Abstract

The organization and representation of information and knowledge have always been exclusively in the domain of professionals and experts. This has begun to change with the development of folksonomies as alternative, user-generated models of organizing information. The aim of this paper is to research the efficiency in tagging and folksonomy. The flexibility of tagging allows users to classify their collections of items in the ways that they find useful, but the personalized variety of terms can present challenges when searching and browsing. In order to determine the efficiency of tagging research evidence about the nature of tagging and tagging behaviour of specific user groups is needed. This paper contributes to research findings in this domain by presenting findings from a study exploring differences in expert and novices tagging. The research was conducted by giving freshman students, with no prior knowledge of tagging or indexing and therefore determined as novices, an article in the social bookmarking service Delicious. Based only on title, subtitle and abstract of the article every student was supposed to assign tags to that article and do the same after reading the whole article. The same procedure was repeated with postgraduate students from the Department of Information Sciences with sufficiently experience and knowledge in tagging and indexing. In this way differences or similarities between tagging by more advanced users and tagging by average / amateur users could be analyzed and compared. The research has surfaced differences in tag numbers and tag distributions. The findings indicate more precision and consistency in tagging of the expert group, indicating that education in tagging could raise the quality of folksonomies on the long term.

Keywords: Tagging, Folksonomies, Tagging behaviour, User studies, Users

References

  1. Adler, M. (2009). Transcending library catalogs: A comparative study of controlled terms in Library of Congress Subject Headings and user-generated tags in LibraryThing for transgender books. Journal of Web Librarianship, 3(4), 309-331.
  2. Dasqupta, D. and Dasqupta, R. (2009). Social network using Web 2.0. Retrieved on September 26, 2011, from http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/wssocialcollab/index.html
  3. Fichter, D. (2006). Intranet applications for tagging and folksonomies. Online, 30(3), 43-45.
  4. Golder, S. A. and Huberman, B. A. (2006). Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems. Journal of Information Science, 32(2), 198-208.
  5. Guy, M. and Tonkin, E. (2006). Tidying up tags? D-Lib Magazine, 12(1). Retrieved on October 27, 2011 from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/Jan.06/guy/01guy.html
  6. Heckner, M., Mühlbacher, S. and Wolff, C. (2008). Tagging tagging: analysing user keywords in scientific bibliography management systems. Journal of Digital Information, 9(2). Retrieved on November 14, 2011 from http://journals.tdl.org/jodi/article/view/246
  7. Heckner, M., Neubauer, T. and Wolff, C. (2008). Tree, funny, to_read, google: What are tags supposed to achieve? A comparative analysis of user keywords for different digital resource types. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Workshop on Search in Social Media (pp.3-10). New York: ACM.
  8. Kipp, M. E. I. (2005). Complementary or discrete contexts in online indexing: A comparison of user, creator, and intermediary keywords. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 29(4), 419-436.
  9. Lee, C. S., Goh, D. H., Razikin, K., Chua, A. Y. K. (2009). Tagging, sharing and the influence of personal experience. Journal of Digital Information, 10(1). Retrieved on February 20, 2012, from http://journals.tdl.org/jodi/article/view/275/275
  10. Marlow, C., Naaman, M., Boyd, D. and Davis, M. (2006). HT06, tagging paper, taxonomy, Flickr, academic article, to read. U. K. Wiil, P. J. Nürnberg and J. Rubart (Eds.). In HYPERTEXT 2006, Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, August 22-25, 2006, Odense, Denmark (pp.31-40). New York, NY: ACM.
  11. Mathes, A. (2004). Folksonomies-cooperative classification and communication through shared metadata. Retrieved on October 27 2011 from http://www.adammathes.com/academic/computer-mediated-communication/folksonomies.html
  12. Munk, B. T. and Mørk, K. (2007). Folksonomies, tagging communities, and tagging strategies: An empirical study. Knowledge Organization, 34(3), 115-127.
  13. O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0. Retrieved on September 28, 2011, from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
  14. Peters, I. (2009). Folksonomies: Indexing and retrieval in Web 2.0. Berlin: De Gruyter Saur.
  15. Pirmann, C. M. (2008). Enhancing subject access to materials in library OPACs: Are folksonomies the answer?. Retrieved on September 28, 2011, from http://courseweb.lis.illinois.edu/~pirmann2/portfolio/indstudypaperfinal.pdf
  16. Quintarelli, E. (2005). Folksonomies: Power to the people. Retrieved on September 28, 2011, from http://www.iskoi.org/doc/folksonomies.htm
  17. Rolla, P. J. (2009). User tags versus subject headings: Can user-supplied data improve subject access to library collections? Library Resources & Technical Services, 53(3), 174-184.
  18. Špiranec, S. and Banek Zorica, M. (2010). Information literacy 2.0: Hype or discourse refinement. Journal of Documentation, 66(1), 140-153.
  19. Thomas, M., Caudle, D. M. and Schmitz, C. M. (2009). To tag or not to tag? Library Hi Tech, 27(3), 411-434.
  20. Tsai, L. C., Hwang, S. L. and Tang, K. H. (2011). Analysis of keyword-based tagging behaviours of experts and novices. Online Information Review, 35(2), 272-290.
  21. Vuorikari, R. and Ochoa, X. (2009). Exploratory analysis of the main characteristics of tags and tagging of educational resources in a multi-lingual context. Journal of Digital Information, 10(2). Retrieved on February 20, 2012, from http://journals.tdl.org/jodi/article/view/447
  22. Wetterstrom, M. (2008). The complementarity of tags and LCSH: A tagging experiment and investigation into added value in a New Zealand Library context. The New Zealand Library & Information Management Journal, 50(4), 296-310.

License

Copyright (c) 2012 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to Cite

Spiranec, S., & Borovac, M. (2012). Expert vs. Novices Dimensions of Tagging Behaviour in an Educational Setting. Information World, 13(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.15612/BD.2012.166