The Ethics and Etiquette surrounding Foursquare checkins.
With every passing day I see the rise in the number of users jumping on the Foursquare bandwagon, and with that rise comes an increase in connections and an increase in the activity. I’ve been observing the growth in Foursquare activity and have noticed a lot of things that have got me thinking on what the ethics and etiquette surrounding this location based network are.
Given the competitive nature of Foursquare, it is natural for users, including those in Dubai to clock as many check-ins as possible . But how far should an individual go in this endless quest for points, badges and mayorship.
The mundane everyday check in.
Most users, during weekdays, only really go from home to work and back. Does it make sense for them to check in at both those places then? There are those who bring a privacy element to this, but this isn’t about that. It’s the sheer inanity of these checkins. Although there are those who say checking into work helps ‘brand’ the place.
Couples: Checking in in pairs.
Much like offline (*gasp*) social networks, couples in which both partners are online have a huge set of connections that are common to both of them. If they spend all their time together, at the same places do they both check in? Sure, they’re both individuals with their own accounts right, I mean as long as they aren’t quarrelling for mayorship. Or is it similar to a situation where a couple gets, well, couply, on Facebook. We’ve all had those friends right?
The compulsive Geonetworker
Imagine you go into a mall for a shopping spree, do you just check in to the mall? Or do you check in to the mall and then check in to every single store you go to. Given the loyalty building objective of Foursquare for businesses, they would promote the latter. And the users gain their badges and mayorship. But this scenario does have an inexplicable sense of the ridiculous too. After all, walking less than 5 metres to the next store doesn’t really count for ‘Travel’ in ‘Travel Bonus’ right?
Exhibit B: if you scan for venues and you find the venue, only misspelt; do you check in to that anyway or do you add a new venue with the corrected spelling fully well knowing you’ll get the extra 5 points for adding a new venue (and a chance at mayorship)?
I’m not passing judgements here, nor am I saying what’s right or wrong. I myself have been guilty of some of those actions listed above and continue to practice the others.
Given the competitive spirit underpinning the platform, where do you think the boundaries of fairplay end and those of cheating begin?
Related posts:
- A World with Location enabled Facebook
- The idea of ‘Relevant’ Social networks
- Geonetworking – the new Mantra in Social Media Marketing in Travel and Tourism
2 comments
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
- Tweets that mention The Ethics and Etiquette surrounding Foursquare checkins. - Geo Networking - bhavishya KANJHAN -- Topsy.com - [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bhavishya Kanjhan and Mustafa Yusuf, Basicsadopter. Basicsadopter said: RT @bhavishya: The Ethics ...
Leave a Reply
Connect with me
Subscribe via RSS
Fantastic Post! I relate to most of them. Especially the part where you’re talking about whether one should check in to a mall or individual stores? I’d really like to know. Honestly I do both! Let’s face it; we’re all fighting for the title of mayor of some of the most popular places in town and checking in to different stores gives you travel bonus. What better? But fairly one should check in to only those stores from where you make a purchase.
Besides, there are people checking in to locations from home because they’re just a few meters away? The whole idea behind geonetworking dies when people do that.
In addition, there should be a control over who adds venues. Sometimes you come across venues like ‘The Toilet – Emaar Square’ & the popular ‘Sheikh Zayed Road’. Checking in to these places is lame and pointless because a venue is supposed to be a destination where people can meet up. I suggest every time you try to add a venue it should go to ‘foursquare’ as a request, which can deny or accept the request. This will not only prevent people from adding stupid venues but also avoid venues to be duplicated.
Talking about checking in at workplace; who controls that? For example: You check in to your workplace first thing in the morning. If you go to a bank for some work in the afternoon, you check in there. So when you return from the bank, do you check in again at your workplace? That’s just additional unfair points!
I think the biggest downfall of Foursquare is the incentive to check into goofy places to boost points, badges and mayorships. As an active foursquare user it is imperative that you check in at every location you go, but without rules the world of foursquare is a chaos!
You bring up some good points Mansi.
But I have a few questions:
Why should check-ins be limited only to a purchase? From a business perspective wouldn’t managers like to know how many came in versus how many purchased.
Of course checking into streets and toilets is as ridiculous as it is funny, but if you make every new venue subject to approval, it will frustrate users. Besides the excitement of finding out that a venue not being listed and to add it yourself is a boost for many.
I guess I see the point you’re making. The same things that make Foursquare fun are the things that are bringing the chaos and madness to the platform. Let’s see how/if they deal with it.
Thank you for your comment though