Search (14 results, page 1 of 1)

0.034487687 = product of:
  0.1207069 = sum of:
    0.10417911 = weight(_text_:sites in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10417911 = score(doc=2109,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21257097 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.227637 = idf(docFreq=644, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04066292 = queryNorm
        0.49009097 = fieldWeight in 2109, 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=2109)
    0.016527792 = product of:
      0.033055585 = sum of:
        0.033055585 = weight(_text_:22 in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033055585 = score(doc=2109,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2109, 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=2109)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Many Web sites have begun allowing users to submit items to a collection and tag them with keywords. The folksonomies built from these tags are an interesting topic that has seen little empirical research. This study compared the search information retrieval (IR) performance of folksonomies from social bookmarking Web sites against search engines and subject directories. Thirty-four participants created 103 queries for various information needs. Results from each IR system were collected and participants judged relevance. Folksonomy search results overlapped with those from the other systems, and documents found by both search engines and folksonomies were significantly more likely to be judged relevant than those returned by any single IR system type. The search engines in the study had the highest precision and recall, but the folksonomies fared surprisingly well. Del.icio.us was statistically indistinguishable from the directories in many cases. Overall the directories were more precise than the folksonomies but they had similar recall scores. Better query handling may enhance folksonomy IR performance further. The folksonomies studied were promising, and may be able to improve Web search performance.

Date

1. 8.2008 12:39:22

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.

0.012277626 = product of:
  0.08594338 = sum of:
    0.08594338 = weight(_text_:sites in 828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08594338 = score(doc=828,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21257097 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.227637 = idf(docFreq=644, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04066292 = queryNorm
        0.40430441 = fieldWeight in 828, 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=828)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

There are close to a billion websites on the Internet with approximately 400 million users worldwide [www.internetworldstats.com]. People go to websites for a wide variety of different information tasks, from finding a restaurant to serious research. Many of the difficulties with searching the Web, as it is structured currently, can be attributed to increases to scale. The content of the Web is now so large that we only have a rough estimate of the number of sites and the range of information is extremely diverse, from blogs and photos to research articles and news videos.

0.0047222264 = product of:
  0.033055585 = sum of:
    0.033055585 = product of:
      0.06611117 = sum of:
        0.06611117 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06611117 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6048, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6048)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

0.0044909082 = product of:
  0.031436358 = sum of:
    0.031436358 = product of:
      0.062872715 = sum of:
        0.062872715 = weight(_text_:design in 5002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062872715 = score(doc=5002,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.41123575 = fieldWeight in 5002, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5002)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Traditional knowledge organization approaches struggle to make large user-generated collections navigable, especially when these collections are quickly growing, in which currency is of particular concern, for which professional classification design is too costly. Many of these collections use folksonomies for labelling and organization as a low-cost but flawed knowledge organization approach. While several computational approaches offer ways to ameliorate the worst flaws of folksonomies, some user-generated collections have implemented a human judgment-centered alternative to produce structured folksonomies. An analysis of three such implementations reveals design differences within the space. This approach, termed "curated folksonomy," presents a new object of study for knowledge organization and represents one answer to the tension between scalability and the value of human judgment.

0.0031755518 = product of:
  0.022228861 = sum of:
    0.022228861 = product of:
      0.044457722 = sum of:
        0.044457722 = weight(_text_:design in 3561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044457722 = score(doc=3561,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.29078758 = fieldWeight in 3561, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3561)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

An increasingly difficult challenge in social tagging applications is negotiating the number of existing tags. This article examines the use of facets to facilitate the efficient organization and browsing of tags into manageable and distinct categories. Current and proposed methodologies for the application of facets in social tagging applications are evaluated. Results of this analysis indicate that these methodologies provide insufficient guidelines for the choice, evaluation, and maintenance of the facets. Suggestions are made to guide the design of a more rigorous methodology for the application of facets to social tagging applications.

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

0.0027546322 = product of:
  0.019282425 = sum of:
    0.019282425 = product of:
      0.03856485 = sum of:
        0.03856485 = weight(_text_:22 in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03856485 = score(doc=1267,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1267, 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=1267)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

5. 1.2008 19:22:48

0.0022682515 = product of:
  0.01587776 = sum of:
    0.01587776 = product of:
      0.03175552 = sum of:
        0.03175552 = weight(_text_:design in 764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03175552 = score(doc=764,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.20770542 = fieldWeight in 764, 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=764)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of the paper is to provide an overview of the collaborative tagging phenomenon and explore some of the reasons for its emergence. Design/methodology/approach - The paper reviews the related literature and discusses some of the problems associated with, and the potential of, collaborative tagging approaches for knowledge organisation and general resource discovery. A definition of controlled vocabularies is proposed and used to assess the efficacy of collaborative tagging. An exposition of the collaborative tagging model is provided and a review of the major contributions to the tagging literature is presented. Findings - There are numerous difficulties with collaborative tagging systems (e.g. low precision, lack of collocation, etc.) that originate from the absence of properties that characterise controlled vocabularies. However, such systems can not be dismissed. Librarians and information professionals have lessons to learn from the interactive and social aspects exemplified by collaborative tagging systems, as well as their success in engaging users with information management. The future co-existence of controlled vocabularies and collaborative tagging is predicted, with each appropriate for use within distinct information contexts: formal and informal. Research limitations/implications - Librarians and information professional researchers should be playing a leading role in research aimed at assessing the efficacy of collaborative tagging in relation to information storage, organisation, and retrieval, and to influence the future development of collaborative tagging systems. Practical implications - The paper indicates clear areas where digital libraries and repositories could innovate in order to better engage users with information. Originality/value - At time of writing there were no literature reviews summarising the main contributions to the collaborative tagging research or debate.

0.0022682515 = product of:
  0.01587776 = sum of:
    0.01587776 = product of:
      0.03175552 = sum of:
        0.03175552 = weight(_text_:design in 289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03175552 = score(doc=289,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.20770542 = fieldWeight in 289, 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=289)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Children are increasingly using the Web. Cognitive theory tells us that directory structures are especially suited for information retrieval by children; however, empirical results show that they prefer keyword searching. One of the reasons for these findings could be that the directory structures and terminology are created by grown-ups. Using a card-sorting method and an enveloping system, we simulated the structure of a directory. Our goal was to try to understand what browsable, hierarchical subject categories children create when suggested terms are supplied and they are free to add or delete terms. Twelve groups of four children each (fourth and fifth graders) participated in our exploratory study. The initial terminology presented to the children was based on names of categories used in popular directories, in the sections on Arts, Television, Music, Cinema, and Celebrities. The children were allowed to introduce additional cards and change the terms appearing on the 61 cards. Findings show that the different groups reached reasonable consensus; the majority of the category names used by existing directories were acceptable by them and only a small minority of the terms caused confusion. Our recommendation is to include children in the design process of directories, not only in designing the interface but also in designing the content structure as well.

0.0022682515 = product of:
  0.01587776 = sum of:
    0.01587776 = product of:
      0.03175552 = sum of:
        0.03175552 = weight(_text_:design in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03175552 = score(doc=865,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.20770542 = fieldWeight in 865, 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=865)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose - Many Web 2.0 services (including Library 2.0 catalogs) make use of folksonomies. The purpose of this paper is to cut off all tags in the long tail of a document-specific tag distribution. The remaining tags at the beginning of a tag distribution are considered power tags and form a new, additional search option in information retrieval systems. Design/methodology/approach - In a theoretical approach the paper discusses document-specific tag distributions (power law and inverse-logistic shape), the development of such distributions (Yule-Simon process and shuffling theory) and introduces search tags (besides the well-known index tags) as a possibility for generating tag distributions. Findings - Search tags are compatible with broad and narrow folksonomies and with all knowledge organization systems (e.g. classification systems and thesauri), while index tags are only applicable in broad folksonomies. Based on these findings, the paper presents a sketch of an algorithm for mining and processing power tags in information retrieval systems. Research limitations/implications - This conceptual approach is in need of empirical evaluation in a concrete retrieval system. Practical implications - Power tags are a new search option for retrieval systems to limit the amount of hits. Originality/value - The paper introduces power tags as a means for enhancing the precision of search results in information retrieval systems that apply folksonomies, e.g. catalogs in Library 2.0environments.

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

0.0018146011 = product of:
  0.012702207 = sum of:
    0.012702207 = product of:
      0.025404414 = sum of:
        0.025404414 = weight(_text_:design in 3616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025404414 = score(doc=3616,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.16616434 = fieldWeight in 3616, 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=3616)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to investigate the linking of a folksonomy (user vocabulary) and LCSH (controlled vocabulary) on the basis of word matching, for the potential use of LCSH in bringing order to folksonomies. Design/methodology/approach - A selected sample of a folksonomy from a popular collaborative tagging system, Delicious, was word-matched with LCSH. LCSH was transformed into a tree structure called an LCSH tree for the matching. A close examination was conducted on the characteristics of folksonomies, the overlap of folksonomies with LCSH, and the distribution of folksonomies over the LCSH tree. Findings - The experimental results showed that the total proportion of tags being matched with LC subject headings constituted approximately two-thirds of all tags involved, with an additional 10 percent of the remaining tags having potential matches. A number of barriers for the linking as well as two areas in need of improving the matching are identified and described. Three important tag distribution patterns over the LCSH tree were identified and supported: skewedness, multifacet, and Zipfian-pattern. Research limitations/implications - The results of the study can be adopted for the development of innovative methods of mapping between folksonomy and LCSH, which directly contributes to effective access and retrieval of tagged web resources and to the integration of multiple information repositories based on the two vocabularies. Practical implications - The linking of controlled vocabularies can be applicable to enhance information retrieval capability within collaborative tagging systems as well as across various tagging system information depositories and bibliographic databases. Originality/value - This is among frontier works that examines the potential of linking a folksonomy, extracted from a collaborative tagging system, to an authority-maintained subject heading system. It provides exploratory data to support further advanced mapping methods for linking the two vocabularies.

0.0015740755 = product of:
  0.011018529 = sum of:
    0.011018529 = product of:
      0.022037057 = sum of:
        0.022037057 = weight(_text_:22 in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022037057 = score(doc=3373,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3373, 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=3373)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22