Search (15 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Bentley, C.M.; Labelle, P.R.: ¬A comparison of social tagging designs and user participation (2008) 0.03 
    0.027586278 = product of:
  0.09655197 = sum of:
    0.049110502 = weight(_text_:sites in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049110502 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21257097 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.227637 = idf(docFreq=644, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04066292 = queryNorm
        0.23103109 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.227637 = idf(docFreq=644, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
    0.04744147 = sum of:
      0.025404414 = weight(_text_:design in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025404414 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04066292 = queryNorm
          0.16616434 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
      0.022037057 = weight(_text_:22 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.022037057 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04066292 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Social tagging empowers users to categorize content in a personally meaningful way while harnessing their potential to contribute to a collaborative construction of knowledge (Vander Wal, 2007). In addition, social tagging systems offer innovative filtering mechanisms that facilitate resource discovery and browsing (Mathes, 2004). As a result, social tags may support online communication, informal or intended learning as well as the development of online communities. The purpose of this mixed methods study is to examine how undergraduate students participate in social tagging activities in order to learn about their motivations, behaviours and practices. A better understanding of their knowledge, habits and interactions with such systems will help practitioners and developers identify important factors when designing enhancements. In the first phase of the study, students enrolled at a Canadian university completed 103 questionnaires. Quantitative results focusing on general familiarity with social tagging, frequently used Web 2.0 sites, and the purpose for engaging in social tagging activities were compiled. Eight questionnaire respondents participated in follow-up semi-structured interviews that further explored tagging practices by situating questionnaire responses within concrete experiences using popular websites such as YouTube, Facebook, Del.icio.us, and Flickr. Preliminary results of this study echo findings found in the growing literature concerning social tagging from the fields of computer science (Sen et al., 2006) and information science (Golder & Huberman, 2006; Macgregor & McCulloch, 2006). Generally, two classes of social taggers emerge: those who focus on tagging for individual purposes, and those who view tagging as a way to share or communicate meaning to others. Heavy del.icio.us users, for example, were often focused on simply organizing their own content, and seemed to be conscientiously maintaining their own personally relevant categorizations while, in many cases, placing little importance on the tags of others. Conversely, users tagging items primarily to share content preferred to use specific terms to optimize retrieval and discovery by others. Our findings should inform practitioners of how interaction design can be tailored for different tagging systems applications, and how these findings are positioned within the current debate surrounding social tagging among the resource discovery community. We also hope to direct future research in the field to place a greater importance on exploring the benefits of tagging as a socially-driven endeavour rather than uniquely as a means of managing information.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  2. Chopin, K.: Finding communities : alternative viewpoints through weblogs and tagging (2008) 0.02 
    0.02207597 = product of:
  0.07726589 = sum of:
    0.061388128 = weight(_text_:sites in 2341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061388128 = score(doc=2341,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21257097 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.227637 = idf(docFreq=644, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04066292 = queryNorm
        0.28878886 = fieldWeight in 2341, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.227637 = idf(docFreq=644, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2341)
    0.01587776 = product of:
      0.03175552 = sum of:
        0.03175552 = weight(_text_:design in 2341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03175552 = score(doc=2341,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.20770542 = fieldWeight in 2341, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2341)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Purpose - This paper aims to discuss and test the claim that user-based tagging allows for access to a wider variety of viewpoints than is found using other forms of online searching. Design/methodology/approach - A general overview of the nature of weblogs and user-based tagging is given, along with other relevant concepts. A case is then analyzed where viewpoints towards a specific issue are searched for using both tag searching (Technorati) and general search engine searching (Google and Google Blog Search). Findings - The claim to greater accessibility through user-based tagging is not overtly supported with these experiments. Further results for both general and tag-specific searching goes against some common assumptions about the types of content found on weblogs as opposed to more general web sites. Research limitations/implications - User-based tagging is still not widespread enough to give conclusive data for analysis. As this changes, further research in this area, using a variety of search subjects, is warranted. Originality/value - Although proponents of user-based tagging attribute many qualities to the practice, these qualities have not been properly documented or demonstrated. This paper partially rectifies this gap by testing one of the claims made, that of accessibility to alternate views, thus adding to the discussion on tagging for both researchers and other interested parties.
  3. DeZelar-Tiedman, V.: Doing the LibraryThing(TM) in an academic library catalog (2008) 0.02 
    0.017179724 = product of:
  0.06012903 = sum of:
    0.049110502 = weight(_text_:sites in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049110502 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21257097 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.227637 = idf(docFreq=644, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04066292 = queryNorm
        0.23103109 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.227637 = idf(docFreq=644, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
    0.011018529 = product of:
      0.022037057 = sum of:
        0.022037057 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022037057 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Many libraries and other cultural institutions are incorporating Web 2.0 features and enhanced metadata into their catalogs (Trant 2006). These value-added elements include those typically found in commercial and social networking sites, such as book jacket images, reviews, and usergenerated tags. One such site that libraries are exploring as a model is LibraryThing (www.librarything.com) LibraryThing is a social networking site that allows users to "catalog" their own book collections. Members can add tags and reviews to records for books, as well as engage in online discussions. In addition to its service for individuals, LibraryThing offers a feebased service to libraries, where institutions can add LibraryThing tags, recommendations, and other features to their online catalog records. This poster will present data analyzing the quality and quantity of the metadata that a large academic library would expect to gain if utilizing such a service, focusing on the overlap between titles found in the library's catalog and in LibraryThing's database, and on a comparison between the controlled subject headings in the former and the user-generated tags in the latter. During February through April 2008, a random sample of 383 titles from the University of Minnesota Libraries catalog was searched in LibraryThing. Eighty works, or 21 percent of the sample, had corresponding records available in LibraryThing. Golder and Huberman (2006) outline the advantages and disadvantages of using controlled vocabulary for subject access to information resources versus the growing trend of tags supplied by users or by content creators. Using the 80 matched records from the sample, comparisons were made between the user-supplied tags in LibraryThing (social tags) and the subject headings in the library catalog records (controlled vocabulary system). In the library records, terms from all 6XX MARC fields were used. To make a more meaningful comparison, controlled subject terms were broken down into facets according to their headings and subheadings, and each unique facet counted separately. A total of 227 subject terms were applied to the 80 catalog records, an average of 2.84 per record. In LibraryThing, 698 tags were applied to the same 80 titles, an average of 8.73 per title. The poster will further explore the relationships between the terms applied in each source, and identify where overlaps and complementary levels of access occur.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  4. Corrado, E.; Moulaison, H.L.: Social tagging and communities of practice : two case studies (2008) 0.01 
    0.01488273 = product of:
  0.10417911 = sum of:
    0.10417911 = weight(_text_:sites in 2271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10417911 = score(doc=2271,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21257097 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.227637 = idf(docFreq=644, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04066292 = queryNorm
        0.49009097 = fieldWeight in 2271, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.227637 = idf(docFreq=644, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2271)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Content
    In investigating the use of social tagging for knowledge organization and sharing, this paper reports on two case studies. Each study examines how two disparate communities of practices utilize social tagging to disseminate information to other community members in the online environment. Through the use of these tags, community members may retrieve and view relevant Web sites and online videos. The first study looks at tagging within the Code4Lib community of practice. The second study examines the use of tagging on video sharing sites used by a community of French teenagers. Uses of social tagging to share information within these communities are analyzed and discussed, and recommendations for future study are provided.
  5. Abbas, J.: In the margins : reflections on scribbles (2007) 0.01 
    0.012277626 = product of:
  0.08594338 = sum of:
    0.08594338 = weight(_text_:sites in 659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08594338 = score(doc=659,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21257097 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.227637 = idf(docFreq=644, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04066292 = queryNorm
        0.40430441 = fieldWeight in 659, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.227637 = idf(docFreq=644, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=659)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Marginalia or 'scribbling in the margins' is a means for readers to add a more in-depth level of granularity and subject representation to digital documents such as those present in social sharing environments like Flickr and del.icio.us. Social classification and social sharing sites development of user-defined descriptors or tags is discussed in the context of knowledge organization. With this position paper I present a rationale for the use of the resulting folksonomies and tag clouds being developed in these social sharing communities as a rich source of information about our users and their natural organization processes. The knowledge organization community needs to critically examine our understandings of these emerging classificatory schema and determine how best to adapt, augment, revitalize existing knowledge organization structures.
  6. Müller-Prove, M.: Modell und Anwendungsperspektive des Social Tagging (2008) 0.00 
    0.003148151 = product of:
  0.022037057 = sum of:
    0.022037057 = product of:
      0.044074114 = sum of:
        0.044074114 = weight(_text_:22 in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044074114 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2882, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2882)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Pages
    S.15-22
  7. Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008) 0.00 
    0.0027825988 = product of:
  0.01947819 = sum of:
    0.01947819 = product of:
      0.03895638 = sum of:
        0.03895638 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03895638 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Pages
    S.14-22
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  8. Harrer, A.; Lohmann, S.: Potenziale von Tagging als partizipative Methode für Lehrportale und E-Learning-Kurse (2008) 0.00 
    0.0027546322 = product of:
  0.019282425 = sum of:
    0.019282425 = product of:
      0.03856485 = sum of:
        0.03856485 = weight(_text_:22 in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03856485 = score(doc=2889,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2889, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2889)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    21. 6.2009 12:22:44
  9. Rafferty, P.; Hidderley, R.: Flickr and democratic Indexing : dialogic approaches to indexing (2007) 0.00 
    0.0027219015 = product of:
  0.01905331 = sum of:
    0.01905331 = product of:
      0.03810662 = sum of:
        0.03810662 = weight(_text_:design in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03810662 = score(doc=752,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.24924651 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is two-fold: to examine three models of subject indexing (i.e. expert-led indexing, author-generated indexing, and user-orientated indexing); and to compare and contrast two user-orientated indexing approaches (i.e. the theoretically-based Democratic Indexing project, and Flickr, a working system for describing photographs). Design/methodology/approach - The approach to examining Flickr and Democratic Indexing is evaluative. The limitations of Flickr are described and examples are provided. The Democratic Indexing approach, which the authors believe offers a method of marshalling a "free" user-indexed archive to provide useful retrieval functions, is described. Findings - The examination of both Flickr and the Democratic Indexing approach suggests that, despite Shirky's claim of philosophical paradigm shifting for social tagging, there is a residing doubt amongst information professionals that self-organising systems can work without there being some element of control and some form of "representative authority". Originality/value - This paper contributes to the literature of user-based indexing and social tagging.
  10. Kruk, S.R.; Kruk, E.; Stankiewicz, K.: Evaluation of semantic and social technologies for digital libraries (2009) 0.00 
    0.0023611132 = product of:
  0.016527792 = sum of:
    0.016527792 = product of:
      0.033055585 = sum of:
        0.033055585 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033055585 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    1. 8.2010 12:35:22
  11. Rolla, P.J.: User tags versus Subject headings : can user-supplied data improve subject access to library collections? (2009) 0.00 
    0.0023611132 = product of:
  0.016527792 = sum of:
    0.016527792 = product of:
      0.033055585 = sum of:
        0.033055585 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033055585 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  12. Strader, C.R.: Author-assigned keywords versus Library of Congress Subject Headings : implications for the cataloging of electronic theses and dissertations (2009) 0.00 
    0.0023611132 = product of:
  0.016527792 = sum of:
    0.016527792 = product of:
      0.033055585 = sum of:
        0.033055585 = weight(_text_:22 in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033055585 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3602, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3602)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  13. Chen, M.; Liu, X.; Qin, J.: Semantic relation extraction from socially-generated tags : a methodology for metadata generation (2008) 0.00 
    0.0019675945 = product of:
  0.013773161 = sum of:
    0.013773161 = product of:
      0.027546322 = sum of:
        0.027546322 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027546322 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  14. Kim, H.L.; Scerri, S.; Breslin, J.G.; Decker, S.; Kim, H.G.: ¬The state of the art in tag ontologies : a semantic model for tagging and folksonomies (2008) 0.00 
    0.0019675945 = product of:
  0.013773161 = sum of:
    0.013773161 = product of:
      0.027546322 = sum of:
        0.027546322 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027546322 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  15. Vander Wal, T.: Welcome to the Matrix! (2008) 0.00 
    0.0015740755 = product of:
  0.011018529 = sum of:
    0.011018529 = product of:
      0.022037057 = sum of:
        0.022037057 = weight(_text_:22 in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022037057 = score(doc=2881,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2881, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2881)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    22. 6.2009 9:15:45

Authors

Languages

  • e 13
  • d 2

Themes