Search (78 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  1. Heckner, M.: Tagging, rating, posting : studying forms of user contribution for web-based information management and information retrieval (2009) 0.20 
    0.19661087 = product of:
  0.39322174 = sum of:
    0.06538227 = weight(_text_:world in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06538227 = score(doc=2931,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15396032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.42466965 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
    0.086880796 = weight(_text_:wide in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.086880796 = score(doc=2931,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.17747644 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.48953426 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
    0.07452598 = weight(_text_:web in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07452598 = score(doc=2931,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
    0.1664327 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1664327 = score(doc=2931,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.23231146 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.71642053 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)
    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
    Object
    Web 2.0
    RSWK
    World Wide Web 2.0 / Benutzer / Online-Publizieren / Information Retrieval / Soziale Software / Hilfesystem
    Social Tagging / Filter / Web log / World Wide Web 2.0
    Subject
    World Wide Web 2.0 / Benutzer / Online-Publizieren / Information Retrieval / Soziale Software / Hilfesystem
    Social Tagging / Filter / Web log / World Wide Web 2.0
  2. Web-2.0-Dienste als Ergänzung zu algorithmischen Suchmaschinen (2008) 0.17 
    0.17356938 = product of:
  0.34713876 = sum of:
    0.0554787 = weight(_text_:world in 4323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0554787 = score(doc=4323,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15396032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.36034414 = fieldWeight in 4323, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4323)
    0.073720805 = weight(_text_:wide in 4323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.073720805 = score(doc=4323,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17747644 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.4153836 = fieldWeight in 4323, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4323)
    0.06323739 = weight(_text_:web in 4323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06323739 = score(doc=4323,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.48375595 = fieldWeight in 4323, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4323)
    0.15470187 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 4323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15470187 = score(doc=4323,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23231146 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.66592443 = fieldWeight in 4323, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4323)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)
    Abstract
    Mit sozialen Suchdiensten - wie z. B. Yahoo Clever, Lycos iQ oder Mister Wong - ist eine Ergänzung und teilweise sogar eine Konkurrenz zu den bisherigen Ansätzen in der Web-Suche entstanden. Während Google und Co. automatisch generierte Trefferlisten bieten, binden soziale Suchdienste die Anwender zu Generierung der Suchergebnisse in den Suchprozess ein. Vor diesem Hintergrund wird in diesem Buch der Frage nachgegangen, inwieweit soziale Suchdienste mit traditionellen Suchmaschinen konkurrieren oder diese qualitativ ergänzen können. Der vorliegende Band beleuchtet die hier aufgeworfene Fragestellung aus verschiedenen Perspektiven, um auf die Bedeutung von sozialen Suchdiensten zu schließen.
    Issue
    Ergebnisse des Fachprojektes "Einbindung von Frage-Antwort-Diensten in die Web-Suche" am Department Information der Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften Hamburg (WS 2007/2008).
    RSWK
    World Wide Web 2.0 / Suchmaschine
    Subject
    World Wide Web 2.0 / Suchmaschine
  3. Peters, I.: Folksonomies : indexing and retrieval in Web 2.0 (2009) 0.14 
    0.1390847 = product of:
  0.2781694 = sum of:
    0.0369858 = weight(_text_:world in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0369858 = score(doc=4203,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15396032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.24022943 = fieldWeight in 4203, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4203)
    0.0491472 = weight(_text_:wide in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0491472 = score(doc=4203,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17747644 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.2769224 = fieldWeight in 4203, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4203)
    0.04618206 = weight(_text_:web in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04618206 = score(doc=4203,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.35328537 = fieldWeight in 4203, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4203)
    0.14585431 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14585431 = score(doc=4203,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.23231146 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.6278395 = fieldWeight in 4203, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4203)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)
    Abstract
    Kollaborative Informationsdienste im Web 2.0 werden von den Internetnutzern nicht nur dazu genutzt, digitale Informationsressourcen zu produzieren, sondern auch, um sie inhaltlich mit eigenen Schlagworten, sog. Tags, zu erschließen. Dabei müssen die Nutzer nicht wie bei Bibliothekskatalogen auf Regeln achten. Die Menge an nutzergenerierten Tags innerhalb eines Kollaborativen Informationsdienstes wird als Folksonomy bezeichnet. Die Folksonomies dienen den Nutzern zum Wiederauffinden eigener Ressourcen und für die Recherche nach fremden Ressourcen. Das Buch beschäftigt sich mit Kollaborativen Informationsdiensten, Folksonomies als Methode der Wissensrepräsentation und als Werkzeug des Information Retrievals.
    Footnote
    Zugl.: Düsseldorf, Univ., Diss., 2009 u.d.T.: Peters, Isabella: Folksonomies in Wissensrepräsentation und Information Retrieval Rez. in: IWP - Information Wissenschaft & Praxis, 61(2010) Heft 8, S.469-470 (U. Spree): "... Nachdem sich die Rezensentin durch 418 Seiten Text hindurch gelesen hat, bleibt sie unentschieden, wie der auffällige Einsatz langer Zitate (im Durchschnitt drei Zitate, die länger als vier kleingedruckte Zeilen sind, pro Seite) zu bewerten ist, zumal die Zitate nicht selten rein illustrativen Charakter haben bzw. Isabella Peters noch einmal zitiert, was sie bereits in eigenen Worten ausgedrückt hat. Redundanz und Verlängerung der Lesezeit halten sich hier die Waage mit der Möglichkeit, dass sich die Leserin einen unmittelbaren Eindruck von Sprache und Duktus der zitierten Literatur verschaffen kann. Eindeutig unschön ist das Beenden eines Gedankens oder einer Argumentation durch ein Zitat (z. B. S. 170). Im deutschen Original entstehen auf diese Weise die für deutsche wissenschaftliche Qualifikationsarbeiten typischen denglischen Texte. Für alle, die sich für Wissensrepräsentation, Information Retrieval und kollaborative Informationsdienste interessieren, ist "Folksonomies : Indexing and Retrieval in Web 2.0" trotz der angeführten kleinen Mängel zur Lektüre und Anschaffung - wegen seines beinahe enzyklopädischen Charakters auch als Nachschlage- oder Referenzwerk geeignet - unbedingt zu empfehlen. Abschließend möchte ich mich in einem Punkt der Produktinfo von de Gruyter uneingeschränkt anschließen: ein "Grundlagenwerk für Folksonomies".
    Object
    Web 2.0
    RSWK
    World Wide Web 2.0
    Subject
    World Wide Web 2.0
  4. Danowski, P.: Authority files and Web 2.0 : Wikipedia and the PND. An Example (2007) 0.08 
    0.0785864 = product of:
  0.20956373 = sum of:
    0.047134366 = weight(_text_:web in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047134366 = score(doc=1291,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
    0.14886193 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14886193 = score(doc=1291,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23231146 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.640786 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
    0.013567433 = product of:
      0.027134866 = sum of:
        0.027134866 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027134866 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14026769 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040055543 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1291, 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=1291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    More and more users index everything on their own in the web 2.0. There are services for links, videos, pictures, books, encyclopaedic articles and scientific articles. All these services are library independent. But must that really be? Can't libraries help with their experience and tools to make user indexing better? On the experience of a project from German language Wikipedia together with the German person authority files (Personen Namen Datei - PND) located at German National Library (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek) I would like to show what is possible. How users can and will use the authority files, if we let them. We will take a look how the project worked and what we can learn for future projects. Conclusions - Authority files can have a role in the web 2.0 - there must be an open interface/ service for retrieval - everything that is indexed on the net with authority files can be easy integrated in a federated search - O'Reilly: You have to found ways that your data get more important that more it will be used
    Content
    Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".
    Object
    Web 2.0
  5. Peters, I.: Folksonomies & Social Tagging (2023) 0.06 
    0.061399326 = product of:
  0.16373153 = sum of:
    0.04576759 = weight(_text_:world in 796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04576759 = score(doc=796,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15396032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.29726875 = fieldWeight in 796, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=796)
    0.060816556 = weight(_text_:wide in 796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060816556 = score(doc=796,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17747644 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.342674 = fieldWeight in 796, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=796)
    0.057147387 = weight(_text_:web in 796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057147387 = score(doc=796,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 796, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=796)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    Die Erforschung und der Einsatz von Folksonomies und Social Tagging als nutzerzentrierte Formen der Inhaltserschließung und Wissensrepräsentation haben in den 10 Jahren ab ca. 2005 ihren Höhenpunkt erfahren. Motiviert wurde dies durch die Entwicklung und Verbreitung des Social Web und der wachsenden Nutzung von Social-Media-Plattformen (s. Kapitel E 8 Social Media und Social Web). Beides führte zu einem rasanten Anstieg der im oder über das World Wide Web auffindbaren Menge an potenzieller Information und generierte eine große Nachfrage nach skalierbaren Methoden der Inhaltserschließung.
  6. Marchitelli, A.; Piazzini, T.: OPAC, SOPAC e social networking : cataloghi di biblioteca 2.0? (2008) 0.06 
    0.06035019 = product of:
  0.24140076 = sum of:
    0.032994058 = weight(_text_:web in 3862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032994058 = score(doc=3862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 3862, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3862)
    0.2084067 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 3862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2084067 = score(doc=3862,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23231146 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.8971004 = fieldWeight in 3862, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3862)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    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?
  7. Ding, Y.; Jacob, E.K.; Zhang, Z.; Foo, S.; Yan, E.; George, N.L.; Guo, L.: Perspectives on social tagging (2009) 0.06 
    0.05546966 = product of:
  0.14791909 = sum of:
    0.039229363 = weight(_text_:world in 3290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039229363 = score(doc=3290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15396032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.25480178 = fieldWeight in 3290, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3290)
    0.052128475 = weight(_text_:wide in 3290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052128475 = score(doc=3290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17747644 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 3290, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3290)
    0.05656124 = weight(_text_:web in 3290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05656124 = score(doc=3290,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 3290, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3290)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    Social tagging is one of the major phenomena transforming the World Wide Web from a static platform into an actively shared information space. This paper addresses various aspects of social tagging, including different views on the nature of social tagging, how to make use of social tags, and how to bridge social tagging with other Web functionalities; it discusses the use of facets to facilitate browsing and searching of tagging data; and it presents an analogy between bibliometrics and tagometrics, arguing that established bibliometric methodologies can be applied to analyze tagging behavior on the Web. Based on the Upper Tag Ontology (UTO), a Web crawler was built to harvest tag data from Delicious, Flickr, and YouTube in September 2007. In total, 1.8 million objects, including bookmarks, photos, and videos, 3.1 million taggers, and 12.1 million tags were collected and analyzed. Some tagging patterns and variations are identified and discussed.
  8. Huang, C.; Fu, T.; Chen, H.: Text-based video content classification for online video-sharing sites (2010) 0.05 
    0.05280371 = product of:
  0.21121484 = sum of:
    0.06235291 = weight(_text_:web in 3452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06235291 = score(doc=3452,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.47698978 = fieldWeight in 3452, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3452)
    0.14886193 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 3452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14886193 = score(doc=3452,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23231146 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.640786 = fieldWeight in 3452, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3452)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    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.
    Object
    Web 2.0
  9. Regulski, K.: Aufwand und Nutzen beim Einsatz von Social-Bookmarking-Services als Nachweisinstrument für wissenschaftliche Forschungsartikel am Beispiel von BibSonomy (2007) 0.05 
    0.05153139 = product of:
  0.20612556 = sum of:
    0.037707493 = weight(_text_:web in 4595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037707493 = score(doc=4595,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 4595, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4595)
    0.16841806 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 4595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16841806 = score(doc=4595,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23231146 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.72496665 = fieldWeight in 4595, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4595)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Autoren wissenschaftlicher Artikel stehen unterschiedliche Wege bei der Recherche nach Hintergrundmaterial zu ihren Projekten zur Verfügung. Dass Social-Bookmarking-Dienste, die als Teil des Web 2.0 (O'Reilly, 2005) und der Bibliothek 2.0 (Danowski, 2006) genannt werden, eine sinnvolle Ergänzung zu den herkömmlichen Nachweisdatenbanken sein können, soll der vorliegende Artikel zeigen.
  10. Carlin, S.A.: Schlagwortvergabe durch Nutzende (Tagging) als Hilfsmittel zur Suche im Web : Ansatz, Modelle, Realisierungen (2006) 0.05 
    0.04831101 = product of:
  0.12882936 = sum of:
    0.032691136 = weight(_text_:world in 2476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032691136 = score(doc=2476,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15396032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.21233483 = fieldWeight in 2476, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2476)
    0.043440398 = weight(_text_:wide in 2476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043440398 = score(doc=2476,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17747644 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 2476, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2476)
    0.052697826 = weight(_text_:web in 2476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052697826 = score(doc=2476,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.40312994 = fieldWeight in 2476, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2476)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    Nach dem zu Beginn der Ära des World Wide Web von Hand gepflegte Linklisten und -Verzeichnisse und an Freunde und Kollegen per E-Mail verschickte Links genügten, um die Informationen zu finden, nach denen man suchte, waren schon bald Volltextsuchmaschinen und halbautomatisch betriebene Kataloge notwendig, um den mehr und mehr anschwellenden Informationsfluten des Web Herr zu werden. Heute bereits sind diese Dämme gebrochen und viele Millionen Websites halten Billionen an Einzelseiten mit Informationen vor, von Datenbanken und anderweitig versteckten Informationen ganz zu schweigen. Mit Volltextsuchmaschinen erreicht man bei dieser Masse keine befriedigenden Ergebnisse mehr. Entweder man erzeugt lange Suchterme mit vielen Ausschließungen und ebenso vielen nicht-exklusiven ODER-Verknüpfungen um verschiedene Schreibweisen für den gleichen Term abzudecken oder man wählt von vornherein die Daten-Quelle, an die man seine Fragen stellt, genau aus. Doch oft bleiben nur klassische Web-Suchmaschinen übrig, zumal wenn der Fragende kein Informationsspezialist mit Kenntnissen von Spezialdatenbanken ist, sondern, von dieser Warte aus gesehenen, ein Laie. Und nicht nur im Web selbst, auch in unternehmensinternen Intranets steht man vor diesem Problem. Tausende von indizierten Dokumente mögen ein Eckdatum sein, nach dem sich der Erfolg der Einführung eines Intranets bemessen lässt, aber eine Aussage über die Nützlichkeit ist damit nicht getroffen. Und die bleibt meist hinter den Erwartungen zurück, vor allem bei denen Mitarbeitern, die tatsächlich mit dem Intranet arbeiten müssen. Entscheidend ist für die Informationsauffindung in Inter- und Intranet eine einfach zu nutzende und leicht anpassbare Möglichkeit, neue interessante Inhalte zu entdecken. Mit Tags steht eine mögliche Lösung bereit.
  11. Hotho, A.; Jäschke, R.; Benz, D.; Grahl, M.; Krause, B.; Schmitz, C.; Stumme, G.: Social Bookmarking am Beispiel BibSonomy (2009) 0.05 
    0.04610021 = product of:
  0.18440084 = sum of:
    0.0653113 = weight(_text_:web in 4873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0653113 = score(doc=4873,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.49962097 = fieldWeight in 4873, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4873)
    0.119089544 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 4873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.119089544 = score(doc=4873,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23231146 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.5126288 = fieldWeight in 4873, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4873)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    BibSonomy ist ein kooperatives Verschlagwortungssystem (Social Bookmarking System), betrieben vom Fachgebiet Wissensverarbeitung der Universität Kassel. Es erlaubt das Speichern und Organisieren von Web-Lesezeichen und Metadaten für wissenschaftliche Publikationen. In diesem Beitrag beschreiben wir die von BibSonomy bereitgestellte Funktionalität, die dahinter stehende Architektur sowie das zugrunde liegende Datenmodell. Ferner erläutern wir Anwendungsbeispiele und gehen auf Methoden zur Analyse der in BibSonomy und ähnlichen Systemen enthaltenen Daten ein.
    Source
    Social Semantic Web: Web 2.0, was nun? Hrsg.: A. Blumauer u. T. Pellegrini
  12. Blumauer, A.; Hochmeister, M.: Tag-Recommender gestützte Annotation von Web-Dokumenten (2009) 0.04 
    0.044495076 = product of:
  0.1779803 = sum of:
    0.07377695 = weight(_text_:web in 4866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07377695 = score(doc=4866,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.5643819 = fieldWeight in 4866, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4866)
    0.10420335 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 4866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10420335 = score(doc=4866,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23231146 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.4485502 = fieldWeight in 4866, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4866)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    In diesem Kapitel wird die zentrale Bedeutung der Annotation von Webdokumenten bzw. von Ressourcen in einem Semantischen Web diskutiert. Es wird auf aktuelle Methoden und Techniken in diesem Gebiet eingegangen, insbesondere wird das Phänomen "Social Tagging" als zentrales Element eines "Social Semantic Webs" beleuchtet. Weiters wird der Frage nachgegangen, welchen Mehrwert "Tag Recommender" beim Annotationsvorgang bieten, sowohl aus Sicht des End-Users aber auch im Sinne eines kollaborativen Ontologieerstellungsprozesses. Schließlich wird ein Funktionsprinzip für einen semi-automatischen Tag-Recommender vorgestellt unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Anwendbarkeit in einem Corporate Semantic Web.
    Source
    Social Semantic Web: Web 2.0, was nun? Hrsg.: A. Blumauer u. T. Pellegrini
  13. Peters, I.: Folksonomies und kollaborative Informationsdienste : eine Alternative zur Websuche? (2011) 0.04 
    0.043104 = product of:
  0.172416 = sum of:
    0.05332645 = weight(_text_:web in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05332645 = score(doc=343,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.4079388 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
    0.119089544 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.119089544 = score(doc=343,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23231146 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.5126288 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Folksonomies ermöglichen den Nutzern in Kollaborativen Informationsdiensten den Zugang zu verschiedenartigen Informationsressourcen. In welchen Fällen beide Bestandteile des Web 2.0 am besten für das Information Retrieval geeignet sind und wo sie die Websuche ggf. ersetzen können, wird in diesem Beitrag diskutiert. Dazu erfolgt eine detaillierte Betrachtung der Reichweite von Social-Bookmarking-Systemen und Sharing-Systemen sowie der Retrievaleffektivität von Folksonomies innerhalb von Kollaborativen Informationsdiensten.
    Source
    Handbuch Internet-Suchmaschinen, 2: Neue Entwicklungen in der Web-Suche. Hrsg.: D. Lewandowski
  14. Derntl, M.; Hampel, T.; Motschnig, R.; Pitner, T.: Social Tagging und Inclusive Universal Access (2008) 0.04 
    0.041577097 = product of:
  0.16630839 = sum of:
    0.039994836 = weight(_text_:web in 2864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039994836 = score(doc=2864,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 2864, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2864)
    0.12631355 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12631355 = score(doc=2864,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23231146 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.543725 = fieldWeight in 2864, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2864)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Der vorliegende Artikel beleuchtet und bewertet Social Tagging als aktuelles Phänomen des Web 2.0 im Kontext bekannter Techniken der semantischen Datenorganisation. Tagging wird in einen Raum verwandter Ordnungs- und Strukturierungsansätze eingeordnet, um die fundamentalen Grundlagen des Social Tagging zu identifizieren und zuzuweisen. Dabei wird Tagging anhand des Inclusive Universal Access Paradigmas bewertet, das technische als auch menschlich-soziale Kriterien für die inklusive und barrierefreie Bereitstellung und Nutzung von Diensten definiert. Anhand dieser Bewertung werden fundamentale Prinzipien des "Inclusive Social Tagging" hergeleitet, die der Charakterisierung und Bewertung gängiger Tagging-Funktionalitäten in verbreiteten Web-2.0-Diensten dienen. Aus der Bewertung werden insbesondere Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten von Social Tagging und unterstützenden Diensten erkennbar.
  15. Good tags - bad tags : Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation (2008) 0.04 
    0.040019352 = product of:
  0.10671827 = sum of:
    0.02040978 = weight(_text_:web in 3054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02040978 = score(doc=3054,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.15613155 = fieldWeight in 3054, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3054)
    0.05263064 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 3054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05263064 = score(doc=3054,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23231146 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.22655207 = fieldWeight in 3054, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3054)
    0.033677857 = product of:
      0.067355715 = sum of:
        0.067355715 = weight(_text_:aufsatzsammlung in 3054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.067355715 = score(doc=3054,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.26280797 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040055543 = queryNorm
            0.25629252 = fieldWeight in 3054, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3054)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    Teile und sammle könnte der moderne Leitspruch für das Phänomen Social Tagging heißen. Die freie und kollaborative Verschlagwortung digitaler Ressourcen im Internet gehört zu den Anwendungen aus dem Kontext von Web 2.0, die sich zunehmender Beliebtheit erfreuen. Der 2003 gegründete Social Bookmarking Dienst Del.icio.us und die 2004 entstandene Bildersammlung Flickr waren erste Anwendungen, die Social Tagging anboten und noch immer einen Großteil der Nutzer/innen an sich binden. Beim Blick in die Literatur wird schnell deutlich, dass Social Tagging polarisiert: Von Befürwortern wird es als eine Form der innovativen Wissensorganisation gefeiert, während Skeptiker die Dienste des Web 2.0 inklusive Social Tagging als globale kulturelle Bedrohung verdammen. Launischer Hype oder Quantensprung was ist dran am Social Tagging? Mit der Zielsetzung, mehr über die Erwartungen, Anwendungsbereiche und Nutzungsweisen zu erfahren, wurde im Frühjahr 2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen ein Workshop der Gesellschaft für Medien in der Wissenschaft (GMW) durchgeführt. Die vorliegende Publikation fasst die Ergebnisse der interdisziplinären Veranstaltung zusammen.
    Content
    - Tagging im Semantic Web Benjamin Birkenhake: Semantic Weblog. Erfahrungen vom Bloggen mit Tags und Ontologien Simone Braun, Andreas Schmidt, Andreas Walter & Valentin Zacharias: Von Tags zu semantischen Beziehungen: kollaborative Ontologiereifung Jakob Voß: Vom Social Tagging zum Semantic Tagging Georg Güntner, Rolf Sint & Rupert Westenthaler: Ein Ansatz zur Unterstützung traditioneller Klassifikation durch Social Tagging Viktoria Pammer, Tobias Ley & Stefanie Lindstaedt: tagr: Unterstützung in kollaborativen Tagging-Umgebungen durch Semantische und Assoziative Netzwerke Matthias Quasthoff Harald Sack & Christoph Meinet: Nutzerfreundliche Internet-Sicherheit durch tag-basierte Zugriffskontrolle
    RSWK
    Wissensorganisation / Social Tagging / Aufsatzsammlung
    Subject
    Wissensorganisation / Social Tagging / Aufsatzsammlung
  16. Hänger, C.: Knowledge management in the digital age : the possibilities of user generated content (2009) 0.03 
    0.034647577 = product of:
  0.1385903 = sum of:
    0.033329032 = weight(_text_:web in 2813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033329032 = score(doc=2813,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 2813, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2813)
    0.10526128 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10526128 = score(doc=2813,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23231146 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.45310414 = fieldWeight in 2813, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2813)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    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.
  17. Tschetschonig, K.; Ladengruber, R.; Hampel, T.; Schulte, J.: Kollaborative Tagging-Systeme im Electronic Commerce (2008) 0.03 
    0.03429935 = product of:
  0.1371974 = sum of:
    0.032994058 = weight(_text_:web in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032994058 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
    0.10420335 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10420335 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23231146 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.4485502 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Social-Tagging-Systeme bieten eine Vielzahl an Vorteilen gegenüber traditionellen und zurzeit eingesetzten Systemen und werden besonders in nicht-kommerziellen Web-2.0-Anwendungen erfolgreich verwendet. Diese Arbeit beschäftigt sich mit den Vor- und Nachteilen von Social Tagging für kollaborative Systeme des Electronic Commerce und stellt einige Beispiele aus der Praxis vor. Es gibt nur wenige Anwendungen aus dem Bereich des Electronic Commerce, die Social Tagging erfolgreich als kritischen Teil ihrer Systeme einsetzen. Deshalb wird das Potenzial von Tagging-Systemen beleuchtet, um eine fundierte Basis für neue Entwicklungen im Geschäftsbereich zu schaffen.
  18. Bentley, C.M.; Labelle, P.R.: ¬A comparison of social tagging designs and user participation (2008) 0.03 
    0.033469673 = product of:
  0.089252464 = sum of:
    0.018853746 = weight(_text_:web in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018853746 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
    0.059544772 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059544772 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23231146 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.2563144 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
    0.010853946 = product of:
      0.021707892 = sum of:
        0.021707892 = weight(_text_:22 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021707892 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14026769 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040055543 = 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)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    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
  19. DeZelar-Tiedman, V.: Doing the LibraryThing(TM) in an academic library catalog (2008) 0.03 
    0.033469673 = product of:
  0.089252464 = sum of:
    0.018853746 = weight(_text_:web in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018853746 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
    0.059544772 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059544772 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23231146 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.2563144 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
    0.010853946 = product of:
      0.021707892 = sum of:
        0.021707892 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021707892 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14026769 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040055543 = 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)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    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
  20. Watters, C.; Nizam, N.: Knowledge organization on the Web : the emergent role of social classification (2012) 0.03 
    0.029490985 = product of:
  0.11796394 = sum of:
    0.060816556 = weight(_text_:wide in 828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060816556 = score(doc=828,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17747644 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.342674 = fieldWeight in 828, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=828)
    0.057147387 = weight(_text_:web in 828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057147387 = score(doc=828,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 828, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=828)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    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.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 55
  • d 22
  • i 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 64
  • el 9
  • m 9
  • s 3
  • b 2
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications