A quantitative analysis of collaborative tags: Evaluation for information retrieval—a preliminary study

Collaborative (or social tagging) options are being added to many database catalogs on the assumption that not only those who assign tags but also those who use the catalog find such tags beneficial. But no quantitative analyses of collaborative tags exist to support this assumption. Based on questionnaires mixing collaborative tag clouds from http://www.LibraryThing.com and controlled library of congress subject heading (LCSH) strings from the library of congress catalog http://catalog.loc.gov, it was found that controlled vocabulary terms are selected above collaborative terms; that the string format is preferred to the cloud; that strings appear to ldquoperformrdquo better in terms of reflecting book content; and that it is important to users that recall is high (where uncontrolled vocabulary retrieval is generally low). Results were found to be dependent upon particulars of tag cloud or string. The outcome indicates that catalog users would derive fewer information retrieval benefits from the current form of collaborative clouds than from the staid strings of the Library of Congress Subject Headings.

[1]  Virginia A. Lingle,et al.  Indexing and Abstracting in Theory and Practice , 2005 .

[2]  Mor Naaman,et al.  Why do tagging systems work? , 2006, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[3]  Justine Brown Tag! You're It!. , 2007 .

[4]  Fred Leise Metadata and content management systems: an introduction for indexers , 2004 .

[5]  Devon Thomas A Place on the Shelf. , 2007 .

[6]  Barry Smyth,et al.  From social bookmarking to social summarization: an experiment in community-based summary generation , 2007, IUI '07.

[7]  A Cutter Charles Rules for a Dictionary Catalogue , 2008 .

[8]  Susan T. Dumais,et al.  The vocabulary problem in human-system communication , 1987, CACM.

[9]  Joanne Wade,et al.  Indexing and Abstracting in Theory and Practice (2nd ed.) , 1999 .

[10]  Louise F. Spiteri,et al.  The Use of Folksonomies in Public Library Catalogues , 2006 .

[11]  Mor Naaman,et al.  HT06, tagging paper, taxonomy, Flickr, academic article, to read , 2006, HYPERTEXT '06.

[12]  Emma L. Tonkin Folksonomies: The Fall and Rise of Plain-text Tagging , 2006 .

[13]  George Macgregor,et al.  Collaborative tagging as a knowledge organisation and resource discovery tool , 2006 .

[14]  Satoshi Nakamura,et al.  Can social bookmarking enhance search in the web? , 2007, JCDL '07.

[15]  William M. Shaw,et al.  Controlled and Uncontrolled Subject Descriptions in the CF Database: A Comparison of Optimal Cluster-Based Retrieval Results , 1993, Inf. Process. Manag..

[16]  Bernardo A. Huberman,et al.  Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems , 2006, J. Inf. Sci..

[17]  Harris Wu,et al.  Harvesting social knowledge from folksonomies , 2006, HYPERTEXT '06.

[18]  Xan Arch Creating the academic library folksonomy: Put social tagging to work at your institution , 2007 .

[19]  Jessica Dye,et al.  Folksonomy : A game of high-tech (and high-stakes) tag , 2006 .

[20]  Elaine Peterson,et al.  Beneath the Metadata: Some Philosophical Problems with Folksonomy , 2006 .

[21]  Jennifer Trant,et al.  Exploring the potential for social tagging and folksonomy in art museums: Proof of concept , 2006, New Rev. Hypermedia Multim..

[22]  Ron Miller Get a grip : Strategies and insights for managing electronic records , 2006 .

[23]  David N. Sturtz,et al.  Communal Categorization: The Folksonomy , 2004 .

[24]  Joshua Hartranft,et al.  TAG: you're it! , 2007, SIGUCCS '07.

[25]  Jill Walker,et al.  Feral hypertext: when hypertext literature escapes control , 2005, HYPERTEXT '05.

[26]  Andreas Hotho,et al.  Information Retrieval in Folksonomies: Search and Ranking , 2006, ESWC.

[27]  Henry Black,et al.  Indexing and Abstracting , 1940, The Library Quarterly.

[28]  Martin Kurth,et al.  Controlled and Uncontrolled Vocabulary Subject Searching in an Academic Library Online Catalog. , 1991 .