Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  • × theme_ss:"Folksonomies"
  1. Johansson, S.; Golub, K.: LibraryThing for libraries : how tag moderation and size limitations affect tag clouds (2019) 0.01 
    0.014864903 = product of:
  0.05945961 = sum of:
    0.05945961 = weight(_text_:description in 5398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05945961 = score(doc=5398,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.25684384 = fieldWeight in 5398, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5398)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The aim of this study is to analyse differences between tags on LibraryThing's web page and tag clouds in their "Library-Thing for Libraries" service, and assess if, and how, the Library-Thing tag moderation and limitations to the size of the tag cloud in the library catalogue affect the description of the information resource. An e-mail survey was conducted with personnel at LibraryThing, and the results were compared against tags for twenty different fiction books, collected from two different library catalogues with disparate tag cloud sizes, and Library-Thing's web page. The data were analysed using a modified version of Golder and Huberman's tag categories (2006). The results show that while LibraryThing claims to only remove the inherently personal tags, several other types of tags are found to have been discarded as well. Occasionally a certain type of tag is in-cluded in one book, and excluded in another. The comparison between the two tag cloud sizes suggests that the larger tag clouds provide a more pronounced picture regarding the contents of the book but at the cost of an increase in the number of tags with synonymous or redundant information.
  2. Cope, J.: Librarianship as intellectual craft : the ethics of classification in the realms of leisure and waged labor (2012) 0.01 
    0.008576263 = product of:
  0.03430505 = sum of:
    0.03430505 = weight(_text_:26 in 421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03430505 = score(doc=421,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 421, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=421)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    27. 9.2012 14:26:04
  3. Chan, L.M.: Social bookmarking and subject indexing (2011) 0.01 
    0.007899991 = product of:
  0.031599965 = sum of:
    0.031599965 = product of:
      0.06319993 = sum of:
        0.06319993 = weight(_text_:access in 1806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06319993 = score(doc=1806,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.37448242 = fieldWeight in 1806, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1806)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Subject access: preparing for the future. Conference on August 20 - 21, 2009 in Florence, the IFLA Classification and Indexing Section sponsored an IFLA satellite conference entitled "Looking at the Past and Preparing for the Future". Eds.: P. Landry et al
  4. Lee, Y.Y.; Yang, S.Q.: Folksonomies as subject access : a survey of tagging in library online catalogs and discovery layers (2012) 0.01 
    0.0067033647 = product of:
  0.026813459 = sum of:
    0.026813459 = product of:
      0.053626917 = sum of:
        0.053626917 = weight(_text_:access in 309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053626917 = score(doc=309,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.31775886 = fieldWeight in 309, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=309)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This paper describes a survey on how system vendors and libraries handled tagging in OPACs and discovery layers. Tags are user added subject metadata, also called folksonomies. This survey also investigated user behavior when they face the possibility to tag. The findings indicate that legacy/classic systems have no tagging capability. About 47% of the discovery tools provide tagging function. About 49% of the libraries that have a system with tagging capability have turned the tagging function on in their OPACs and discovery tools. Only 40% of the libraries that turned tagging on actually utilized user added subject metadata as access point to collections. Academic library users are less active in tagging than public library users.

Authors

Types

Themes