abstract: In this paper, we explore the role that attribution plays in shaping user reactions to content reuse, or remixing, in a large user-generated content community. We present two studies using data from the Scratch online community – a social media platform where hundreds of thousands of young people share and remix animations and video games. First, we present a quantitative analysis that examines the effects of a technological design intervention introducing automated attribution of remixes on users' reactions to being remixed. We compare this analysis to a parallel examination of "manual" credit-giving. Second, we present a qualitative analysis of twelve in-depth, semi-structured, interviews with Scratch participants on the subject of remixing and attribution. Results from both studies suggest that automatic *attribution* done by technological systems (i.e., the listing of names of contributors) plays a role that is distinct from, and less valuable than, *credit* which may superficially involve identical information but takes on new meaning when it is given by a human remixer. We discuss the implications of these findings for the designers of online communities and social media platforms.
author: Andrés Monroy-Hernández$^{1,2}$, Benjamin Mako Hill$^1$
Jazmin Gonzalez-Rivero$^2$, danah boyd$^2$

bibliography: chi2011.bib
title: Computers Can't Give Credit: How Automatic Attribution Falls Short in an Online Remixing Community

= 10000

\[\]

# Introduction

Networked information technologies have changed the way people use and reuse creative – and frequently copyrighted – materials. This change has generated excitement, and heated debate, among content-creators, technologists, legal academics, and media scholars. Media theorist Lev Manovich argues that remixing is an ancient cultural tradition (e.g., he has suggested that ancient Rome was a "remix" of ancient Greece) but that information technologies have accelerated these processes and made remixing more salient . Sinnreich et al. argue that "configurable culture" has been significantly transformed by networked technologies which introduce perfect copying and allow people not only to be inspired by extant creations but to remix the original works themselves . Legal scholars have stressed the importance of remixing in cultural creation broadly and warned that current copyright and intellectual property laws may hinder creativity and innovation .

Several of the most influential scholarly explorations of remixing as a cultural phenomenon have focused on youth's remixing practices. For example, work on remixing by Jenkins and Ito has focused on young people's use and re-use of media. Palfrey and Gasser have suggested that the cultural practices of "digital native" youth have had a significant transformative effect on our culture . Throughout his book "Remix," Lessig uses youth's reuse practices to support an argument against what he considers excessive copyright legal protection .

Yet, despite a wide interest in remixing and authorship, researchers have only recently engaged in empirical research on the subject . Several recent treatments have presented studies of video remixing communities , music remixing communities , collaborative video game communities and social network sites . There is also another quantitative study of our empirical setting focused on characterizing the variety of responses to remixing. These studies have tended to be general and largely descriptive examinations of remixing practice. This work has pointed to the existence of norms and the territoriality of digital creators and has considered issues of motivation . However, empirical work has yet to unpack in detail the key social mechanisms that scholars have suggested drive behavior, norms, and motivation in remixing communities.

Perhaps no mechanism has been more frequently cited as critical for remixing activity than attribution and the related phenomena of plagiarism, reputation, and status. For example, recent survey-based work has suggested that the "authenticity and legitimacy" of creative work "are premised on the explicit acknowledgment of the source materials or 'original creator'" and that such acknowledgment is a key component of how adults assess the fairness or ethical nature of content reuse . Attribution, in this sense, can be seen as an important way that people distinguish remixing from "theft."

Judge and law professor Richard Posner stresses the importance of attribution and explains that this is important even when there is no monetary benefit to being attributed. For example, he explains that European copyright law is based on a doctrine of "moral rights" that "entitles a writer or other artist to be credited for his original work and this 'attribution right', as it is called, would give him a legal claim against a plagiarist." Posner also explains that "acknowledgment" of another's contributions to a derivative negates any charge of plagiarism, although it may not establish originality . Attribution plays such an important role in remix culture that Creative Commons made a requirement for attribution a component of all their licenses after more than 97% of licensors opted to require attribution when it was offered as a choice .

Young people's perceptions of attribution and complications around copying have also been examined. An article by Friedman describes that adolescents who allowed "computer pirating" – the unauthorized copying of computer programs – did so because technological affordances made it difficult for adolescents to identify "harmful or unjust consequences of computer-mediated actions" . In a second study, psychologists Olson and Shaw have found that by five years old, "children understand that others have ideas and dislike the copying of these ideas" .

Yet, despite the fact that researchers in human computer interaction have begun to explore the complexity of attribution and cited its importance to remixing , many designers of online communities pay little attention to issues of attribution in their designs – a fact that is reflected in user behavior. For example, research on the use of photos from the photo sharing site Flickr , as well as a number of other user-generated content communities , suggests that most re-users fail to attribute re-used content in ways that public-use licenses require. Although theory and survey based work points to a need to design for attribution in user-generated content communities, we still know very little about how attribution works or how designers might go about doing so. Indeed, our study suggests that the most obvious efforts to design for attribution are likely to be ineffective.

In this paper, we employ a mixed methods approach that combines qualitative and quantitative analyses to explore users' reactions to attribution and its absence in a large remixing community. First, we introduce our empirical setting; using qualitative data from users forums and comments, we present a rich description of remixing and evidence to support our core proposition that credit plays a central role in remixing in our environment. Second, we contextualize and describe a technological intervention in our setting, responding directly to several user suggestions, that automated the attribution of creators of antecedent projects when content was remixed. Third, we present a tentative quantitative analysis of the effect of this intervention along with a parallel analysis of the practice of manual credit-giving. We find that credit-giving, done manually, is associated with more positive reactions but that automatic attribution by the system is not associated with a similar effect. Fourth, we present analysis of a set of in-depth interviews with twelve users which helps confirm, and add nuance and depth to, our quantitative findings.

Our results suggest that young users see an important, if currently under-appreciated and under-theorized, difference between *credit* and *attribution*. Credit represents more than a public reference to an "upstream" user's contributions. Coming from another human, credit can involve an explicit acknowledgment, an expression of gratitude, and an expression of deference, in a way that simple attribution can not. Our results suggest that identical attribution information means something very different to users when it comes from a computer, and when it comes from a human – and that users often feel that acknowledgment is worth much less when it comes from a system. We conclude that designers should create affordances that make it easier for users to credit each other, rather than to merely pursue automated means of acknowledgment.

Our study offers two distinct contributions for social scientists and for technology designers. The first is an improved understanding of the way that attribution and credit work in user-generated content communities. The second is a broader contribution to the literature on design that suggests an important limitation to technologists' ability to support community norms and a suggestion for how designers might create affordances. Functionality that allows users to express information that a system might otherwise show automatically may play an important role in successful design for social media environments.

# Scratch: A Community of Young Remixers

The Scratch online community is a free and publicly available website where young people share their own video games, animated stories, interactive art, and simulations . Participants use the Scratch programming environment , a desktop application, to create these interactive projects by putting together images, music and sounds with programming command blocks (See Figure ).

The Scratch website was officially announced in 2007 and, as of September 2010, has more than 600,000 user accounts who have shared 1.3 million projects. At the time of writing, Scratch users share on average one new project per minute. Examples of projects range from an interactive virtual cake maker, to a simulation of an operating system, to a Pokemon-inspired video game, to an animation about climate change, to tutorials on how to draw cartoons. Like other user-generated content websites, such as YouTube or Flickr, Scratch projects are displayed on a webpage (See Figure ) where people can interact with them, read metadata and give feedback. Visitors can use their mouse and/or keyboard to control a video game or other type of interactive projects or simply observe an animation play out in a web browser. Metadata displayed next to projects includes a text-based description of the project, the creator's name, the number of views, downloads, "love its," remixes, and galleries (i.e., sets of projects) that the project belongs to. Users can interact with projects by giving feedback in the form of tags, comments, or clicks on the "love it" button, and can flag a project as "inappropriate" for review by site administrators.

Participants' self-reported ages range primarily from 8 to 17 years-old with 12 being the median. Thirty-six percent of users self-report as female. A large minority of users are from the United States (41%) while other countries prominently represented include the United Kingdom, Thailand, Australia, Canada, Brazil, South Korea, Taiwan, Colombia and Mexico. About 28% of all users – more than 170,000 – have uploaded at least one project.

## Remixing in Scratch

Scratch users can download any project shared on the website, open it up in the Scratch authoring environment, learn how it was made, and "remix" it. In Scratch, the term "remixing" refers to the creation of any new version of a Scratch program by adding, removing or changing the programming blocks, images or sounds. In this section we use qualitative data from the Scratch website to provide social context for remixing and to suggest that credit plays an important role in how users conceive of appropriate remixing practice.

Remixing in Scratch is not only technically possible, it is something that the administrators of the website encourage and try to foster as a way for people to learn from others and collaborate. On every project page, the Scratch website displays a hyperlink with the text "Some rights reserved" that points to a child-friendly interpretation of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license under which all Scratch projects are licensed.[^1] Even the name Scratch is a reference to hip hop DJs' practice of mixing records. A large portion of all projects shared on the Scratch website (28%) are remixes of other projects.

That said, remixing is not universally unproblematic in Scratch. Previous quantitative analysis of the the Scratch community showed that Scratch participants react both positively and negatively to the remixing of their projects and found that of those users who viewed a remix of their project, about one-fifth left positive comments while the same proportion of users accused the remixer of plagiarism . This ambivalent reaction to remixing is echoed, and given additional texture, in the comments and complaints left by users on the Scratch website and sent to Scratch administrators.

For example, even before the Scratch website was publicly announced, a number of early adopters became upset when they found remixes of their projects on the website. Indeed, one of the very first complaints about Scratch occurred on the discussion forums where a 13 year-old boy asked:

> Is it allowed if someone uses your game, changes the theme, then calls it 'their creation'? Because I created a game called "Paddling 1.5" and a few days later, a user called "julie" redid the background, and called it 'her creation' and I am really annoyed with her for taking credit for MY project!![^2]

A similar complaint was sent to the website administrators by a 14-year old boy:

> I think there should be a way to report plagiarized projects I've been seeing a lot of people's projects taken and renamed. This member, named kings651, has 44 projects, and most of them are made by other people. He even has one that I saw my friend make so I know he actually made it.

In other cases, the disagreements over remixing were more public and involved communication via projects and comments. For example, user koolkid15 wrote the following message in a comment which was left is response to a remix that shows a cat frowning:

> Hi i'm koolkid15 the original creator of luigi disco jayman41 copied me!! and didn't even aknowladge me he didn't change anything !! I wrote or drew!! and jayman...if your reading this think about other people!!!!

Despite the fact that Scratch was conceived, designed, and launched as a platform for remixing, these users expressed their displeasure at remixing. That said, none of these users complained directly about the reuse of their project in general, but in terms of unfair "taking credit", plagiarism, and a lack of acknowledgment. Remixing was seen as problematic for koolkid15, for example, because of the non-transformative nature of reuse, the lack of acknowledgment of antecedent contributors, and the confusion about credit that would result.

Of course, other, more positive, scenarios around remixing also played out in Scratch. For example, jellogaliboo created a remix of Catham's project and wrote the following in the project notes: "i kinda copied Catham's "jetpackcat" game. i used the kitty, the blocks (i added and changed some), and the fuel thingy." Catham later posted his approval of the remix saying, "I like what you changed about my project!" Like this example, many of these positive experiences involved explicit credit-giving by a remixer to the creator of the antecedent project.

# Design Intervention: Automating Attribution

Several user complaints about remixing and plagiarism also included suggestions for how Scratch's designers might address them. For example, in response to the forum thread mentioned in the previous section, a 16 year-old proposed two potential design-based solutions:

> Make it so you can only download a view of how your game/story/animation works. Or make it so downloadable Scratch files have read only protection. Maybe downloaded Scratch files, after being uploaded, are marked with the creators name at the bottom, and then any DIFFERENT people who edit it after are put on the list.

Influenced by these comments, Scratch administrators came to believe that negative responses towards remixing were often due to the fact that Scratch users did not acknowledge the sources of their remixes. As a result, these administrators implemented an architectural design change to the Scratch community along the lines suggested by the user in the second half of the quotation above.

The design change in question involved the introduction of a new technological facility that automatically identified and labeled remixes and inserted hyperlink pointers under each remix to the remix's antecedent and the antecedent's author (see Figure ). Two days after the introduction of this feature, functionality was added to link to a comprehensive list of derivative works from the pages of antecedent projects (see Figure ).

The new feature was announced in the discussion forums by an administrator of the website and user responses were positive. User terminator99 suggested that the change was, "Awesome." Another user, marsUp, posted a comment saying, "That's a very useful feature! I like that we can do ping-pong like modding in Scratch." Users who did not visit the discussion forums also responded well to the the new feature. For example, user greekPlus posted a comment on a remix he created saying, "i remixed it for you but i do not know how to ad credit to you for thinking of it in the first place." A few minutes later he realized that the remix automatically displayed the attribution and posted the a comment saying, "never mind it did it for me. cool!"

# Study 1: Human and Machine Attribution

Although initial user feedback to the automatic attribution feature was positive, users continued to complain about remixing. In Study 1a, we present a quantitative analysis to more fully evaluate the effect of the technological design change described in the previous section. In Study 1b, we offer a parallel analysis of the relationship between manual crediting-giving by users and users' reactions to being remixed.

Both studies build on a dataset used in previous work by Hill, Monroy-Hernández, and Olson . This dataset includes remix-pairs determined by an algorithm using detailed project metadata tracked by the Scratch online community. The dataset is limited in that it does not include projects whose concepts were copied by a user who had seen another's work but who did not actually copy code, graphics or sound. Similarly, the dataset contains no measure of the "originality" of projects or an indicator based on ideas that were taken from a source outside Scratch (e.g., a user may have created a Pacman clone which would not be considered a remix in our analysis).

The data presented here includes each coded reactions of the author of antecedent projects (i.e., originators) on remixes of their projects shared by other users in the site during a twelve week period after Scratch's launch from May 15 through October 28, 2007. Although 2,543 remixes were shared in this period, we limit our analysis to the 932 projects (37% of the total) that had been viewed at the time of data collection by the project originator – a necessary prerequisite to any response. Of these 932 remixes that were viewed by a project originator, 388 originators (42%) left comments on the remixes in question. The remaining were coded as "silence." Comments left by originators were coded by two coders, blind to the hypotheses of the study and who were found to be reliable , as being positive, neutral, or negative. They were also coded as containing accusations of plagiarism (projects in which the the originator directly accused the remixer of copying, e.g., "Hello mr plagiarist", "Copy-cat!") or hinting plagiarism (projects in which the originator implied that the remixer had copied but did not state this explicitly, e.g., "I mostly pretty much made this whole entire game").

Unless it also contained an explicitly negative reaction, an accusation of plagiarism was not coded as "negative." However, because plagiarism tends to be viewed as negative within Scratch (as suggested by the quotations in the previous section) and more broadly in society , we re-coded accusations of plagiarism (both direct and hinting) as "negative" except, as was the case in several comments coded as "hinting plagiarism," when these accusations were in comments that were also coded as positive. Previous published work using this dataset, and subsequent robustness checks, show that our results are substantively unchanged if we exclude these explicit charges of plagiarism from the "negative" category or exclude only the weaker "hinting plagiarism" accusations.

## Study 1a: Automatic Attribution

To test the effectiveness of automatic attribution, we consider the effect of the design intervention described in the previous section. The design change took place six weeks after the public launch of the Scratch community and at the precise midpoint in our data collection window. The intervention affected all projects hosted on the Scratch online community including projects shared before the automatic attribution functionality was activated. As a result, we classify originators' reactions as occurring outside a technological regime of automatic attribution when a project was both uploaded and viewed by a project's originator before automatic attribution functionality was activated.

A comparison of the distribution of coded comments between positive, neutral, negative, and silent in the periods before and after the intervention suggests that the introduction of automatic attribution had little effect on the distribution of reaction types (See Figure ). Although the period after the intervention saw a larger proportion of users remaining silent and a smaller proportion of both positive and negative comments, $\chi^2$ tests suggest that there is no statistically significant difference in originator reactions between remixes viewed before or after the introduction of automatic attribution ($\chi^2 = 3.94; df=3; p=0.27$). As a result, we cannot conclude that the there is any relationship between the presence, or absence, of an automatic attribution system in Scratch and the distribution of different types of reactions.

These results suggest that automatic attribution systems may have limited effectiveness in communities like Scratch. Of course, our analysis is not without important limitations. For example, the existence of an automatic attribution regime may also affect the behavior of users preparing remixes. A remixer might avoid making perfect copies of projects if they know that their copies will be attributed and are more likely to be discovered.

## Study 1b: Manual Crediting

While the introduction of an automatic attribution feature to Scratch appears to have had a limited effect on originators responses to remixes of their projects, the presence or absence of credit was a recurring theme in discussions on Scratch online forums – as shown in the quotes in the previous section – and in many of the coded reactions from the periods both before and after the introduction of automatic attribution. Indeed, in project descriptions or notes from the periods both before and after the change, remixers frequently "manually" gave credit to the originators of their work. Even after remixes were automatically attributed to originators, remixers who did not also give credit manually – essentially producing information redundant to what was already being displayed by the system – were criticized.

For example, after the introduction of automatic attribution functionality, a user left the following comment on a remix of their project:

> Bryan, you need to give me Pumaboy credit for this wonderful game that I mostly pretty much kinda totally made this whole entire game ... and that you need to give me some credit for it

For this user, automatic attribution by the system did not represent a sufficient or valid form of credit-giving. In the following study, we test for this effect of "manual" credit-giving by remixers on coded response types using a method that parallels the analysis in Study 1a and that uses the same dataset.

Manual crediting can happen in multiple ways. Exploratory coding of 133 randomly selected projects showed that 35 (36%) of each remix pair gave credit. Of these 35 projects, 34 gave credit in the project description field while 1 project only gave credit in a "credits" screen inside the game. As a result, the authors of this study split the sample of projects used in the Study 1a and coded each of of the user-created descriptions for the presence or absence of explicit or manual credit-giving.

To first establish that we are examining distinct behaviors, we attempted to establish that automatic and manual attribution do not act as substitutes for each other. As suggested by our qualitative findings and our results in Study 1a, we found little difference in the rate of explicit credit giving between projects created in the presence or absence of automatic attribution. Overall, 276 (about 30%) of the 932 projects in our sample offered explicit credit in the description field of the project. Manual crediting-giving was a widespread practice both before automatic attribution, when 31% of projects in our sample offered explicit credit, and after, when 27% did so. The difference between these two periods was not statistically significant ($\chi^2=1.41; df=1; p=0.24$). Previous work studying *Jumpcut*, a video remixing website, supports the idea that automatic and manual credit giving are not interchangable phenomena. One Jumpcut user with permission to creative derivative works commented that they, "still feel a moral obligation to people as creators who have a moral right to be attributed (and notified) despite the physical design which accomplishes this automatically" .

We measured effectiveness of manual credit giving using a parallel analysis to Study 1a. As in Study 1a, we compared the distribution of originator reactions in the presence, and absence, of manual credit-giving by remixers. We found that negative reactions are less common in the presence of manual credit but that this difference is very small (from 16% without manual credit to 14% with it). However, we see that the proportion of users who react positively almost doubles in the presence of credit-giving (from 16% with no crediting to 31% in its presence). A graph of these results are shown in Figure . Tests show that we can confidently reject the null hypothesis that these differences in the distribution of reactions are due to random variation ($\chi^2 = 27.60; df=3;
p<0.001$).

Also important to note is a difference in the number of users who are silent after viewing a project (62% in the absence of manual credit versus 49% in its presence). This larger proportion of commenting in general may have an important substantive effect on the discourse and behavior on the site because silent originators may, for obvious reasons, have a more limited effect on attitudes toward remixing and user experience than vocal users do. As a robustness check, we considered the reaction of only originators who left comments ($n=388$) and found that even with a smaller sample, our result were stronger. In the restricted sample, 41% reacted negatively when they were not given credit. However, only 27% did so when they were credited. Similarly, 42% of users who left comments on projects that did not give credit manually left positive messages. Nearly two thirds of comments (61%) were positive when credit was given. These differences, in the reduced sample that includes only explicit reactions, were also statistically significantly different ($\chi^2 =
14.09; df=2; p<0.001$). We include the large number of silent participants because we believe that non-response is an important type of reaction with real effects on the community. Understanding the reasons behind non-response and the effect of silence in response to different types of credit giving remains an opportunity for further research.

Although not presented here due to limited space, we followed the general model of previous work using this dataset and tested logistic regression models on dichotomous variables indicating the presence of negative and positive reactions and found that basic relationships described above were robust to the introduction of a control for the the intervention, to an interaction between these two variables, and to controls for the gender and age of originators and to the antecedent project's complexity. Both before or after the intervention, manual crediting resulted in more positive comments by the originators of remixed projects. Of course, the results presented here are uncontrolled, bivariate, relationships and we caution that these results, while provocative, should still be viewed as largely tentative. As we show in the subsequent qualitative analysis, attribution and credit-giving are complex social processes. We do not claim that the preceding analyses capture it fully.

# Study 2: Interviews with participants

In order to explore the reasoning behind young people's remixing behavior and attitudes toward attribution as we observed it in Study 1, we engaged in a second qualitative study and directly asked kids what role attribution and credit plays in their moral evaluations of remixing.

```latex
\begin{table*} \begin{tabular}{lccp{4.5in}} \hline
\textbf{Name (pseudonym)} & \textbf{Age} & \textbf{Gender} & \textbf{Relationship to Scratch}\\
\hline
Nicole & 10 & F & She has created with hundreds of Scratch projects, mainly animations and art ones. \\
Kyle & 14 & M & Casual user of Scratch, interested in math/science simulations and video games. \\
Amy & 15 & F & Avid photographer, has never used Scratch. \\
Charles & 9 & M & Active member of a subgroup of Scratch interested in simulation of operating systems.  \\
Ryan & 12 & F & Long-time member of the Scratch community. Creates complex video games. \\
Jon & 9 & M & Casual user of Scratch, collaborates with Scratch friends in person. \\
Jake & 11 & M & Casual user, likes making video games. \\
Cody & 16 & M & Creates hip hop accessories, not active in Scratch. \\
Paul & 9 & M & Creates Scratch projects with a focus on engineering and video games. \\
Jimena & 17 & F & Highly technical teen with programming experience but no experience with Scratch. \\
Madeline & 14 & F & Very popular animator  in the Scratch community. \\
Susie & 10 & F & Has created hundreds of projects including games, animations and art, but preferring art. \\
\hline
\end{tabular} \caption{Table listing details of interviewees used in Study 2. ($n=12$)} \label{tab:ints} \end{table*}
```

## Methodology

We conducted twelve one-hour semi-structured interviews with kids aged 8 to 17 years old. All of the interviewees had experience using computers and had access to the Internet at home. All the interviewees live in the United States except for one who lives in New Zealand. The participants were recruited via the Scratch website and during meet-ups with educators, teachers and young Scratch users. Eight of the interviews were conducted in person, in the Boston area, and the rest over the phone or voice over IP. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed before fully analyzing them. Nine of the interviewees were members of the Scratch community. The remaining three did not use Scratch but were included as a way to check if people who do not use Scratch have similar views about remixing, attribution, and credit. We found no substantive difference between the Scratch users and non-users in their answers to questions related to the hypothetical automatic and manual mechanism for attribution.

Before each interview, subjects completed a survey that elicited demographic information and posed questions about their familiarity with other technologies and which was primarily designed to get a sense of the interviewees' social and technical background. Interviews were structured around a protocol that included a set of nine fictional remixing cases intended to elicit conversations about remixing.[^3] The cases were inspired by Sinnreich et al.'s theoretical work and from three years of experience moderating the Scratch community. They were designed to present cases where remixing could be controversial but where there is no clear "correct" answer. The goal of the cases was to offer a concrete, and common, set of dilemmas to stimulate broad conversations about attitudes toward remixing.

The cases were presented in the form of printed screenshots of different project pages from the Scratch website (anonymized to avoid referring to real cases that users might have seen). The print outs were shown to the interviewees (or discussed over the phone) while explaining each case. All the cases included a remix and its corresponding antecedent project. The cases varied in the presence of automatic attribution, manual credit, and the degree of similarity between the remix and its antecedent. For example, the first three cases were:

1.  A remix and its antecedent are identical. The project notes only describe how to play the video game. The remix shows the automatic attribution but no manual credit on the notes.

2.  A remix and its antecedent are different (as seen visually and in project metadata) but one can clearly see the influence of its antecedent project. The project notes of the remix show manual credit but no automatic attribution. The interviewee was told to imagine the site had a glitch that prevented it from connecting it to its antecedent.

3.  The same set of remix and antecedent projects as in (2) but this time automatic attribution is displayed but manual credit is not.

Each of the interview logs was coded using inductive codes and grounded theory . The coded responses were analyzed based on categories related to how interviewees answered specific questions about the distinction between automatic attribution and manual credit.

## Results

Confirming the results of Study 1, for users of Scratch, automatic attribution was generally seen as insincere and insufficient. Throughout the interviews, we found that for most of the kids, getting explicit credit from another person was preferred over attribution given automatically by the system. When asked why, kids often responded that knowing that another person had cared enough to give credit was valued more than what the computer system would do on its own. The fact that it takes some work, albeit minimal, to write an acknowledgment statement, sends a signal of empathy, authenticity and good intentions . Amy articulated this when explaining why she preferred getting credit from another person:

> I would like it even more if the person did it \[gave credit\] on their own accord, because it would mean that \[...\] they weren't trying to copy it, pirate it.

Similarly, Jon explained, "No \[the "Based on" is not enough\], because he \[the remixer\] didn't put that, it always says that." For Jon, automatic attribution is not authentic because it is always there and, as a result, it is clear that is not coming from the person doing the remix.

Most of the interviewees seemed to have a clear notion of what they think a moral remix should be. For some, it is all about making something different. Jake for example, defines a "good" remix as, "if it has a bunch of differences then it's a good remix. If it has like two, then it's bad." In addition to the differences between the remix and its antecedent project, for some, manual credit is part of what makes it moral. Charles said, "\[remixing\] is taking somebody else's project and then changing a lot of it and sharing it and giving credit." Continuing, Charles explained:

> If Green had actually said in the project notes, "This is a remix of Red's project, full credit goes to him," then I would consider it a remix. But this \[pointing at a remix without manual credit\] is definitely a copy.

Likewise, Ryan mentions that a fictional remix was, "perfectly fine because they gave credit in the project notes."

Interviewees suggested that manual credit also allows users to be more expressive. For example, Susie explained that expressiveness is the reason that she prefers manual credit through the project notes saying, "I think the manual one is better because you can say 'thank you' and things like that. The automatic one just says 'it's based on.'" Susie also notes that for her, the project notes are a space where a creator can express her wishes in regards to her intellectual property, independent, and even in contradiction to, the license of the projects:

> If I do a project that has music that I really like, I often download the project, take the music. Unless it says in the project notes, "Do not take the music."

For Susie and other users of Scratch, the project notes are a space for more than just instructions on how to interact with one's project; they are an expressive space where one can communicate with an audience without having to encumber the creative piece of work with it.

Others point at the fact that people do not pay as much attention to automatic attribution statement as much they do to the manual credit left in project descriptions. Jake, for example, explains that, while he agrees there is some usefulness to having both, project notes still are more important, "because, you know, sometimes people just like skim through a project and you don't see it 'til the end." Jake continued to say that creators that do not have both should get a "warning."

Even though interviewees value manual credit, they still see the usefulness of the automatic mechanism as some sort of community-building prosthetic device – an explanation for the positive reactions to the feature's initial introduction. For example, Nicole argues that while manual credit on the notes has more value for her, the automatic attribution is useful as a backup and because it provides a link:

> Well, I think that they should probably write in the notes that – then it should also say "Based on blank's project," just in case they forget, and also because it gives a link to the original project and it gives a link to the user so you don't have to search for it.

A similar explanation was articulated on a comment exchange on one the website's galleries. A teenage girl that actively participates in Scratch explained the pragmatic value of automatic attribution saying, "the 'based on' thingy, it gives a link, and we all luv links, less typing," before reiterating that manual credit is more valuable:

> at the beginning i thought that you don't have to give credit when the "based on" thingy is in there, but i realized a lot of people don't look at that, and i noticed people confused the remix with the original.

Creating a Scratch project is a complicated task. A project's sources can be diverse and the creator can easily forget to acknowledge some, as Paul explains, when asked to choose between a system of manual credit or automatic attribution:

> The thing is, it would be a lot better if they had both. Because, sometimes people probably just forget to do that. And then people would not know.

There are also situations where interviewees recognize what Posner calls the "awkwardness of acknowledgment," that is, situations where credit is not really needed and it can be an unnecessary burden or go against the aesthetics of the work . For example, Paul mentioned that sometimes, there are some projects in Scratch that are remixed so much – like the sample projects that come with Scratch or some "remix chains"[^4] – where credit is not necessary:

> There's this one called "perfect platformer base" which a lot of people remix. So I don't think that needs any credit. It's not actually a real game. It's all the levels and stuff are just demonstrations.

Since manual crediting has a higher emotional value, some kids mentioned that conflicts over remixing could be addressed by the administrators of the site by editing the project of the remix in question, as a way to enforce credit without transforming it into attribution. Doing so would make it appear that a remixer had credited an antecedent when they had not. Susie offers a suggestion along these lines when asked about how the administrators of the website should deal with a case of a complaint over a remix that is a parody of someone else's project. Susie suggested that, "I might remove the project but I might not, you know, maybe I would edit the notes to to give credit." Similarly, Charles described his approach for solving conflicts if he was the administrator of the website suggesting that, "I probably just would stay out of the argument. I probably wouldn't remove it \[the remix\], I'd just add something in the project notes \[like\] 'based on Gray's project.'"

This phenomena of giving less value to technologically simplified social signals is experienced in other social platforms. For example, Amy expressed how on the social network site Facebook, she loves to get comments on her photographs but dislikes those who do not leave comments or opt instead to press the "I like it" button:

> I love when people comment on my pictures. Everybody sees them, because they tell me they have. I'm like, "Oh really? That's great. Why didn't you comment?" I don't like it when people just "like it", because you know they have something to say about it; they just don't. It's like, if they like it, then \[they should\] take the time to say something.

Although not designed to be a random sample, these interviews support the proposition that both Scratch participants and other young people share a set of norms about characteristics that determine what a "good" or moral remix is. Among these norms, acknowledging one's sources seems to play a central role. However, participants also seem to share the opinion that this norm is not satisfied through an automated process. They clearly understand the pragmatic value of automating acknowledgment-giving, but they do not see it as a substitute for adherence to the social norm of credit-giving. They also see it as void of emotion and expressiveness. For Scratch users, normative constraints are separate from architectural constraints and one cannot replace the other. These findings support and enrich the results from our first study and help us understand better how Scratch participants, and perhaps kids in general, experience authorship norms and automation in online spaces.

# Conclusions

Our results from Study 1a called into the question the effectiveness of automatic attribution functionality in encouraging more positive user reactions in Scratch. We build on these results in Study 1b to suggest that manual crediting may do the work that Scratch's designers had hoped automatic attribution would. Results from the analysis of user interviews presented in Study 2 help to answer the question of "why?" and suggest that users find manual credit to be more authentic and more meaningful to users because it takes more time and effort. Usually, UI improvements are designed to help reduce the time and effort involved in using a system. But in trying to help users by attributing automatically, Scratch's designers misunderstood the way that attribution as a social mechanism worked for Scratch's users. Our fundamental insight is that while both attribution and credit may be important, they are distinct concepts and that credit is, socially, worth more. A system can *attribute* the work of a user but *credit*, which is seen as much more important by users and which has a greater effect on user behavior, cannot be done automatically. Computers can attribute. Crediting, however, takes a human.

As we suggested in our introduction, this fundamental result leads to two distinct contributions. First, and more specifically, our analysis offers an improved understanding of the way that attribution and credit works in user-generated content communities over what has been available in previous work. Our two studies suggest that scholars are correct to argue that credit plays an important role in social media communities and offer empirical confirmation for the important role that authenticity plays in how users conceptualize credit. In our in-depth interviews, we explain some of the reasons why this may be the case. Second, through our evaluation of an unsuccessful technological design, our work offers a broader, if more preliminary, contribution in suggesting an important limit of designers' ability to support community norms in social media systems. As the literature on design and social media grows, the importance of good support for communities with healthy norms promoting positive interactions is likely to increase. In attempting to design for these norms, we suspect that researchers will increasingly encounter similar challenges.

We argue that designers should approach interventions iteratively. This design approach can be understood through the theoretical lens of the social construction of technology : designers can't control technological outcomes which must be built through a close relationship between designers and users. Designers must move away from seeing their profession as providing solutions. They must channel users, work closely with them, and iterate together, to negotiate and achieve a set of shared goals.

The prevalence of user-generated content sites stresses the importance of how online social spaces should deal with issues of attribution and our results are likely to be immediately relevant to designers. For example, the Semantic Clipboard is a tool built as a system of automatic attribution for content reuse . Developed by researchers who found a high degree of Creative Commons license violations around the re-use of Flickr images, the tool is a Firefox plugin that provides, "license awareness of Web media," and enables people to automatically, "copy \[media\] along with the appropriate license metadata." Our results suggest one way that this approach may fall short.

However, automatic attribution is not the only way that technologists can design to acknowledge others' contributions. Indeed, our results suggest that there may be gains from design changes which encourage credit-giving without simply automating attribution. For example, Scratch's designers might present users with a metadata field that prompts users to credit others and suggests antecedent authors whose work the system has determined may have played a role. This affordance might remind users to credit others, and might increase the amount of crediting, while maintaining a human role in the process and the extra effort that, our research has suggested, imbues manual credit giving with its value. We suggest that in other social media communities, similar affordances that help prompt or remind users to do things that a system might do automatically represent a class of increasingly important design patterns and a template for successful design interventions in support of community norms.

# Acknowledgments

This research was supported by Microsoft Research. Scratch is a project of the Lifelong Kindergarten Group at the MIT Media Lab with financial support from the National Science Foundation award ITR-0325828, Microsoft Corp., Intel Foundation, Google, the MacArthur Foundation and the MIT Media Lab research consortia.

[^1]: A copy of the current version of the kid-friendly license is available online at http://scratch.mit.edu/pages/license. The version available today encourages users to give credit manually in the project notes. A strong emphasis on credit-giving was added as a result of the findings reported here but was absent during the period of data collection for this study.

[^2]: All usernames and quotes from the website were changed to disguise the identities of participants.

[^3]: Our interview protocol including example cases is available at http://www.media.mit.edu/ andresmh/chi2011/interview.html.

[^4]: Remix chains typically start with someone sharing a project inviting others to remix (i.e. "add your animated avatar to the park.")


abstract: As a response to the trends of the increasing importance of computational approaches and the accelerating pace in science, I propose in this position paper to establish the concept of "science bots" that autonomously perform programmed tasks on input data they encounter and immediately publish the results. We can let such bots participate in a reputation system together with human users, meaning that bots and humans get positive or negative feedback by other participants. Positive reputation given to these bots would also shine on their owners, motivating them to contribute to this system, while negative reputation will allow us to filter out low-quality data, which is inevitable in an open and decentralized system.
author:
Tobias Kuhn

title: Science Bots:
  a Model for the Future of Scientific Computation?

\[Automation\]

# Introduction

As datasets become increasingly important in all branches of science, many have proposed methods and tools to publish data . Nanopublications are an approach to bundle atomic data snippets (in RDF) in small packages together with their provenance and metadata. Such nanopublications can be manually created by scientists and linked to their articles, but they can also be automatically extracted from existing datasets or be directly created by programs that implement scientific methods.

In general, computer programs form a third kind of scientific contribution, besides narrative articles and datasets. While many such programs are openly available, there are no conventions or standards of how to reliably link data to the software that produced it, including the version of the software and the input it received. Moreover, due to the focus of the scientific life cycle on the publication of articles, scientific software is typically applied only to the data available at the time of writing a paper. It is often not the case that new output data is made public when new input data becomes available. To tackle these problems, I argue that we can encapsulate certain types of scientific algorithms as small independent agents that take inputs of a given type and produce, for example, nanopublications, and they could do this in a real-time and automatic manner as new input data becomes available.

# Background

I borrow the term "bot" from Wikipedia, where bots are applied, for example, to revert edits that are the results of vandalism . A prominent example is a bot that has created around 454 000 articles for the Swedish Wikipedia . The fact that bots can be powerful also in a negative sense has become apparent with the rise of botnets , and with the increasing problem of "social bots" that pretend to be humans . I argue here that the power of bots could also be harnessed in a positive way for scientific computation. In contrast to the agents in the original Semantic Web paper , such bots would not propose or make decisions as a kind of personal assistant, but they would only publish data snippets and they would do that without any further interaction with humans.

In previous work, I showed how the concept of nanopublications can be extended and I mentioned the possible use of bots to create them . I also presented an approach to attach cryptographic hash values to nanopublication identifiers to make them verifiable and immutable . Based on that work, I have started to establish a nanopublication server network, with which nanopublications can be published, retrieved, and archived in a reliable, trustworthy, and decentralized manner , which could serve as the basis for the communication for bots.

# Approach

In this position paper, I propose bots as a general concept for scientific computation. For example, a bot could apply text mining to extract relations from the abstracts of the constantly growing PubMed database, another bot could regularly measure the temperature at a given location and publish the results, and yet another one could infer new facts from existing nanopublications by applying specified rules or heuristics (e.g. if disease X is related to gene Y, which is targeted by drug Z then Z might help to treat X). Importantly, these bots can automatically publish the obtained data without double-checking or direct supervision by their creators, and these data can be made immediately accessible to everybody (including other bots).

In a system that treats bots as first-class citizens, we have to expect that some bots (and humans for that matter) will produce low-quality contributions, and we have to make sure that this does not affect the reliability and trustworthiness of the system. I argue that we can achieve that without introducing a central authority, without making concessions with respect to the openness of the system, and without delaying the publishing of results. We simply need a sufficiently accurate automatic method to discern good contributions from bad ones, which can be achieved by a reputation system. We can let scientists and bots participate in the same reputation system, where they would increase their reputation by receiving positive feedback by other participants on the usefulness and quality of their contributions. Positive reputation of a bot, in turn, would give credit and reputation to the scientist who created it.

To arrive at a simple exemplary model to explain the approach, we can define a relation "is contributed by", where bots can occur on either side: They are contributions, as they were programmed and created by somebody, but they are also contributors, as they can create new digital entities on their own. We can define a second type of relation to represent assessments. For the sake of simplicity, we model here only positive assessments and strip them of all granularity and detail, and we can call the resulting relation "gives positive assessment for".

Fig.  shows a simple example of such a graph with two kinds of edges, representing creatorship and assessments. To determine the reputation or importance of the nodes, we can in the simplest case treat the two types of edges identically and rank the nodes by applying a network measure such as Eigenvector centrality (which is closely related to Google's PageRank algorithm to rank websites), as shown by the red numbers. The person at the top-left has a high reputation because he is endorsed by the person in the middle. The latter has a high reputation because her direct and indirect contributions were positively assessed by others (even though she has not received a direct assessment herself). The third person to the right, however, has not contributed anything that was positively assessed by others (only by his own bot), and therefore his reputation is low. Of course, there are many possible variations and extensions, such as bidirectional contribution edges for the Eigenvector calculation, as indicated by the gray numbers. In general, as one cannot influence *incoming* links from the part of the network that is not under one's control, there is no way to efficiently game the system. The scalability of such algorithms in open and decentralized systems is demonstrated by their successful application by search engines and peer-to-peer systems .

Bots could free scientists from routine tasks and therefore allow them to focus on the interesting questions. Furthermore, this approach could increase the value and appreciation of datasets and software as research products, and give due credit to their creators. With appropriate reputation mechanisms, this can be achieved in a fully open and decentralized environment.


abstract: The nearly equal lunar and solar angular sizes as subtended at the Earth is generally regarded as a coincidence. This is, however, an incidental consequence of the tidal forces from these bodies being comparable. Comparable magnitudes implies strong temporal modulation, as the forcing frequencies are nearly but not precisely equal. We suggest that on the basis of paleogeographic reconstructions, in the Devonian period, when the first tetrapods appeared on land, a large tidal range would accompany these modulated tides. This would have been conducive to the formation of a network of isolated tidal pools, lending support to A.S. Romer's classic idea that the evaporation of shallow pools was an evolutionary impetus for the development of chiridian limbs in aquatic tetrapodomorphs. Romer saw this as the reason for the existence of limbs, but strong selection pressure for terrestrial navigation would have been present even if the limbs were aquatic in origin. Since even a modest difference in the Moon's angular size relative to the Sun's would lead to a qualitatively different tidal modulation, the fact that we live on a planet with a Sun and Moon of close apparent size is not entirely coincidental: it may have an anthropic basis.
address: $^{1}$Astrophysics, Keble Road, Denys Wilkinson Building, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3RH
author: Steven A. Balbus
subject: Astronomy, Astrobiology
title: Dynamical, biological, and anthropic consequences of equal lunar and solar angular radii

# Introduction

The fact that the solid angles subtended by the Sun and Moon at the Earth are nearly equal is generally regarded as a coincidence, one that leads to the phenomenon of total solar eclipses of agreeably short duration. The purpose of ths article is to propose an anthropic explanation for why the near equality of solar and lunar angular sizes may not be entirely coincidental, and in the process lend support to an old idea of A. S. Romer \[1\] on the evolutionary role of tidal pools. The idea is that the near match of angular sizes is a mathematical, but incidental, by-product of the presence of a strongly modulated tidal forcing by the Sun and Moon. It is the latter that is the true biological imperative.

The two earliest known tetrapods with more than fragmentary remains, *Acanthostega* and *Ichthyostega*, are thought to have been fully (perhaps only predominantly in the case of *Ichthyostega*) aquatic creatures \[2\]. The coastal and estuarial waters such organisms and their immediate ancestors are believed to have inhabited would have been subject to sizeable and irregular tides, leaving an inland network of pools. The farthest inland of these pools would on occasion have been left exposed weeks at time, utimately evaporating. A creature caught in one of these isolated inland pools would consequently have faced dehydration or suffocation. But given a sense of direction to its flailing, there would have been plenty of inviting pools closer to the sea. These would be refreshed progessively more often than pools deeper inland. In addition, any fish left stranded in these inland pools would have been easy prey for those predators adapted to directed terrestrial motion \[2\]. The exigencies and advantages of large motor control in a network of tidal pools would surely have been an important evolutionary impetus to evolve weight-bearing chiridian limbs. This simple and important argument, which ties together evolutionary biology with established tidal theory, deserves to be much more widely known. In this paper, we illustrate by explicit calculation the sensitivity of the equilibrium tidal height to the relative lunar and solar angular sizes, and point out that the continental configuration associated with Devonian plate tectonics may have been particularly conducive to a large tidal range.

The argument associating tidal modulation with perceived lunar and solar angular sizes is very simple. Isaac Newton himself was aware of it: in the *Principia,* he shows that one may use the ratio of the spring to neap tides to deduce the fact that the Moon's tidal force is stronger than the Sun's, and that the Moon therefore must be the denser body. The relation is also clearly discussed in an unpublished 1992 manuscript by C. Tolbert and C. Sarazin \[3\], which goes on to note some of the biological implications that we discuss more fully in this work.

The tidal force, which arises from the quadrupole term of the two-body potential of the disturbing source and its host, is proportional to the mass of the disturber and the reciprocal cube of the distance between the centres-of-mass. Assume for the moment that the Sun exerts a tidal force on the Earth which is a fraction $f$ of the Moon's tidal force. Then, $${M_S\over r_S^3} = f{M_m\over r_m^3}$$ where $M_S$ is the mass of the Sun, $r_S$ the Earth-to-Sun centre-of-mass distance, and $M_m$ and $r_m$ the corresponding quantities for the Moon. The masses, in turn, are proportional to the average internal density times the cube of the body's diameter. With $\rho$ and $D$ standing for average density and diameter respectively, subscripts $S$ and $m$ for Sun and Moon, we have $$\label{XX}
{\rho_S}{\left(D_S\over r_S\right)^3}=
{f \rho_m}{\left(D_m\over r_m\right)^3}.$$ But $D/r$ is just the apparent angular size $\theta$ of the object subtended at the Earth. This means, for example, that the total tidal potential at latitude $l$ and time $t$ may be written $$\Phi =GR_E^2[ \rho_S\theta_S^3 A(l,t) + \rho_m\theta_m^3 B(l,t)]$$ where $G$ is the gravitational constant, $R_E$ the radius of the Earth, and $A$ and $B$ angular functions of order unity ($t$ serves as a longitudinal variable). The relative Sun and Moon contributions are thus extremely sensitive to their relative angular sizes. Equation () implies $$\theta_S = \left(f\rho_m\over \rho_S\right)^{1/3} \theta_m.$$ Were the densities the same, equal angular sizes would mean equal tides. With $(\rho_m/\rho_S)^{1/3}= 1.34$, we see that values of $f$ even roughly near 0.5 will translate to nearly equal angular sizes for the Sun and Moon subtended at the Earth. The question of why these angular sizes should be so closely matched now becomes one of why the Sun's tides should be something like half of the Moon's. The ground has shifted from perception to dynamics, and dynamics has calculable consequences.

# Analysis

## Semi-qualitative considerations

There are many characteristic frequencies in the tidal problem, the precise number depending upon the level of accuracy and time baseline sought. The three most important frequencies are associated with the diurnal rotation period of the Earth, the siderial orbital period of the Moon, and the yearly passage of the Sun along the ecliptic. We experience events on the rotating surface of the Earth, which boosts the effective forcing frequencies of the Moon and Sun by $2\pi/(1\
{\rm day})$. For the problem at hand this is a large number, and the difference between the effective lunar and solar forcing frequencies is small compared to their average. When two processes with close but unequal frequencies superpose, the net response is carried at this average frequency, with a modulation envelope at the difference frequency. In the case of the tides the modulation is particularly rich, because there are many different modulation frequencies that enter. By contrast, were one of the solar or lunar tides heavily dominant, very little of this modulation richness would be present. It is this feature of the problem that compels one to consider the importance of comparable tidal contributions from the Sun and Moon.

The close match of the Sun and Moon angular size combined with the density ratio implies that the solar tidal contribution is somewhat smaller than the lunar. Amplitude modulation of the tidal forcing would still be present if the inequality of magnitudes were reversed; might it just as easily have occurred that the Moon's contribution was smaller than that of the Sun? At an orbital radius of 1 AU the net tide would then of course be considerably smaller, and if the Earth is in fact near the inner edge of the the Sun's habitable zone as some current estimates suggest, a more distant orbital location would make the tides yet smaller. If a putative moon with a mass comparable to the true Moon had to form close to the Earth by impact or otherwise, there is a nautural link between relative and absolute tidal amplitudes. The early moon's tidal contribution, putatitive or real, would have been overwhelming, moving the Earth's crust through kilometer-scale upheavals. The lunar orbit would evolve rapidly at first, with the satellite spiraling outward via tidal dissipation to several $10^5$ km, where the orbital recession would slow to a comparative crawl, conveniently measured in centimetres per year. In the process, not only would the tides greatly diminish to below environmentally friendly meter-scale displacements, *at the same epoch* the Sun would also become a player in the tidal game. In other words, for any Moon-like satellite, orbital dynamics lead to something resembling the present tidal environment: the Moon dominant but not overwhelmingly so.

The scenario might be different if a moon formed farther out and evolved *inward*, but this is not possible if the host planet rotates more rapidly than the moon orbits, as presumably would be the case on a planet capable of supporting life. If the planet rotates more rapidly, the effect of tidal dissipation on the perturber's orbit is to cause outward migration. (It is generally thought the absence of of any moons associated with the two slowly rotating inner planets Venus and Mercury is due to the resultant *inward* tidal migration of any primordial moons circling these bodies \[4\].)

## Tidal Potential

### Coordinate expansion

To calculate the actual height of the oceanic tides at a particular location is a difficult task. The answer depends on the details of the coastline in question (especially whether resonances are present), the depth of ocean as a function of position (bathymetry), the hydrodynamics of ocean-propagating long waves (shallow water waves modified by the Earth's rotation), and coefficients known as the Love numbers, used to extract the difference between the oceanic and solid crust tidal response. We surely do not know Devonian bathymetery or the the Laurussian coastline in sufficient detail to perform a precise calculation of this type.

Fortunately, extreme accuracy is not required. A quantity known as the *equilibrium tide* will suffice. This is simply the displacement of a local equipotential surface caused by the introduction of the tidal potential, and is directly proportional to this potential. The displacement is calculated by setting the associated work done against the Earth's gravity equal to (minus) the disturbing tidal potential.

Let $\Phi_t$ be this potential and $g$ be Earth's gravitational field. The height $h$ of the tide is then simply $$h = -{\Phi_t\over g}.$$ The equilibrium tide is a reasonable measure of the scale of the reponse. In any case, we are less interested in $h$ as an actual height then the fact that it is proportional to $\Phi_t$, the driving potential of the problem. We are particularly interested in the temporal behaviour of $\Phi_t$, and in effect use $h$ as a convenient normalization.

The calculation of $\Phi_t$ is a standard exercise \[4\] and not difficult. We briefly review it here to keep the presentation self-contained. Let the centre-of-mass distance between the Earth and Moon be $r_m$. At the centre of the Earth we erect a $\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}  =(u,v,w)$ coordinate system, where $w$ is the distance along the line connecting the centres-of-mass, and $u$ and $v$ are orthogonal axes oriented so that $u,v,w$ is a standard right-handed Cartesian system. The potential at the coordinate location $u,v,w$ is $$\Phi = - {GM_m\over [(r_m+w)^2 +u^2+ v^2]^{1/2}}$$ It is important to note that while the origin of our $uvw$ system is fixed to the Earth's centre, the axes are not fixed to the Earth. They are defined by the Moon's instantaneous location (see below.)

Since $r_m$ is large compared with $u$, $v$, or $w$, we expand $\Phi$ through second order in small quantities: $$\label{t1}
\Phi = {GM_m \over r_m}\left[ -1 +{w\over r_m}+{1\over 2r_m^2} (u^2+v^2-2w^2)\right]$$ The first term is an additive constant contributing nothing to the force $-   \mbox{\boldmath{$\nabla$}}  \Phi$. The gradient of the second term returns the dominant $1/r^2$ force along the ($w$ axis) centres-of-mass, and the third term is the desired leading order tidal potential $\Phi_t$, giving rise to a force vector proportional to $(-u, -v, 2w)$. Relative to the Earth's centre, the $w$ force is repulsive and the $uv$ forces are attractive. We thus find $$\label{YYY}
h_m = {GM_m\over 2gr_m^3} \left( 2w^2-u^2-v^2\right)$$

The more cumbersome calculation arises when one relates these $uvw$ coordinates, defined by and moving with the Moon's orbit, to coordinate axes *fixed* to the rotating Earth. Let us refer to these Earth body axes as $\mbox{\boldmath{$x_b$}}  =(x_b, y_b, z_b)$, with their origin at the Earth's centre and the $x_b$-axis parallel to the North Celestial Pole. With $\phi_m(t)$ equal to the azimuthal angle of the Moon in its own orbital plane, $i_m$ the Moon's orbital inclination relative to the equator, $\alpha$ the shift in the azimuth of the line of nodes (i.e., the line formed by the intersection of the equatorial and lunar orbital planes), $\Omega_E$ the Earth's diurnal angular rotation rate, and $T$ denoting transpose (so the vectors are in column form) the transformation is given by $$\label{YY}
   \mbox{\boldmath{$u^T$}}   =    \mbox{\boldmath{$\cal R_X$}}  (\phi_m)   \mbox{\boldmath{$\cal R_Y$}}  (i_m)   \mbox{\boldmath{$\cal R_X$}}  (\alpha)   \mbox{\boldmath{$\cal R_X$}}  (-\Omega_Et)   \mbox{\boldmath{$x^T_b$}}$$ where $\mbox{\boldmath{$\cal R_X$}}  (\theta)$ is a $3\times 3$ rotation matrix about the $x$ axis $$\mbox{\boldmath{$\cal R_X$}}  (\theta) =
 \begin{pmatrix} 1&0&0\\
0&\cos\theta&\sin\theta   \\
0&-\sin\theta   &\cos\theta
\end{pmatrix}$$ and $\mbox{\boldmath{$\cal R_Y$}}  (\theta)$ is a $3\times 3$ rotation matrix about the $y$ axis $$\mbox{\boldmath{$ \cal R_Y$}}  (\theta) =
 \begin{pmatrix} \cos\theta&0&\sin\theta\\0&1&0\\
-\sin \theta &0&\cos \theta\end{pmatrix}$$ (Note that $i_m$, $\alpha$ and $\phi_m$ are in effect Euler angles.) By substituting () into (), we may determine the potential at a particular terrestrial location. Exactly analogous formulae hold for the solar orbit.

### Eccentricity

A complication of practical importance is the eccentricity of the Moon's orbit. Its present value is \[5\]: $$\epsilon_m = 0.0549.$$ The $1/r_m^3$ behaviour of the tidal amplitude means that there is modulation from this effect alone. A more minor modification is that the temporal advancement of the azimuth in the orbital plane is no longer uniform. With $\Omega_m$ equal to the average orbital frequency, the first order correction is: $$\phi_m(t) = \Omega_m t - \varpi + 2\epsilon_m\sin(\Omega_m t- \varpi)$$ where $t$ is time and $\varpi$ is the longitude of the pericentre. The current solar eccentricity is $\epsilon_s=0.0167$ \[5\]. The separation $r_m$ is given by the usual formula \[23\]: $$r_m = {r_0\over 1 + \epsilon\cos\phi_m(t)}$$ where $r_0$ is the semilatus rectum of the orbit. Analogous formulae hold for the Sun.

## Equilibrium tide

In figure (1), we show the total equilibrium tide, $h(   \mbox{\boldmath{$x_b$}}  )= h_m(   \mbox{\boldmath{$x_b$}}  )+h_S(   \mbox{\boldmath{$x_b$}}  )$. For this canonical case, we have chosen parameters for the solar orbit to be those of today. For the lunar orbit we use an estimated Devonian semilatus rectum of 365000 km \[4,6\]. (The Earth's rotational frequency has accordingly been increased to conserve total angular momentum.) We have used the current orbital inclinations and eccentricities. It is certainly possible that these have evolved for the Moon \[7\], and the Milankovitch cycles affect the Earth's orbit about the Sun, but our results are not sensitive to nonpathological values. The lunar and solar longitudes of the pericentres have been chosen arbitrarily ($0.63\pi$ and $-0.17\pi$ respectively); the precise values are inconsequential. The $\alpha$ angle currently rotates with an 18.6 year period. Its precise value is also not critical, though small values show particularly sharp modulation. The canonical value is thus $\alpha=0$. The latitude chosen, $35^\circ$ S, is supposed to be representative of the late Devonian Laurussian coast. The most striking feature of $h$ is the presence of many different incommensurate frequencies, the most important of which are diurnal, semi-diurnal and twice the lunar orbital frequency. Note the asymmetry between the diurnal and semi-diurnal components, which results in a "shading" effect in the lower portion of the figure. (The asymmetry is caused by the orbital inclinations.) A higher time resolution detail is shown in figure (2) between 1000 and 2000 hours. The strength of the diurnal equilibrium high tide can vary by a factor of 5: it is highly modulated.

There is a self-evident repeating pattern of a build-up of the tidal strength to a maximum, corresponding to the deepest inland penetration of the sea line, followed by a recession, which can be sharp, in which the inland penetration diminishes each day. It is not the height of the spring tide (say, at 600 hours) that is relevant here. Rather, it is the rapid rate of change of the "modulation envelope" (at about 700 hours). Being a maximum, the spring tide changes little from one local peak to the next, but the changes of the high water mark just after the spring tide become treacherous. The waxing and waning shoreline would have left behind a series of tidal pools of increasing depth (or at least more frequent replenishment) with decreasing distance from the sea. Any aquatic tetrapod stranded in a shallow inland pool that was adapted to squirming to a nearby reservoir would clearly have been favoured over those less mobile. This selection pressure was likely to have presented itself relentlessly.

This should be contrasted with the equilibrium tide that would obtain if there were no (or a tidally unimportant) Moon (figure \[3\]). This tide would be one-third of the amplitude and much less variable. Local topography (and weather!) might still lead to the stranding of aquatic life forms of course, but probably not with an extensive network of pools leading back to the sea. Whether this would lead to a different course of evolution is a matter of speculation, but there is a real qualitative difference in tidal ponds and estuarial flooding in these two scenarios.

Finally, in figure (4) we show for comparision the equilibrium tide for the cases corresponding to a lunar angular diameter half that of the Sun's, without changing the Moon's average density. There is some modulation, but far more gentle than and qualitatively different from our canonical case. It is only when the angular sizes become close that we start to see highly sculpted modulation.

# Discussion

## Tidal receptivity

Any discussion of continental reconstruction prior to 200 Ma must begin by noting that this is an unavoidably speculative undertaking. Nevertheless, there seems to be some consensus on major features.

At the time of the middle Silurian (430 Ma), the broad intercontinental seaway comprising the Rheic Ocean separated the (southern) Gondwanan and (northern) Laurussian land masses. The early Devonian marked the beginning of the closure of this seaway, a protracted geological event. The squeezing of the Rheic was not uniform along its length, however. Some reconstructions show the eastern Rheic squeezed down to brackish swampland, while in the west the Rheic maintained a very broad opening of several thousand kilometers before giving on to the great Panthalassa Ocean. More recent reconstructions suggest a western closure preceeding the eastern \[8\]. In either scenario, a tapered, horn-shaped configuration of the intercontinental seaway was maintained throughout most of the Devonian, before the Rheic became closed off at the start of the Carboniferous, eventually uniting the Laurussian and Gondwanan land masses, forming the Pangaean supercontinent of the Permian.

From the point of view of tidal dynamics, the Devonian is distinctive. The intercontinental seaway dividing Laurussia from Gondwana had the same generic form as the current Bay of Fundy, Bristol Channel, or northwest coast of Australia: a broad opening onto a deep ocean, tapering to shallower seas. These are all regions known for their large tidal range. The propagation speed of water waves is greater in deep water than in shallow seas, going roughly as the square root of the water's depth \[9\]. In the case of interest, this means that the shallows would not have responded as rapidly to tidal forcing as would the deeper water in the opening to the ocean. The resulting tidal surge propagates into the shallows, the flow convergent because of the tapering of the channel. The consequence of this behaviour is a greatly enhanced rise of the propagating tide. A correspondingly rapid egress occurs at low tide. This behaviour accounts for the famously large tidal ranges of the modern regions noted above.

The Devonian, we therefore expect, was likely to be have seen dramatic tides along the Rheic Ocean, with both significant modulation of the high tide level and a great tidal range. It is not difficut to imagine the resulting rich network of coastal tidal pools that is likely to have been present. It is therefore highly suggestive that the earliest identified tetrapod trackways are thought to have originated in the Eifelian stage of the Devonian, significantly predating body fossil tetrapod remains, at a paleogeographic location corresponding to a tight constriction of the central Rheic seaway \[10\]. The southern tropical coasts of the Devonian Earth may well have been a massive swamp.

## A brief overview of Devonian tetrapodomorph habitats

One of the richest sources of Devonian tetrapodomorph fossils is a huge area extending through parts of modern day Lithuiania, Latvia, Estonia and Russia. In Devonian times, it was a massive delta region, with clear evidence of tidal influence in the form of currents and facies \[11\]. Yet more telling, from the point of view of this work, is the evidence of interruption of river current sediment deposition by tidal currents. The delta plane was graded. In the upper plane region, the evidence indicates sporadic interruption during spring tides; the lower plane region shows a much more regular pattern of tidal currents. (This is analgous to the modern day River Severn, which hosts tidal bores at spring tides \[9\].) The Baltic Devonian Delta thus preserves explicit evidence for the environmental influences of *modulated* tidal forcing. The formation existed for some 30 million years, and for much of this time provided habitats for tetrapods and near-tetrapods \[11, 24\].

More generally, the distribution of Devonian tetrapodomorph fossils indicates a preference for marginal marine environments \[2\]; the *extent* of the distribution implies an ability to cross narrow seaways. It is of interest to consider also elpistostegids, such as *Pandrichthys,* *Livoniana* and *Tiktaalik,* the fish group from which the tetrapods are thought to have evolved. While they retained paired fins (not limbs), they probably enjoyed some terrestrial maneuverability. Elpistostegid fossils extend further back in time than the earliest true tetrapod body fossils, but do not predate the earliest known tetrapod trackways \[10\]. Evidently, there was an extended period of coexistence between the two groups. From the mid-Devonian, fossils of the more primitive tetrapodomorph *Eusthenopteron* have been found in coastal marine sediments \[2, 13\] (Eastern Canada), as have *Panderichthys* and *Livoniana* fossils (Latvia) \[12\]; *Tiktaalik* remains are found in non-marine fluvial deposits (Ellesmere Island, Canada) from the same period \[14\]. The former environment would very likely have been subject to tidal influences; the latter is less certain but by no means impossible. The case for a tidally-influenced environment also applies to the tetrapods *Elginopteron* \[15\] (non-marine fluvial deposits, Scotland) and *Tulerpeton* \[16\] (coastal lagoon, Russia). By contrast, *Ichthyostega* \[17\] and *Acanthostega* \[18\], the earliest known tetrapods with fairly complete body fossils (later than *Elginopteron*, for which only fragmentary remains are known) are associated with a non-marine inland basin (Greenland), a more ambiguous tidal zone. Remains of the approximately contemporaneous tetrapod *Ventastega* \[19\] were found in river bed tidal deposits (Latvia). Note that *Ventastega,* *Panderichthys,* *Livoniana* all left remains in the massive Baltic Devonian Delta system described above. Finally, the Eifelian trackway is an important datum, as it represents the earliest known evidence of tetrapod activity. The trackway was found in sediments associated with a coastal lagoon (Poland) \[10\].

The fossil record generally supports the notion that tidal modulations contributed to the shaping of the environment of tetrapodomorphs.

# Conclusion

The very near angular sizes of the Moon and Sun as seen from the Earth are a mathematical by-product of the existence half-meter, highly modulated, quasi-periodic equilibrium tides associated with a planet of order 1 AU from a Sun-like star. These conditions have been examined quantitatively in this work by explicit calculation of the equilibrium tides under a variety of different assumptions. It is probably rare for a planet to harbour highly complex macroscopic organisms (though hard data on this are of course scarce!), and it must also be unlikely for a planet to have a large moon nearly matching the central star in angular diameter. If these outlandish features are unrelated, why should the same planet just happen to have both? What is certain is that the Sun and Moon both are able to contribute significantly to the net tide, that this introduces very strong amplitude modulation effects that would otherwise be absent, and that early tetrapods would have had to cope with becoming stranded in a constantly changing network of shallow inland tidal pools. The uncertainty is whether these ineluctable consequences of strong tidal modulation were essential, or merely incidental, to creating an evolutionary pathway leading to a contemplative species.

It may be just a coincidence that our planet has all these features in common for no particular reason. But this line of argument doesn't sit well, and is in any case totally sterile. In terms of the sheer number of phyla and diversity of species, the Earth's intertidal zones are among the richest habitats on the planet \[2\]. Despite their ostensible stranding hazards, these regions stimulated diversity, not avoidance. It seems reasonable to consider the notion that not just the existence of the tide, but its particular form, may have influenced the course of evolution, selecting for (among other things), efficient maneuverability and motility in networks of shallow tidal pools. A.S. Romer's classic vision of trapped tetrapods striving for accommodating pools is supported by the apparent coincidence in angular sizes of the Sun and Moon. The fact that the resulting tidal pools would not have been in arid zones—one of the early criticisms of part of Romer's theory that has allowed it to fall into disfavour—is irrelevant, if isolated shallow pools are common because of the tidal dynamics. As has been noted elsewhere \[20\], aridity is really not an issue. Puddles can drain or be rendered unsuitable for habitation under humid conditions as well. For Romer's purposes, what is really needed is a developed network of ponds, and this is what the dynamics of modulated tides provides. A striking contemporary example of pond-searching is evinced by the so-called "climbing perches", *Anabas testudineus* \[21\], air breathing fish who literally save themselves by terrestrial locomotion from one drying puddle to a deeper pool. These fish, whose behaviour constitutes a sort of Romerian ideal, inhabit wetlands in southeast Asia, hardly an arid climate. It is not a great conceptual leap to envision a similar survival imperative (with no contemporaneous land-based predators) in Devonian swamps.

There may also be interesting geophysical consequences of noncommensurate modulated tides acting over billions of years that have yet to be explored—the Earth's Love numbers, by which one measures the solid planetary response are by no means tiny. Yet further afield, it is of interest to note that the search for the moons of extrasolar planets ("exomoons") is now in its infancy, and is expected to return significant results in the next few years \[22\]. The discussion of this paper suggests a special role for those moons providing a tidal force comparable to the planet's host star. For if it is necessary to have the sort of heavily modulated tides we experience on the Earth in order to influence a planet's evolutionary course in a manner constructive for evolving complex land-based organisms, the mystery of nearly equal angular sizes of the Sun and Moon would evaporate, rather like an inland Devonian tidal pool.

# Acknowledgements

The author has benefitted greatly from interactions with many colleagues over the course of this work. He is deeply grateful to A. Lister for his willingness to guide an outsider through pertinent biological literature and for critical advice, and to P. Ahlberg for an exceptionally meticulous review and extended correspondence. He would also like to thank D. Lynden-Bell for drawing the author's attention to Newton's early work on tides; C. Sarazin for sending his unpublished manuscript; D. Balbus, R. Harvey and M. Rees for stimulating conversations; and J. Clack and R. Dawkins for their helpful advice and active encouragement. Support from the Royal Society in the form of a Wolfson Research Merit Award is gratefully acknowledged.