Search (27 results, page 1 of 2)

0.031817753 = product of:
  0.07424142 = sum of:
    0.030891342 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030891342 = score(doc=343,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
    0.02942481 = weight(_text_:internet in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02942481 = score(doc=343,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.2609436 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
    0.013925271 = product of:
      0.04177581 = sum of:
        0.04177581 = weight(_text_:29 in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04177581 = score(doc=343,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13436082 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

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.

Pages

S.29-53

Source

Handbuch Internet-Suchmaschinen, 2: Neue Entwicklungen in der Web-Suche. Hrsg.: D. Lewandowski

0.012318635 = product of:
  0.04311522 = sum of:
    0.032765217 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032765217 = score(doc=2109,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 2109, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2109)
    0.010350002 = product of:
      0.031050006 = sum of:
        0.031050006 = weight(_text_:22 in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031050006 = score(doc=2109,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13375512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2109, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2109)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

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

Date

1. 8.2008 12:39:22

0.012267968 = product of:
  0.042937886 = sum of:
    0.036037885 = weight(_text_:internet in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036037885 = score(doc=3373,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.31958932 = fieldWeight in 3373, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3373)
    0.0069000013 = product of:
      0.020700004 = sum of:
        0.020700004 = weight(_text_:22 in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020700004 = score(doc=3373,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13375512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3373, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3373)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Content

"Irgendwann ist es einfach zu viel Information. Einmal "Schokolade" bei Google eingeben und mal eben 9 870 000 Links zur Auswahl. "Pilgern - 800 000 Einträge. 21400 000 für "Hörbuch. Die Auswahl fällt schwer, und wer hat schon die Geduld, sich alle Seiten anzugucken. Am besten wäre es, irgendjemand könnte eine der, vielen Seiten empfehlen. Auf eben dieses Prinzip setzen immer mehr Internet-Seiten. Seiten wie www.mister-wong.de bestehen nur aus Empfehlungen von Nutzern für Nutzer. Immerhin vier empfehlen die Webseite zum Pralinenclub, acht Nutzer haben sich für www.theobroma-cacao.de ein Lesezeichen angelegt, beim Pilgern sind sich auch gleich einige Benutzer einig, welche Seite sie am liebsten zum Thema lesen und empfehlen. "Social bookmarks" - Lesezeichen, die man anderen zur Verfügung stellt - sind vor allem auf englischsprachigen Seiten zu finden. Mit Anbietern wie "Mister Wong" oder "Netselektor" können jetzt auch die Deutschen ihre Lieblingslesezeichen im Internet mit anderen teilen. "Bei den großen Suchmaschinen haben es gute Seiten oft schwer: Wenn sie nicht bei Yahoo oder Google nach der Suchanfrage ganz oben stehen, findet sie niemand", sagt "Mister Wong"Pressesprecher Christian Clawien. Für ihn ist das Konzept der "Social bookmarks" die ideale Alternative zur mechanischen Suchmaschine. Noch sind die Zahlen der Aktiven aber gering. 1,3 Millionen abgespeicherte Bookmarks verzeichnet "Mister Wong" seit der Gründung im März 2006. Vor allem Leute, die sowieso bereits einen guten Draht zum Internet haben, nutzten das Angebot, sagt Clawien. Langsam beginnt die Phase, wo Monetarisierung möglich ist." Langfristig soll auch Werbung auf der Seite erscheinen. Bei "www.netselektor.de", im November 2006 gegründet, sitzt zudem noch eine Redaktion vor dem Computer, die die abgelegten Lesezeichen der Nutzer durchforstet und die besten Empfehlungen noch mal als qualitativ hochwertig vorstellt. Nach und nach soll so in Zusammenarbeit mit den Usern ein "Best-of-Internet" entstehen. Natürlich nur mit den Internet-Juwelen, die einer Empfehlung würdig sind. Allerdings erreichen die "Social bookmark"-Seiten auch schnell ihre Grenzen: Nicht alle Stichworte bringen Ergebnisse, nicht immer sind die Vorlieben der Nutzer für Internet-Seiten nachvollziehbar, und noch reicht auch nicht die Anzahl der beteiligten Nutzer, um tatsächlich all die verborgenen Juwelen im riesigen weltweiten Netz zutage zu fördern. Originelles gibt es aber trotzdem schon jetzt - vom Karaoke Trainer bis zu www.dontclick.it", die Seite, die ohne Maus funktionieren soll."

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22

0.011775038 = product of:
  0.041212633 = sum of:
    0.03017833 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03017833 = score(doc=415,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15681393 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.19244674 = fieldWeight in 415, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=415)
    0.011034303 = weight(_text_:internet in 415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011034303 = score(doc=415,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.09785385 = fieldWeight in 415, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=415)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Content

""Sacherschließung - Informationsdienstleistung nach Maß": unter diesem Titel fand am 3. Leipziger Kongress für Information und Bibliothek ("Information und Ethik") eine sehr aufschlussreiche Vortragsreihe statt. Neue Projekte der Vernetzung unterschiedlichst erschlossener Bestände wurden vorgestellt. Auch die Frage, inwieweit man die Nutzerinnen und Nutzer in die Erschließung einbinden kann, wurde behandelt. Die Arbeit der Bibliothekare kann wertvolle Ausgangssituationen für alternative Methoden bieten. Das Zusammenwirken von intellektueller und maschineller Erschließung wird in Zukunft eine große Rolle spielen. Ein Ausweg, um die Erschließung der ständig wachsenden Informationsquellen zu ermöglichen, könnte eine arbeitsteilige Erschließung und eine Kooperation mit anderen Informationseinrichtungen darstellen. Im Mittelpunkt all dieser Überlegungen standen die Heterogenitätsprobleme, die sich durch unterschiedliche Erschließungsregeln, verschiedene Arbeitsinstrumente, verschiedene Sprachen und durch die unterschiedliche Bedeutung der Begriffe ergeben können. Der Nachmittag begann mit einem konkreten Beispiel: "Zum Stand der Heterogenitätsbehandlung in vascoda" (Philipp Mayr, Bonn und Anne-Kathrin Walter, Bonn). Das Wissenschaftsportal vascoda beinhaltet verschiedene Fachportale, und es kann entweder interdisziplinär oder fachspezifisch gesucht werden. Durch die verschiedenen Informationsangebote, die in einem Fachportal vorhanden sind und die in dem Wissenschaftsportal vascoda zusammengefasst sind, entsteht semantische Heterogenität. Oberstes Ziel ist somit die Heterogenitätsbehandlung. Die Erstellung von Crosskonkordanzen (zwischen Indexierungssprachen innerhalb eines Fachgebiets und zwischen Indexierungssprachen unterschiedlicher Fachgebiete) und dem sogenannten Heterogenitätsservice (Term-Umschlüsselungs-Dienst) wurden anhand dieses Wissenschaftsportals vorgestellt. "Crosskonkordanzen sind gerichtete, relevanzbewertete Relationen zwischen Termen zweier Thesauri, Klassifikationen oder auch anderer kontrollierter Vokabulare." Im Heterogenitätsservice soll die Suchanfrage so transformiert werden, dass sie alle relevanten Dokumente in den verschiedenen Datenbanken erreicht. Bei der Evaluierung der Crosskonkordanzen stellt sich die Frage der Zielgenauigkeit der Relationen, sowie die Frage nach der Relevanz der durch die Crosskonkordanz zusätzlich gefundenen Treffer. Drei Schritte der Evaluation werden durchgeführt: Zum einen mit natürlicher Sprache in der Freitextsuche, dann übersetzt in Deskriptoren in der Schlagwortsuche und zuletzt mit Deskriptoren in der Schlagwortsuche mit Einsatz der Crosskonkordanzen. Im Laufe des Sommers werden erste Ergebnisse der Evaluation der Crosskonkordanzen erwartet.
Der dritte Vortrag dieser Vortragsreihe mit dem Titel: "Anfragetransfers zur Integration von Internetquellen in digitalen Bibliotheken auf der Grundlage statistischer Termrelationen" (Robert Strötgen, Hildesheim) zeigte eine maschinelle Methode der Integration ausgewählter, inhaltlich aber nicht erschlossener Internetdokumentbestände in digitale Bibliotheken. Das Zusammentreffen inhaltlich gut erschlossener Fachdatenbanken mit Internetdokumenten steht im Mittelpunkt dieses Forschungsprojekts. "Sollen ausgewählte fachliche Internetdokumente zur Ausweitung einer Recherche in einer digitalen Bibliothek integriert werden, ist dies entweder durch eine Beschränkung auf hochwertige und aufwändig erstellte Clearinghouses oder durch eine "naive" Weiterleitung der Benutzeranfrage möglich." Weiter heißt es in der Projektbeschreibung: "Unter Anwendung von Methoden des maschinellen Lernens werden semantische Relationen zwischen Klassen verschiedener Ontologien erstellt, die Übergänge zwischen diesen Ontologien ermöglichen. Besondere Bedeutung für dieses Forschungsvorhaben hat der Transfer zwischen Ontologien und Freitexttermen." Ausgehend vom Projekt CARMEN werden in diesem Projekt automatisiert - durch statistisches maschinelles Lernen - semantische Relationen berechnet. So wird eine Benutzeranfrage, die mittels Thesaurus erfolgte, für eine Abfrage in Internetdokumentbeständen transformiert.
Jan Lüth (Kiel) zeigte mit seinem Vortrag "Inhaltserschließung durch Nutzerinnen und Nutzer: Ergebnisse eines Tests mit Internetquellen der Virtuellen Fachbibliothek EconBiz" als letzter an diesem Nachmittag eine alternative neue Methode der Erschließung. Für diesen Test wurde eine Teilmenge der im EconBiz-Fachinformationsführer enthaltenen Internetquellen in Social-Bookmarking-Webseiten angeboten, und es wurde beobachtet, inwieweit diese Internetquellen nachgenutzt und durch Schlagworte (Tags) ergänzt wurden. Social-Bookmarking-Webseiten ermöglichen eine private, aber auch öffentliche Verwaltung von Lesezeichen im Internet, welche mit freien Schlagwörtern (Tags), einem Titel und/oder einer Beschreibung versehen werden können. Diese Inhalte werden indexiert und somit werden verschiedene Sprachen, Begriffe und Schreibweisen suchbar. Ziel des Tests sollen Ergebnisse über Potenzial und Einsatzmöglichkeiten von Social-Bookmarking-Systemen im Kontext einer virtuellen Fachbibliothek sein. Als Fazit lässt sich sagen, dass Social Bookmarking sehr aufschlussreich sein kann, um neue Quellen zu erschließen und auszuwählen, und dass ein sehr großes Potenzial vorhanden ist, wenn viele Anwender viele Inhalte einbringen."

0.008230318 = product of:
  0.028806113 = sum of:
    0.021843476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021843476 = score(doc=3616,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.18905719 = fieldWeight in 3616, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3616)
    0.0069626356 = product of:
      0.020887906 = sum of:
        0.020887906 = weight(_text_:29 in 3616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020887906 = score(doc=3616,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13436082 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 3616, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3616)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

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

Date

20. 6.2010 14:29:15

0.006756074 = product of:
  0.047292516 = sum of:
    0.047292516 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047292516 = score(doc=865,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.40932083 = fieldWeight in 865, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=865)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

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

0.006688172 = product of:
  0.046817202 = sum of:
    0.046817202 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046817202 = score(doc=406,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 406, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=406)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Social Tagging ist eine weitverbreitete Methode, um nutzergenerierte Inhalte in Webdiensten zu indexieren. Dieser Artikel fasst die aktuelle Forschung zu Folksonomies und Effektivität von Tags in Retrievalsystemen zusammen. Es wurde ein TREC-ähnlicher Retrievaltest mit Tags und Ressourcen aus dem Social Bookmarking-Dienst delicious durchgeführt, welcher in Recall- und Precisionwerten für ausschließlich Tag-basierte Suchen resultierte. Außerdem wurden Tags in verschiedenen Stufen bereinigt und auf ihre Retrieval-Effektivität getestet. Testergebnisse zeigen, dass Retrieval in Folksonomies am besten mit kurzen Anfragen funktioniert. Hierbei sind die Recallwerte hoch, die Precisionwerte jedoch eher niedrig. Die Suchfunktion "power tags only" liefert verbesserte Precisionwerte.

0.0066195736 = product of:
  0.046337012 = sum of:
    0.046337012 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046337012 = score(doc=4907,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 4907, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4907)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Services in Web 2.0 generate a large quantity of information, distributed over a range of resources (e.g. photos, URLs, videos) and integrated into different platforms (e.g. social bookmarking systems, sharing platforms (Peters, 2009). To adequately use this mass of information and to extract it from the platforms, users must be equipped with suitable tools and knowledge. After all, the best information is useless if users cannot find it: 'The model of information consumption relies on the information being found' (Vander Wal, 2004). In Web 2.0, the retrieval component has been established through so-called folksonomies (Vander Wal, 2005a), which are considered as several combinations of an information resource, one or more freely chosen keywords ('tags') and a user. Web 2.0 services that use folksonomies as an indexing and retrieval tool are defined as 'collaborative information services' because they allow for the collaborative creation of a public database that is accessible to all users (registered, where necessary) via the tags of the folksonomy (Ding et al., 2009; Heymann, Paepcke and Garcia-Molina, 2010).

Source

Innovations in information retrieval: perspectives for theory and practice. Eds.: A. Foster, u. P. Rafferty

0.005404859 = product of:
  0.03783401 = sum of:
    0.03783401 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03783401 = score(doc=4203,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.32745665 = fieldWeight in 4203, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4203)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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".

RSWK

Information Retrieval

Subject

Information Retrieval

0.004413049 = product of:
  0.030891342 = sum of:
    0.030891342 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030891342 = score(doc=3857,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 3857, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3857)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Folksonomies are indexing languages that emerge from the distributed resource-description activity of multiple agents who make use of online tagging services to assign tags (i.e., category labels) to the resources in collections. Although individuals' motivations for engaging in tagging activity vary widely, folksonomy-based retrieval systems can be evaluated by measuring the degree to which taggers and searchers agree on tag-resource pairings.

0.003900621 = product of:
  0.027304346 = sum of:
    0.027304346 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027304346 = score(doc=289,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 289, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=289)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

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

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.0037154437 = product of:
  0.026008105 = sum of:
    0.026008105 = weight(_text_:internet in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026008105 = score(doc=1091,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.23064373 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The subject of this article is folksonomies on the Internet. One of the largest folksonomies on the Internet in terms of number of users and tagged websites is the computer program del.icio.us, where more than 100,000 people have tagged the websites that they and others find using their own keywords. How this is done in practice and the patterns to be found are the focus of this article. The empirical basis is the collection of 76,601 different keywords with a total frequency of 178,215 from 500 randomly chosen taggers on del.icio.us at the end of 2005. The keywords collected were then analyzed quantitatively statistically by uncovering their frequency and percentage distribution and through a statistical correspondence analysis in order to uncover possible patterns in the users' tags. Subsequently, a qualitative textual analysis of the tags was made in order to find out by analysis which tagging strategies are represented in the data material. This led to four conclusions. 1) the distribution of keywords follows classic power law; 2) distinct tagging communities are identifiable; 3) the most frequently used tags are situated on a general-specific axis; and 4) nine distinct tagging strategies are observed. These four conclusions are put into perspective collectively in respect of a number of more general and theoretical considerations concerning folksonomies and the classification systems of the future.

0.0036781013 = product of:
  0.025746709 = sum of:
    0.025746709 = weight(_text_:internet in 251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025746709 = score(doc=251,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.22832564 = fieldWeight in 251, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=251)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Catalogers have always had to balance adherence to cataloging rules and authority files with creating cataloging that is current and relevant to users. That dilemma has been complicated in new ways because of user demands in the world of Web 2.0. Standardized cataloging is crucial for communication between computer systems, but patrons now have an expectation of social interaction on the Internet, as evidenced by the popularity of folksonomy. After a description of traditional subject cataloging and folksonomy, this article discusses several institutions where subject cataloging is still used, but where patron interaction is also encouraged. User-generated tags can coexist with controlled vocabulary such as subject headings.

0.0036781013 = product of:
  0.025746709 = sum of:
    0.025746709 = weight(_text_:internet in 4909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025746709 = score(doc=4909,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.22832564 = fieldWeight in 4909, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4909)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Die große Fülle an nutzergeneriertem Content im Web 2.0 bedarf einer Strukturierung, will man diese Inhalte sinnvoll nutzen können. Im Internet hat sich mit den Folksonomies eigenständig eine Methode zur inhaltlichen Erschließung von digitalen Ressourcen etabliert. Die Verschlagwortung durch freie, von den Nutzern erstellte Tags zeigt viel Potential, birgt aber auch einige Risiken. Der Beitrag soll grundlegend in die Funktionsweise von Folksonomies einführen und dabei auch Vor- und Nachteile dieser Methode der Wissensrepräsentation ansprechen. Außerdem soll anhand von Beispielen kurz gezeigt werden, wie Folksonomies sinnvoll von Bibliotheken eingesetzt werden können.

0.0036781013 = product of:
  0.025746709 = sum of:
    0.025746709 = weight(_text_:internet in 828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025746709 = score(doc=828,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.22832564 = fieldWeight in 828, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=828)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

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

0.0036781013 = product of:
  0.025746709 = sum of:
    0.025746709 = weight(_text_:internet in 4647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025746709 = score(doc=4647,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.22832564 = fieldWeight in 4647, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4647)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This article examines tagging as knowledge organization. Tagging is a kind of indexing, a process of labelling and categorizing information made to support resource discovery for users. Social tagging generally means the practice whereby internet users generate keywords to describe, categorise or comment on digital content. The value of tagging comes when social tags within a collection are aggregated and shared through a folksonomy. This article examines definitions of tagging and folksonomy, and discusses the functions, advantages and disadvantages of tagging systems in relation to knowledge organization before discussing studies that have compared tagging and conventional library-based knowledge organization systems. Approaches to disciplining tagging practice are examined and tagger motivation discussed. Finally, the article outlines current research fronts.

0.0033097868 = product of:
  0.023168506 = sum of:
    0.023168506 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023168506 = score(doc=1597,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 1597, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1597)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

0.0033097868 = product of:
  0.023168506 = sum of:
    0.023168506 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023168506 = score(doc=2272,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2272, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2272)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Content

This paper reports preliminary results from a pilot test of the creation of a folksonomic gestural taxonomy for sign language indexing and retrieval. Skilled sign language interpreters and deaf participants were asked to create sign language metadata or 'Keysigns' that they would assign to classify topics presented by three deaf scientists during a day-log workshop. Although their Keysigns demonstrate a high degree of content conformity, the physical signing itself lacked consistency. Comments made by participants revealed that signed metadata was not a commonly understood concept and that the exercise was cognitively challenging. The paper concludes with suggestions for ways to make the creation of folksonomic Keysign metadata easier from cognitive and physical perspectives.

0.0029571436 = product of:
  0.020700004 = sum of:
    0.020700004 = product of:
      0.06210001 = sum of:
        0.06210001 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06210001 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13375512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6048, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6048)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

0.0027581556 = product of:
  0.019307088 = sum of:
    0.019307088 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019307088 = score(doc=764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 764, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=764)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

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