Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Antin, J.; Earp, M.: With a little help from my friends : self-interested and prosocial behavior on MySpace Music (2010) 0.03
    0.027950348 = product of:
      0.055900697 = sum of:
        0.055900697 = product of:
          0.11180139 = sum of:
            0.11180139 = weight(_text_:light in 3458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.11180139 = score(doc=3458,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 3458, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, 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.
  2. Rorissa, A.: ¬A comparative study of Flickr tags and index terms in a general image collection (2010) 0.02
    0.023291955 = product of:
      0.04658391 = sum of:
        0.04658391 = product of:
          0.09316782 = sum of:
            0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 4100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.09316782 = score(doc=4100,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 4100, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4100)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Web 2.0 and social/collaborative tagging have altered the traditional roles of indexer and user. Traditional indexing tools and systems assume the top-down approach to indexing in which a trained professional is responsible for assigning index terms to information sources with a potential user in mind. However, in today's Web, end users create, organize, index, and search for images and other information sources through social tagging and other collaborative activities. One of the impediments to user-centered indexing had been the cost of soliciting user-generated index terms or tags. Social tagging of images such as those on Flickr, an online photo management and sharing application, presents an opportunity that can be seized by designers of indexing tools and systems to bridge the semantic gap between indexer terms and user vocabularies. Empirical research on the differences and similarities between user-generated tags and index terms based on controlled vocabularies has the potential to inform future design of image indexing tools and systems. Toward this end, a random sample of Flickr images and the tags assigned to them were content analyzed and compared with another sample of index terms from a general image collection using established frameworks for image attributes and contents. The results show that there is a fundamental difference between the types of tags and types of index terms used. In light of this, implications for research into and design of user-centered image indexing tools and systems are discussed.
  3. Niemann, C.: Tag-Science : Ein Analysemodell zur Nutzbarkeit von Tagging-Daten (2011) 0.01
    0.010276065 = product of:
      0.02055213 = sum of:
        0.02055213 = product of:
          0.04110426 = sum of:
            0.04110426 = weight(_text_:22 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04110426 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 164, 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=164)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    ¬Die Kraft der digitalen Unordnung: 32. Arbeits- und Fortbildungstagung der ASpB e. V., Sektion 5 im Deutschen Bibliotheksverband, 22.-25. September 2009 in der Universität Karlsruhe. Hrsg: Jadwiga Warmbrunn u.a
  4. Yi, K.: Harnessing collective intelligence in social tagging using Delicious (2012) 0.01
    0.008563388 = product of:
      0.017126776 = sum of:
        0.017126776 = product of:
          0.034253553 = sum of:
            0.034253553 = weight(_text_:22 in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.034253553 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 515, 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=515)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    25.12.2012 15:22:37
  5. Choi, Y.; Syn, S.Y.: Characteristics of tagging behavior in digitized humanities online collections (2016) 0.01
    0.008563388 = product of:
      0.017126776 = sum of:
        0.017126776 = product of:
          0.034253553 = sum of:
            0.034253553 = weight(_text_:22 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.034253553 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    21. 4.2016 11:23:22
  6. Qin, C.; Liu, Y.; Mou, J.; Chen, J.: User adoption of a hybrid social tagging approach in an online knowledge community (2019) 0.01
    0.008563388 = product of:
      0.017126776 = sum of:
        0.017126776 = product of:
          0.034253553 = sum of:
            0.034253553 = weight(_text_:22 in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.034253553 = score(doc=5492,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Languages