A tangle of tags: The impact of user-generated tagging in public library catalogs

With the increased adoption of catalog packages such as Bibliocommons and Aquabrowser comes a need to investigate the ways in which folksonomic tools impact the amount and quality of user tagging in public library catalogs. This pilot study compares two public library catalogs from library systems in the Midwestern United States. The underlying goals of the investigation were to compare the two catalogs to see whether 1) pronounced differences between the folksonomies of user tags existed in both library catalogs, in number of tags for selected titles and scope/coverage of tags; and 2) how the tags from MPLS compare to the tags presented in Aquabrowser's supplemental tag cloud and RPL and the implications inherent in these comparisons. Using the Book Industry Standard and Communications (BISAC) subject headings, user tags from the two library catalogs were coded and compared for scope and frequency. Results indicate that RPL, which uses Aquabrowser, has significantly more user tags that cover a broader scope than those of MPLS. Findings demonstrate the need for further consideration of user tagging in Web 2.0 catalogs.

[1]  Michael Cardew-Hall,et al.  The folksonomy tag cloud: when is it useful? , 2008, J. Inf. Sci..

[2]  Maria Soledad Pera,et al.  A sophisticated library search strategy using folksonomies and similarity matching , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[3]  Melissa Adler,et al.  Transcending Library Catalogs: A Comparative Study of Controlled Terms in Library of Congress Subject Headings and User-Generated Tags in LibraryThing for Transgender Books , 2009 .

[4]  L. H. Mendes,et al.  Subjecting the catalog to tagging , 2009, Libr. Hi Tech.

[5]  Sharon Q. Yang,et al.  Evaluating and comparing discovery tools: how close are we towards next generation catalog? , 2010, Libr. Hi Tech.

[6]  Maja Zumer,et al.  New generation of catalogues for the new generation of users: A comparison of six library catalogues , 2008, Program.

[7]  Dimitris Gavrilis,et al.  Enhancing Library Services with Web 2.0 Functionalities , 2008, ECDL.

[8]  Jo Bates,et al.  Social reproduction and exclusion in subject indexing: A comparison of public library OPACs and LibraryThing folksonomy , 2011, J. Documentation.

[9]  L. Spiteri,et al.  The public library catalogue as a social space: A case study of social discovery systems in two Canadian public libraries , 2013 .

[10]  Carrie Pirmann,et al.  Tags in the Catalogue: Insights From a Usability Study of LibraryThing for Libraries , 2012, Libr. Trends.

[11]  Dion Hoe-Lian Goh,et al.  A study of Web 2.0 applications in library websites , 2010 .

[12]  Marshall Breeding Chapter 2: AquaBrowser , 2008 .

[13]  Taco Ekkel,et al.  AquaBrowser: Search and information discovery for libraries , 2007, Inf. Serv. Use.

[14]  Louise Spiteri,et al.  Structure and form of folksonomy tags: The road to the public library catalogue , 2007, Webology.