Search (46 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  1. Qin, C.; Liu, Y.; Mou, J.; Chen, J.: User adoption of a hybrid social tagging approach in an online knowledge community (2019) 0.04
    0.044241928 = product of:
      0.088483855 = sum of:
        0.088483855 = sum of:
          0.0531215 = weight(_text_:online in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.0531215 = score(doc=5492,freq=8.0), product of:
              0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05220068 = queryNorm
              0.33531237 = fieldWeight in 5492, product of:
                2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                  8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5492)
          0.035362355 = weight(_text_:22 in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.035362355 = score(doc=5492,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05220068 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5492, 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=5492)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose Online knowledge communities make great contributions to global knowledge sharing and innovation. Resource tagging approaches have been widely adopted in such communities to describe, annotate and organize knowledge resources mainly through users' participation. However, it is unclear what causes the adoption of a particular resource tagging approach. The purpose of this paper is to identify factors that drive users to use a hybrid social tagging approach. Design/methodology/approach Technology acceptance model and social cognitive theory are adopted to support an integrated model proposed in this paper. Zhihu, one of the most popular online knowledge communities in China, is taken as the survey context. A survey was conducted with a questionnaire and collected data were analyzed through structural equation model. Findings A new hybrid social resource tagging approach was refined and described. The empirical results revealed that self-efficacy, perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use exert positive effect on users' attitude. Moreover, social influence, PU and attitude impact significantly on users' intention to use a hybrid social resource tagging approach. Originality/value Theoretically, this study enriches the type of resource tagging approaches and recognizes factors influencing user adoption to use it. Regarding the practical parts, the results provide online information system providers and designers with referential strategies to improve the performance of the current tagging approaches and promote them.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  2. Strader, C.R.: Author-assigned keywords versus Library of Congress Subject Headings : implications for the cataloging of electronic theses and dissertations (2009) 0.04
    0.043754958 = product of:
      0.087509915 = sum of:
        0.087509915 = sum of:
          0.04507509 = weight(_text_:online in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.04507509 = score(doc=3602,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05220068 = queryNorm
              0.284522 = fieldWeight in 3602, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3602)
          0.042434826 = weight(_text_:22 in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.042434826 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05220068 = 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)
    
    Abstract
    This study is an examination of the overlap between author-assigned keywords and cataloger-assigned Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) for a set of electronic theses and dissertations in Ohio State University's online catalog. The project is intended to contribute to the literature on the issue of keywords versus controlled vocabularies in the use of online catalogs and databases. Findings support previous studies' conclusions that both keywords and controlled vocabularies complement one another. Further, even in the presence of bibliographic record enhancements, such as abstracts or summaries, keywords and subject headings provided a significant number of unique terms that could affect the success of keyword searches. Implications for the maintenance of controlled vocabularies such as LCSH also are discussed in light of the patterns of matches and nonmatches found between the keywords and their corresponding subject headings.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  3. Choi, Y.; Syn, S.Y.: Characteristics of tagging behavior in digitized humanities online collections (2016) 0.03
    0.030961553 = product of:
      0.061923105 = sum of:
        0.061923105 = sum of:
          0.02656075 = weight(_text_:online in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.02656075 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05220068 = queryNorm
              0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
          0.035362355 = weight(_text_:22 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.035362355 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05220068 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2891, 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=2891)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    21. 4.2016 11:23:22
  4. Bentley, C.M.; Labelle, P.R.: ¬A comparison of social tagging designs and user participation (2008) 0.03
    0.029169973 = product of:
      0.058339946 = sum of:
        0.058339946 = sum of:
          0.03005006 = weight(_text_:online in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03005006 = score(doc=2657,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05220068 = queryNorm
              0.18968134 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
          0.028289884 = weight(_text_:22 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.028289884 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05220068 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    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
  5. DeZelar-Tiedman, V.: Doing the LibraryThing(TM) in an academic library catalog (2008) 0.03
    0.029169973 = product of:
      0.058339946 = sum of:
        0.058339946 = sum of:
          0.03005006 = weight(_text_:online in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03005006 = score(doc=2666,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05220068 = queryNorm
              0.18968134 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
          0.028289884 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.028289884 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05220068 = 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)
    
    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
  6. Farkas, M.G.: Social software in libraries : building collaboration, communication, and community online (2007) 0.02
    0.017817494 = product of:
      0.035634987 = sum of:
        0.035634987 = product of:
          0.071269974 = sum of:
            0.071269974 = weight(_text_:online in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.071269974 = score(doc=2364,freq=10.0), product of:
                0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05220068 = queryNorm
                0.4498688 = fieldWeight in 2364, product of:
                  3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                    10.0 = termFreq=10.0
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2364)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Content
    Inhalt: What is social software? -- Blogs -- Blogs in libraries : practical applications -- RSS -- Wikis -- Online communities -- Social networking -- Social bookmarking and collaborative filtering -- Tools for synchronous online reference -- The mobile revolution -- Podcasting -- Screencasting and vodcasting -- Gaming -- What will work @ your library -- Keeping up : a primer -- Future trends in social software.
    LCSH
    Online social networks
    Subject
    Online social networks
  7. Huang, C.; Fu, T.; Chen, H.: Text-based video content classification for online video-sharing sites (2010) 0.02
    0.016265072 = product of:
      0.032530144 = sum of:
        0.032530144 = product of:
          0.06506029 = sum of:
            0.06506029 = weight(_text_:online in 3452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06506029 = score(doc=3452,freq=12.0), product of:
                0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05220068 = queryNorm
                0.41067213 = fieldWeight in 3452, product of:
                  3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                    12.0 = termFreq=12.0
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3452)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    With the emergence of Web 2.0, sharing personal content, communicating ideas, and interacting with other online users in Web 2.0 communities have become daily routines for online users. User-generated data from Web 2.0 sites provide rich personal information (e.g., personal preferences and interests) and can be utilized to obtain insight about cyber communities and their social networks. Many studies have focused on leveraging user-generated information to analyze blogs and forums, but few studies have applied this approach to video-sharing Web sites. In this study, we propose a text-based framework for video content classification of online-video sharing Web sites. Different types of user-generated data (e.g., titles, descriptions, and comments) were used as proxies for online videos, and three types of text features (lexical, syntactic, and content-specific features) were extracted. Three feature-based classification techniques (C4.5, Naïve Bayes, and Support Vector Machine) were used to classify videos. To evaluate the proposed framework, user-generated data from candidate videos, which were identified by searching user-given keywords on YouTube, were first collected. Then, a subset of the collected data was randomly selected and manually tagged by users as our experiment data. The experimental results showed that the proposed approach was able to classify online videos based on users' interests with accuracy rates up to 87.2%, and all three types of text features contributed to discriminating videos. Support Vector Machine outperformed C4.5 and Naïve Bayes techniques in our experiments. In addition, our case study further demonstrated that accurate video-classification results are very useful for identifying implicit cyber communities on video-sharing Web sites.
  8. Müller-Prove, M.: Modell und Anwendungsperspektive des Social Tagging (2008) 0.01
    0.014144942 = product of:
      0.028289884 = sum of:
        0.028289884 = product of:
          0.05657977 = sum of:
            0.05657977 = weight(_text_:22 in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.05657977 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05220068 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Pages
    S.15-22
  9. 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
    0.013280375 = product of:
      0.02656075 = sum of:
        0.02656075 = product of:
          0.0531215 = sum of:
            0.0531215 = weight(_text_:online in 4171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0531215 = score(doc=4171,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05220068 = queryNorm
                0.33531237 = fieldWeight in 4171, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4171)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    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.
  10. Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008) 0.01
    0.01250248 = product of:
      0.02500496 = sum of:
        0.02500496 = product of:
          0.05000992 = sum of:
            0.05000992 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.05000992 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05220068 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    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
  11. Harrer, A.; Lohmann, S.: Potenziale von Tagging als partizipative Methode für Lehrportale und E-Learning-Kurse (2008) 0.01
    0.012376824 = product of:
      0.024753649 = sum of:
        0.024753649 = product of:
          0.049507298 = sum of:
            0.049507298 = weight(_text_:22 in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.049507298 = score(doc=2889,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05220068 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    21. 6.2009 12:22:44
  12. Hänger, C.: Knowledge management in the digital age : the possibilities of user generated content (2009) 0.01
    0.011501143 = product of:
      0.023002286 = sum of:
        0.023002286 = product of:
          0.04600457 = sum of:
            0.04600457 = weight(_text_:online in 2813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04600457 = score(doc=2813,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05220068 = queryNorm
                0.29038906 = fieldWeight in 2813, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2813)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Today, in times of Web 2.0., graduates and undergraduates interact in virtual communities like studiVZ (Studentenverzeichnis) and generate content by reviewing or tagging documents. This phenomenon offers good prospects for academic libraries. They can use the customers' tags for indexing the growing amount of electronic resources and thereby optimize the search for these documents. Important examples are the journals, databases and e-books included in the "Nationallizenzen" financed by the German Research Foundation (DFG). The documents in this collection are not manually indexed by librarians and have no annotation according to the German standard classification systems. Connecting search systems by means of Web-2.0.-services is an important task for libraries. For this purpose users are encouraged to tag printed and electronic resources in search systems like the libraries' online catalogs and to establish connections between entries in other systems, e.g. Bibsonomy, and the items found in the online catalog. As a consequence annotations chosen by both, users and librarians, will coexist: The items in the tagging systems and the online catalog are linked, library users may find other publications of interest, and contacts between library users with similar scientific interests may be established. Librarians have to face the fact that user generated tags do not necessarily have the same quality as their own annotations and will therefore have to seek for instruments for comparing user generated tags with library generated keywords.
  13. Heckner, M.: Tagging, rating, posting : studying forms of user contribution for web-based information management and information retrieval (2009) 0.01
    0.011501143 = product of:
      0.023002286 = sum of:
        0.023002286 = product of:
          0.04600457 = sum of:
            0.04600457 = weight(_text_:online in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04600457 = score(doc=2931,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05220068 = queryNorm
                0.29038906 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Content
    The Web of User Contribution - Foundations and Principles of the Social Web - Social Tagging - Rating and Filtering of Digital Resources Empirical Analysisof User Contributions - The Functional and Linguistic Structure of Tags - A Comparative Analysis of Tags for Different Digital Resource Types - Exploring Relevance Assessments in Social IR Systems - Exploring User Contribution Within a Higher Education Scenario - Summary of Empirical Results and Implications for Designing Social Information Systems User Contribution for a Participative Information System - Social Information Architecture for an Online Help System
    RSWK
    World Wide Web 2.0 / Benutzer / Online-Publizieren / Information Retrieval / Soziale Software / Hilfesystem
    Subject
    World Wide Web 2.0 / Benutzer / Online-Publizieren / Information Retrieval / Soziale Software / Hilfesystem
  14. Nov, O.; Naaman, M.; Ye, C.: Analysis of participation in an online photo-sharing community : a multidimensional perspective (2010) 0.01
    0.011501143 = product of:
      0.023002286 = sum of:
        0.023002286 = product of:
          0.04600457 = sum of:
            0.04600457 = weight(_text_:online in 3424) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04600457 = score(doc=3424,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05220068 = queryNorm
                0.29038906 = fieldWeight in 3424, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3424)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    In recent years we have witnessed a significant growth of social-computing communities - online services in which users share information in various forms. As content contributions from participants are critical to the viability of these communities, it is important to understand what drives users to participate and share information with others in such settings. We extend previous literature on user contribution by studying the factors that are associated with various forms of participation in a large online photo-sharing community. Using survey and system data, we examine four different forms of participation and consider the differences between these forms. We build on theories of motivation to examine the relationship between users' participation and their motivations with respect to their tenure in the community. Amongst our findings, we identify individual motivations (both extrinsic and intrinsic) that underpin user participation, and their effects on different forms of information sharing; we show that tenure in the community does affect participation, but that this effect depends on the type of participation activity. Finally, we demonstrate that tenure in the community has a weak moderating effect on a number of motivations with regard to their effect on participation. Directions for future research, as well as implications for theory and practice, are discussed.
  15. Corrado, E.; Moulaison, H.L.: Social tagging and communities of practice : two case studies (2008) 0.01
    0.011268772 = product of:
      0.022537544 = sum of:
        0.022537544 = product of:
          0.04507509 = sum of:
            0.04507509 = weight(_text_:online in 2271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04507509 = score(doc=2271,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05220068 = queryNorm
                0.284522 = fieldWeight in 2271, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2271)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    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.
  16. Antin, J.; Earp, M.: With a little help from my friends : self-interested and prosocial behavior on MySpace Music (2010) 0.01
    0.011268772 = product of:
      0.022537544 = sum of:
        0.022537544 = product of:
          0.04507509 = sum of:
            0.04507509 = weight(_text_:online in 3458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04507509 = score(doc=3458,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05220068 = queryNorm
                0.284522 = fieldWeight in 3458, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3458)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    In this article, we explore the dynamics of prosocial and self-interested behavior among musicians on MySpace Music. MySpace Music is an important platform for social interactions and at the same time provides musicians with the opportunity for significant profit. We argue that these forces can be in tension with each other, encouraging musicians to make strategic choices about using MySpace to promote their own or others' rewards. We look for evidence of self-interested and prosocial friending strategies in the social network created by Top Friends links. We find strong evidence that individual preferences for prosocial and self-interested behavior influence friending strategies. Furthermore, our data illustrate a robust relationship between increased prominence and increased attention to others' rewards. These results shed light on how musicians manage their interactions in complex online environments and extend research on social values by demonstrating consistent preferences for prosocial or self-interested behavior in a multifaceted online setting.
  17. Golbeck, J.; Koepfler, J.; Emmerling, B.: ¬An experimental study of social tagging behavior and image content (2011) 0.01
    0.011268772 = product of:
      0.022537544 = sum of:
        0.022537544 = product of:
          0.04507509 = sum of:
            0.04507509 = weight(_text_:online in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04507509 = score(doc=4748,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05220068 = queryNorm
                0.284522 = fieldWeight in 4748, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4748)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Social tags have become an important tool for improving access to online resources, particularly non-text media. With the dramatic growth of user-generated content, the importance of tags is likely to grow. However, while tagging behavior is well studied, the relationship between tagging behavior and features of the media being tagged is not well understood. In this paper, we examine the relationship between tagging behavior and image type. Through a lab-based study with 51 subjects and an analysis of an online dataset of image tags, we show that there are significant differences in the number, order, and type of tags that users assign based on their past experience with an image, the type of image being tagged, and other image features. We present these results and discuss the significant implications this work has for tag-based search algorithms, tag recommendation systems, and other interface issues.
  18. Seehaus, S.: Können Suchmaschinen von Sozialer Software profitieren? (2008) 0.01
    0.0106243 = product of:
      0.0212486 = sum of:
        0.0212486 = product of:
          0.0424972 = sum of:
            0.0424972 = weight(_text_:online in 2306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0424972 = score(doc=2306,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05220068 = queryNorm
                0.2682499 = fieldWeight in 2306, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2306)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Im Rahmen eines Projekts gingen Stu­dierende an der HAW Hamburg für ihre Auftraggeber Lycos Europe und T-Online der Frage nach, wie sich Inhalte aus sozialen Suchdiensten in die algorithmische Suche einbinden lassen. Dazu analysierten und verglichen sie die Vor- und Nachteile der Systeme, die Relevanz der Sucher­gebnisse, die Benutzerfreundlichkeit sowie die Qualität der Inhalte. Für soziale Software ergaben sich daraus bedeutende Verbesserungspotentiale. Der Text beschreibt die Ergebnisse und die Empfehlungen für Lycos IQ.
  19. Evedove Tartarotti, R. Dal'; Lopes Fujita, M.: ¬The perspective of social indexing in online bibliographic catalogs : between the individual and the collaborative (2016) 0.01
    0.0106243 = product of:
      0.0212486 = sum of:
        0.0212486 = product of:
          0.0424972 = sum of:
            0.0424972 = weight(_text_:online in 4917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0424972 = score(doc=4917,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05220068 = queryNorm
                0.2682499 = fieldWeight in 4917, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4917)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
  20. Kruk, S.R.; Kruk, E.; Stankiewicz, K.: Evaluation of semantic and social technologies for digital libraries (2009) 0.01
    0.010608707 = product of:
      0.021217413 = sum of:
        0.021217413 = product of:
          0.042434826 = sum of:
            0.042434826 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042434826 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05220068 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    1. 8.2010 12:35:22

Years

Languages

  • e 38
  • d 8

Types

  • a 41
  • el 4
  • m 3
  • b 2
  • s 1
  • More… Less…