Price of Popularity
For Zhang, the motivation to pursue this research came not only from academic interest, but also from a genuine reliance on these platforms in her own work. Like millions of others, she frequently turned to these sites to solve research or coding challenges. But over time, she noticed a troubling trend that while many consume knowledge, relatively few contribute it. In fact, on Stack Overflow, only about 22% of registered users have posted at least one answer or question with an upvote, a number likely even lower when factoring in anonymous users.
To understand how to better motivate users, Zhang and her co-authors designed a large-scale field experiment on Zhihu, China’s leading Q&A platform. The study sought to measure the distinct effects of two common platform features: peer voting (upvotes) and social networking (followers) on user contribution. The research was, as Zhang noted, one of the first to use real-world experimentation to disentangle the causal impact of these features.
The premise of the study is simple yet profound: while upvotes and followers are both forms of feedback, they do not have the same psychological or behavioural effects. Upvotes validate the value of specific answers, signaling appreciation for the content itself. In contrast, followers boost an individual’s social status, potentially increasing the pressure to perform, or paradoxically, becoming less eager to continue contributing to earn more status and decreasing motivation altogether.
From Hypothesis to Discovery
The experiment involved 1,696 Zhihu users who were randomly assigned to receive a boost in either upvotes or followers. Over the course of 303 days, Zhang’s team tracked their contributions and engagement. They even used a large language model to assess the quality of nearly 13,000 answers - an innovative use of AI that allowed for scalable, nuanced analysis.
The findings confirmed some theories but also challenged conventional platform design logic. Users who received additional upvotes contributed more answers, wrote longer responses, and improved the quality of their content. This effect lasted for over three months.
In contrast, users who received a boost in followers showed no comparable uptick. In fact, some particularly high-status, male, or already active users contributed less. Even more concerning were the negative spillover effects: these users were less likely to engage in the community by upvoting others, following fellow users, or attending other Zhihu users hosted live events.
These results were, as Zhang described, both surprising and intuitive. While platforms like Quora and Zhihu embrace social networking features in hopes of building engagement, the reality is more complicated. “Social networks may come with side effects,” she explained, “especially for users who have already accumulated many followers.”
Recognition vs. Reputation
Why would followers backfire? The answer lies in the nuanced interplay between intrinsic and status-driven motivation. Upvotes reward the act of contribution itself, providing immediate, content-specific validation. They reinforce a feedback loop where users see tangible value in their effort. Followers, on the other hand, reward the individual instead of the content, which shifts the focus from learning and sharing to performance and image.
This dynamic fascinated Zhang. Drawing on previous behavioural research, she and her colleagues proposed that while upvotes enhance intrinsic utility (like the satisfaction of helping others), followers feed status utility, which may quickly plateau or even discourage further contribution once the “reward” of visibility is achieved.
Zhang notes that this distinction matters most for users at different ends of the engagement spectrum. “Upvotes are especially powerful for lower-status or newer users,” she observed. “They can be the confidence boost that keeps someone contributing.” In contrast, for highly visible users, more followers may signal that they’ve “made it,” and therefore reducing the drive to keep earning recognition.
Implications for Platform Design
For platform designers and tech companies, Zhang’s findings offer critical guidance. In an industry obsessed with virality and network effects, it’s easy to assume that adding social features will naturally enhance participation. But as this research shows, not all feedback is created equal.
If platforms want to foster rich, active communities of contributors, they need to double down on peer recognition features like upvotes, emojis, endorsements, etc., and use them in ways that are transparent, rewarding, and visible. Zhang suggests that small design tweaks like showing upvote counts more prominently or celebrating user milestones based on contributions, may go a long way in reinforcing positive behaviour.
Meanwhile, social networking elements should be handled with care. While followers can still play a role in drawing in users or distributing content, they may not be the best tool for encouraging ongoing, high-quality contributions.
A Researcher’s Next Chapter
For Zhang, this project is just the beginning. The study opens new questions about how platform design shapes user behaviour: not only in knowledge sharing, but across the digital economy. She’s particularly interested in how different platform layouts might amplify or diminish the effects observed in this study. For instance, what if follower counts were less visible, or if upvotes carried more weight in how content is promoted?
Zhang is currently collaborating with PhD student Hasan Shorakaei on another project, exploring related areas of research. She hopes to continue sharing these complex ideas with the academic community to foster further dialogue and innovation.
Her work points to a future where platforms are designed not just for engagement, but for sustainable contribution, which is a subtle but crucial shift. “We know that digital knowledge is a public good,” Zhang said. “But like any public good, it’s prone to under-provision. Understanding what motivates people to give- not just take- is essential.”
A Call to Rethink Social Incentives
As we continue to build digital spaces for collaborative knowledge, Zhang’s research offers a timely reminder: recognition for good work often matters more than popularity. In a world overflowing with followers and influencers, perhaps what we need most are thoughtful upvotes, a culture of appreciation, and designs that nudge users to contribute for impact instead of fame.