Search (54 results, page 2 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  1. Stuart, E.: Flickr: organizing and tagging images online (2019) 0.02 
    0.015078641 = product of:
  0.060314562 = sum of:
    0.060314562 = weight(_text_:digital in 5233) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060314562 = score(doc=5233,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 5233, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5233)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Flickr was launched when digital cameras first began to outsell analog cameras, and people were drawn to the site for the opportunities it offered them to store, organize, and share their images, as well as for the connections that could be made with other like-minded people. This article examines the links between Flickr's success and how images are organized within the site, as well as the types of people and organizations that use Flickr and their motivations for doing so. Factors that have contributed to Flickr's demise in popularity will be explored, and the article finishes with some suggestions for how Flickr could develop in the future, along with some conclusions for image organization.
  2. Vander Wal, T.: Welcome to the Matrix! (2008) 0.01 
    0.014447878 = product of:
  0.028895756 = sum of:
    0.015314223 = weight(_text_:library in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015314223 = score(doc=2881,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.11620321 = fieldWeight in 2881, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2881)
    0.013581533 = product of:
      0.027163066 = sum of:
        0.027163066 = weight(_text_:22 in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027163066 = score(doc=2881,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    My keynote at the workshop "Social Tagging in Knowledge Organization" was a great opportunity to make and share new experiences. For the first time ever, I sat in my office at home and gave a live web video presentation to a conference audience elsewhere on the globe. At the same time, it was also an opportunity to premier my conceptual model "Matrix of Perception" to an interdisciplinary audience of researchers and practitioners with a variety of backgrounds - reaching from philosophy, psychology, pedagogy and computation to library science and economics. The interdisciplinary approach of the conference is also mirrored in the structure of this volume, with articles on the theoretical background, the empirical analysis and the potential applications of tagging, for instance in university libraries, e-learning, or e-commerce. As an introduction to the topic of "social tagging" I would like to draw your attention to some foundation concepts of the phenomenon I have racked my brain with for the last few month. One thing I have seen missing in recent research and system development is a focus on the variety of user perspectives in social tagging. Different people perceive tagging in complex variegated ways and use this form of knowledge organization for a variety of purposes. My analytical interest lies in understanding the personas and patterns in tagging systems and in being able to label their different perceptions. To come up with a concise picture of user expectations, needs and activities, I have broken down the perspectives on tagging into two different categories, namely "faces" and "depth". When put together, they form the "Matrix of Perception" - a nuanced view of stakeholders and their respective levels of participation.
    Date
    22. 6.2009 9:15:45
  3. Aparecida Moura, M.; Assis, J.: Social networks, indexing languages and organization of knowledge : a semiotic approach 0.01 
    0.012924549 = product of:
  0.051698197 = sum of:
    0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 3544) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051698197 = score(doc=3544,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 3544, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3544)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This study will present a theoretical discussion about the semiotics categories and its application in the information organization. An experiment about the performance of the Gemet and Eurovoc thesauri with the subject "sustainable development" comparing with the folksonomies and distributed classification systems available on the online repositories of individual or collective information is presented. The new configuration of warrant (literary, structural and of usage) in the process of constructing indexing languages in digital environments will also be discussed. It suggested in the methodological terms that the new theoretical and informational mediations have to be incorporated in the construction process of indexing languages.
  4. Huang, S.-L.; Lin, S.-C.; Chan, Y.-C.: Investigating effectiveness and user acceptance of semantic social tagging for knowledge sharing (2012) 0.01 
    0.012924549 = product of:
  0.051698197 = sum of:
    0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 2732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051698197 = score(doc=2732,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 2732, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2732)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Social tagging systems enable users to assign arbitrary tags to various digital resources. However, they face vague-meaning problems when users retrieve or present resources with the keyword-based tags. In order to solve these problems, this study takes advantage of Semantic Web technology and the topological characteristics of knowledge maps to develop a system that comprises a semantic tagging mechanism and triple-pattern and visual searching mechanisms. A field experiment was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and user acceptance of these mechanisms in a knowledge sharing context. The results show that the semantic social tagging system is more effective than a keyword-based system. The visualized knowledge map helps users capture an overview of the knowledge domain, reduce cognitive effort for the search, and obtain more enjoyment. Traditional keyword tagging with a keyword search still has the advantage of ease of use and the users had higher intention to use it. This study also proposes directions for future development of semantic social tagging systems.
  5. Furner, J.: User tagging of library resources : toward a framework for system evaluation (2007) 0.01 
    0.012841367 = product of:
  0.05136547 = sum of:
    0.05136547 = weight(_text_:library in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05136547 = score(doc=703,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.38975742 = fieldWeight in 703, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=703)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Although user tagging of library resources shows substantial promise as a means of improving the quality of users' access to those resources, several important questions about the level and nature of the warrant for basing retrieval tools on user tagging are yet to receive full consideration by library practitioners and researchers. Among these is the simple evaluative question: What, specifically, are the factors that determine whether or not user-tagging services will be successful? If success is to be defined in terms of the effectiveness with which systems perform the particular functions expected of them (rather than simply in terms of popularity), an understanding is needed both of the multifunctional nature of tagging tools, and of the complex nature of users' mental models of that multifunctionality. In this paper, a conceptual framework is developed for the evaluation of systems that integrate user tagging with more traditional methods of library resource description.
    Content
    Vortrag anlässlich: WORLD LIBRARY AND INFORMATION CONGRESS: 73RD IFLA GENERAL CONFERENCE AND COUNCIL 19-23 August 2007, Durban, South Africa. - 157 - Classification and Indexing
  6. Matthews, B.; Jones, C.; Puzon, B.; Moon, J.; Tudhope, D.; Golub, K.; Nielsen, M.L.: ¬An evaluation of enhancing social tagging with a knowledge organization system (2010) 0.01 
    0.010770457 = product of:
  0.043081827 = sum of:
    0.043081827 = weight(_text_:digital in 4171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043081827 = score(doc=4171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 4171, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4171)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose - Traditional subject indexing and classification are considered infeasible in many digital collections. This paper seeks to investigate ways of enhancing social tagging via knowledge organization systems, with a view to improving the quality of tags for increased information discovery and retrieval performance. Design/methodology/approach - Enhanced tagging interfaces were developed for exemplar online repositories, and trials were undertaken with author and reader groups to evaluate the effectiveness of tagging augmented with control vocabulary for subject indexing of papers in online repositories. Findings - The results showed that using a knowledge organisation system to augment tagging does appear to increase the effectiveness of non-specialist users (that is, without information science training) in subject indexing. Research limitations/implications - While limited by the size and scope of the trials undertaken, these results do point to the usefulness of a mixed approach in supporting the subject indexing of online resources. Originality/value - The value of this work is as a guide to future developments in the practical support for resource indexing in online repositories.
  7. Niemann, C.: Intelligenz im Chaos : erste Schritte zur Analyse des Kreativen Potenzials eines Tagging-Systems (2010) 0.01 
    0.010770457 = product of:
  0.043081827 = sum of:
    0.043081827 = weight(_text_:digital in 4375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043081827 = score(doc=4375,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 4375, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4375)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Die Auszeichnung digitaler Medien durch Tagging ist zur festen Größe für das Wissensmanagement im Internet avanciert. Im Kontext des zunehmenden information overload' stehen wissenschaftliche Bibliotheken vor der Aufgabe, die große Flut digital publizierter Artikel und Werke möglichst inhaltlich erschlossen verfügbar zu machen. Die Frage ist, ob durch den Einsatz von Tagging-Systemen die kollaborative Intelligenz der NutzerInnen für die Sacherschließung eingesetzt werden kann, während diese von einer intuitiven und individuellen Wissensorganisation profitieren. Die große Freiheit bei der Vergabe von Deskriptoren durch die NutzerInnen eines Tagging-Systems ist nämlich ein ambivalentes Phänomen: Kundennähe und kreatives Potenzial stehen der großen Menge völlig unkontrollierter Meta-Informationen gegenüber, deren inhaltliche Qualität und Aussagekraft noch unklar ist. Bisherige Forschungsbemühungen konzentrieren sich hauptsächlich auf die automatische Hierarchisierung bzw. Relationierung der Tag-Daten (etwa mittels Ähnlichkeitsalgorithmen) oder auf die Analyse des (Miss-)Erfolgs, den die NutzerInnen bei einer Suchanfrage subjektiv erfahren. Aus der Sicht stark strukturierter Wissensorganisation, wie sie Experten z. B. durch die Anwendung von Klassifikationen realisieren, handelt es sich bei den zunächst unvermittelt nebeneinander stehenden Tags allerdings kurz gesagt um Chaos. Dass in diesem Chaos aber auch Struktur und wertvolles Wissen als Gemeinschaftsprodukt erzeugt werden kann, ist eine der zentralen Thesen dieses Artikels.
  8. Ransom, N.; Rafferty, P.: Facets of user-assigned tags and their effectiveness in image retrieval (2011) 0.01 
    0.010770457 = product of:
  0.043081827 = sum of:
    0.043081827 = weight(_text_:digital in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043081827 = score(doc=296,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 296, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=296)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose - This study aims to consider the value of user-assigned image tags by comparing the facets that are represented in image tags with those that are present in image queries to see if there is a similarity in the way that users describe and search for images. Design/methodology/approach - A sample dataset was created by downloading a selection of images and associated tags from Flickr, the online photo-sharing web site. The tags were categorised using image facets from Shatford's matrix, which has been widely used in previous research into image indexing and retrieval. The facets present in the image tags were then compared with the results of previous research into image queries. Findings - The results reveal that there are broad similarities between the facets present in image tags and queries, with people and objects being the most common facet, followed by location. However, the results also show that there are differences in the level of specificity between tags and queries, with image tags containing more generic terms and image queries consisting of more specific terms. The study concludes that users do describe and search for images using similar image facets, but that measures to close the gap between specific queries and generic tags would improve the value of user tags in indexing image collections. Originality/value - Research into tagging has tended to focus on textual resources with less research into non-textual documents. In particular, little research has been undertaken into how user tags compare to the terms used in search queries, particularly in the context of digital images.
  9. Choi, Y.: ¬A Practical application of FRBR for organizing information in digital environments (2012) 0.01 
    0.010770457 = product of:
  0.043081827 = sum of:
    0.043081827 = weight(_text_:digital in 319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043081827 = score(doc=319,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 319, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=319)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  10. Estrada, L.M.; Hildebrand, M.; Boer, V. de; Ossenbruggen, J. van: Time-based tags for fiction movies : comparing experts to novices using a video labeling game (2017) 0.01 
    0.010770457 = product of:
  0.043081827 = sum of:
    0.043081827 = weight(_text_:digital in 3347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043081827 = score(doc=3347,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 3347, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3347)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The cultural heritage sector has embraced social tagging as a way to increase both access to online content and to engage users with their digital collections. In this article, we build on two current lines of research. (a) We use Waisda?, an existing labeling game, to add time-based annotations to content. (b) In this context, we investigate the role of experts in human-based computation (nichesourcing). We report on a small-scale experiment in which we applied Waisda? to content from film archives. We study the differences in the type of time-based tags between experts and novices for film clips in a crowdsourcing setting. The findings show high similarity in the number and type of tags (mostly factual). In the less frequent tags, however, experts used more domain-specific terms. We conclude that competitive games are not suited to elicit real expert-level descriptions. We also confirm that providing guidelines, based on conceptual frameworks that are more suited to moving images in a time-based fashion, could result in increasing the quality of the tags, thus allowing for creating more tag-based innovative services for online audiovisual heritage.
  11. Aagaard, H.: Social indexing at the Stockholm Public Library (2011) 0.01 
    0.00957139 = product of:
  0.03828556 = sum of:
    0.03828556 = weight(_text_:library in 1807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03828556 = score(doc=1807,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.29050803 = fieldWeight in 1807, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1807)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  12. Marchitelli, A.; Piazzini, T.: OPAC, SOPAC e social networking : cataloghi di biblioteca 2.0? (2008) 0.01 
    0.009475192 = product of:
  0.03790077 = sum of:
    0.03790077 = weight(_text_:library in 3862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03790077 = score(doc=3862,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.28758827 = fieldWeight in 3862, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3862)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    In this article are compared traditional OPAC systems, enriched OPAC, social OPAC and social cataloguing systems.the aim is to underline new theoretical trends and to offer a taxonomic outline of such tools, according to the interaction level granted to users and to the chance to manage user's generated contents in the point of view of the application of web 2.0 tendecies to libraries, in the library 2.0. At the end, a brief review of softwares, both open source and not, that seem promising for this future application.
    Footnote
    Übers. d. Titels: OPAC, SOPAC and social networking: catalogues of Library 2.0?
  13. Hidderley, R.; Rafferty, P.: Flickr and democratic indexing : disciplining desire lines (2006) 0.01 
    0.008633038 = product of:
  0.034532152 = sum of:
    0.034532152 = product of:
      0.069064304 = sum of:
        0.069064304 = weight(_text_:project in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.069064304 = score(doc=119,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.32644984 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    In this paper, we consider three models of subject indexing, and compare and contrast two indexing approaches, the theoretically based democratic indexing project, and Flickr, a working system for describing photographs. We argue that, despite Shirky's (2005) 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'.
  14. Heckner, M.; Mühlbacher, S.; Wolff, C.: Tagging tagging : a classification model for user keywords in scientific bibliography management systems (2007) 0.01 
    0.0086163655 = product of:
  0.034465462 = sum of:
    0.034465462 = weight(_text_:digital in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034465462 = score(doc=533,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17432621 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Recently, a growing amount of systems that allow personal content annotation (tagging) are being created, ranging from personal sites for organising bookmarks (del.icio.us), photos (flickr.com) or videos (video.google.com, youtube.com) to systems for managing bibliographies for scientific research projects (citeulike.org, connotea.org). Simultaneously, a debate on the pro and cons of allowing users to add personal keywords to digital content has arisen. One recurrent point-of-discussion is whether tagging can solve the well-known vocabulary problem: In order to support successful retrieval in complex environments, it is necessary to index an object with a variety of aliases (cf. Furnas 1987). In this spirit, social tagging enhances the pool of rigid, traditional keywording by adding user-created retrieval vocabularies. Furthermore, tagging goes beyond simple personal content-based keywords by providing meta-keywords like funny or interesting that "identify qualities or characteristics" (Golder and Huberman 2006, Kipp and Campbell 2006, Kipp 2007, Feinberg 2006, Kroski 2005). Contrarily, tagging systems are claimed to lead to semantic difficulties that may hinder the precision and recall of tagging systems (e.g. the polysemy problem, cf. Marlow 2006, Lakoff 2005, Golder and Huberman 2006). Empirical research on social tagging is still rare and mostly from a computer linguistics or librarian point-of-view (Voß 2007) which focus either on the automatic statistical analyses of large data sets, or intellectually inspect single cases of tag usage: Some scientists studied the evolution of tag vocabularies and tag distribution in specific systems (Golder and Huberman 2006, Hammond 2005). Others concentrate on tagging behaviour and tagger characteristics in collaborative systems. (Hammond 2005, Kipp and Campbell 2007, Feinberg 2006, Sen 2006). However, little research has been conducted on the functional and linguistic characteristics of tags.1 An analysis of these patterns could show differences between user wording and conventional keywording. In order to provide a reasonable basis for comparison, a classification system for existing tags is needed.
  15. Shiri, A.: Trend analysis in social tagging : an LIS perspective (2007) 0.01 
    0.0076571116 = product of:
  0.030628446 = sum of:
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=529,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 529, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=529)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The aim of the present study was to identify and categorize social tagging trends and developments as revealed by the analysis of library and information science scholarly and professional literature.
  16. Rafferty, P.; Hidderley, R.: Flickr and democratic Indexing : dialogic approaches to indexing (2007) 0.01 
    0.0073997467 = product of:
  0.029598987 = sum of:
    0.029598987 = product of:
      0.059197973 = sum of:
        0.059197973 = weight(_text_:project in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059197973 = score(doc=752,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.27981415 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
  17. Müller-Prove, M.: Modell und Anwendungsperspektive des Social Tagging (2008) 0.01 
    0.0067907665 = product of:
  0.027163066 = sum of:
    0.027163066 = product of:
      0.054326132 = sum of:
        0.054326132 = weight(_text_:22 in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054326132 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Pages
    S.15-22
  18. Stvilia, B.; Jörgensen, C.: Member activities and quality of tags in a collection of historical photographs in Flickr (2010) 0.01 
    0.0067679947 = product of:
  0.027071979 = sum of:
    0.027071979 = weight(_text_:library in 4117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027071979 = score(doc=4117,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 4117, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4117)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    To enable and guide effective metadata creation it is essential to understand the structure and patterns of the activities of the community around the photographs, resources used, and scale and quality of the socially created metadata relative to the metadata and knowledge already encoded in existing knowledge organization systems. This article presents an analysis of Flickr member discussions around the photographs of the Library of Congress photostream in Flickr. The article also reports on an analysis of the intrinsic and relational quality of the photostream tags relative to two knowledge organization systems: the Thesaurus for Graphic Materials (TGM) and the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH). Thirty seven percent of the original tag set and 15.3% of the preprocessed set (after the removal of tags with fewer than three characters and URLs) were invalid or misspelled terms. Nouns, named entity terms, and complex terms constituted approximately 77% of the preprocessed set. More than a half of the photostream tags were not found in the TGM and LCSH, and more than a quarter of those terms were regular nouns and noun phrases. This suggests that these terms could be complimentary to more traditional methods of indexing using controlled vocabularies.
  19. Huang, H.; Jörgensen, C.: Characterizing user tagging and Co-occurring metadata in general and specialized metadata collections (2013) 0.01 
    0.0067679947 = product of:
  0.027071979 = sum of:
    0.027071979 = weight(_text_:library in 1046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027071979 = score(doc=1046,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 1046, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1046)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This study aims to identify the categorical characteristics and usage patterns of the most popular image tags in Flickr. The "metadata usage ratio" is introduced as a means of assessing the usage of a popular tag as metadata. We also compare how popular tags are used as image tags or metadata in the Flickr general collection and the Library of Congress's photostream (LCP), also in Flickr. The Flickr popular tags in the list overall are categorically stable, and the changes that do appear reflect Flickr users' evolving technology-driven cultural experience. The popular tags in Flickr had a high number of generic objects and specific locations-related tags and were rarely at the abstract level. Conversely, the popular tags in the LCP describe more in the specific objects and time categories. Flickr users copied the Library of Congress-supplied metadata that related to specific objects or events and standard bibliographic information (e.g., author, format, time references) as popular tags in the LCP. Those popular tags related to generic objects and events showed a high metadata usage ratio, while those related to specific locations and objects showed a low image metadata usage ratio. Popular tags in Flickr appeared less frequently as image metadata when describing specific objects than specific times and locations for historical images in Flickr LCP collections. Understanding how people contribute image tags or image metadata in Flickr helps determine what users need to describe and query images, and could help improve image browsing and retrieval.
  20. Kipp, M.E.; Beak, J.; Choi, I.: Motivations and intentions of flickr users in enriching flick records for Library of Congress photos (2017) 0.01 
    0.0067679947 = product of:
  0.027071979 = sum of:
    0.027071979 = weight(_text_:library in 3828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027071979 = score(doc=3828,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 3828, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3828)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this study is to understand users' motivations and intentions in the use of institutional collections on social tagging sites. Previous social tagging studies have collected social tagging data and analyzed how tagging functions as a tool to organize and retrieve information. Many studies focused on the patterns of tagging rather than the users' perspectives. To provide a more comprehensive picture of users' social tagging activities in institutional collections, and how this compares to social tagging in a more personal context, we collected data from social tagging users by surveying 7,563 participants in the Library of Congress's Flickr Collection. We asked users to describe their motivations for activities within the LC Flickr Collection in their own words using open-ended questions. As a result, we identified 11 motivations using a bottom-up, open-coding approach: affective reactions, opinion on photo, interest in subject, contribution to description, knowledge sharing, improving findability, social network, appreciation, personal use, and personal relationship. Our study revealed that affective or emotional reactions play a critical role in the use of social tagging of institutional collections by comparing our findings to existing frameworks for tagging motivations. We also examined the relationships between participants' occupations and our 11 motivations.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 48
  • d 5
  • i 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 44
  • el 8
  • m 4
  • b 2
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications