A leaderboard changes the game from “try this” to “compare yourself with others.” That can fit a timed challenge where competition is the point. It can distract from a product explanation, make a score feel unfair, or publish a name the visitor did not intend to display. Decide what the score represents before choosing where to show it.
Research gives reasons to test the choice, not an event uplift forecast. Amo and colleagues studied points and leaderboards in the Cyber Detectives exhibit at a California technology museum. Their natural experiment used 300 days of data from 88,310 unique users and found support for their model linking competitive structures with engagement and performance growth. The exhibit and its scoring system were specific; the result does not establish that a branded game at another venue needs a public ranking. Amo et al., European Journal of Information Systems, 2020 university record.
In two randomized online undergraduate physics-course experiments, with 102 and 88 students, badges and leaderboards did not change measured academic performance, although most students viewed them positively as motivational tools. Those are course outcomes over time, not a brief public game. The contrast with the museum study is useful: liking a ranking and achieving the organizer's intended outcome are different questions. Badges and leaderboards study, 2022, PubMed record.
Define the score before the display
Write down the action that earns points, what a high score means, and whether first-time visitors have a fair chance against repeat players. If the score rewards speed, someone who needs more time or an assisted route may be unfairly compared. If it rewards product knowledge, test whether a high score actually corresponds to explaining the product. If the score only decorates a screen, a clear completion result may do more work. These are design hypotheses for a pilot, not claims established by the cited studies.
Then choose a visibility level. Private feedback tells the participant how they did without creating a public identity. Session or group ranking makes comparison part of a shared turn but can reset before names persist. Public leaderboard invites spectators into the competition and requires explicit decisions about names, moderation, ties, repeat attempts, and when entries expire. Do not collect an email merely to display a score. If identity or a photo is required, agree what appears publicly and what the visitor can decline.
The branded game versus product demo guide asks whether a game serves the primary communication goal. This article begins after that decision and asks whether ranking helps the game. The group turn-taking guide covers how companions share one interface; it does not determine whether their scores should be compared.
Run a small, bounded pilot
Prototype the same game with private progress and with a public ranking. Keep the task, staff prompt, and difficulty as similar as possible. Observe starts, completions, replays, abandonment after a low score, and what spectators actually discuss. Ask visitors what they think the score means and whether they would consent to their displayed name. Record the outcome that matters to the event—understanding, enjoyment, or a qualified next step—separately from the points themselves.
Make the result easy to reverse. If the ranking draws attention to the board but not to the idea, use private feedback or remove points. The pilot cannot prove a future event effect from a small sample, but it can expose a score that confuses or excludes the very visitors the installation was built for.