How annotation styles influence content and preferences

Photo-tagging web sites provide several methods to annotate photographs. In this paper, we study how people use and respond to three different annotation styles: single-word tags, multi-word tags, and comments. We find significant differences in how annotation styles influence the objectivity, descriptiveness, and interestingness of annotations. Although single-word and multi-word tags are not normally differentiated, users prefer multi-word tags for their combination of descriptiveness and succinctness. We also discover that producers and consumers assess annotation styles differently in terms of ease of use, support for different user goals, and amount of effort required, demonstrating that allowing multiple modes of annotation is generally beneficial, as is considering both tag production and consumption.

[1]  Загоровская Ольга Владимировна,et al.  Исследование влияния пола и психологических характеристик автора на количественные параметры его текста с использованием программы Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count , 2015 .

[2]  Mor Naaman,et al.  Why we tag: motivations for annotation in mobile and online media , 2007, CHI.

[3]  Oded Nov,et al.  What drives content tagging: the case of photos on Flickr , 2008, CHI.

[4]  Arkaitz Zubiaga,et al.  Analyzing Tag Distributions in Folksonomies for Resource Classification , 2011, KSEM.

[5]  Stuart K. Card,et al.  Information foraging in information access environments , 1995, CHI '95.

[6]  Wolfgang Nejdl,et al.  Can all tags be used for search? , 2008, CIKM '08.

[7]  Clifford Nass,et al.  Normative influences on thoughtful online participation , 2011, CHI.

[8]  H.S. Al-Khalifa,et al.  Measuring the Semantic Value of Folksonomies , 2006, 2006 Innovations in Information Technology.

[9]  Mor Naaman,et al.  Zonetag: Designing context-aware mobile media capture to increase participation , 2006 .

[10]  References , 1971 .

[11]  James W. Pennebaker,et al.  Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC2007) , 2007 .

[12]  Bamshad Mobasher,et al.  The impact of ambiguity and redundancy on tag recommendation in folksonomies , 2009, RecSys '09.

[13]  Dan Cosley,et al.  ArtLinks: fostering social awareness and reflection in museums , 2008, CHI.

[14]  John Riedl,et al.  tagging, communities, vocabulary, evolution , 2006, CSCW '06.

[15]  Jimmy J. Lin,et al.  What Makes a Good Answer? The Role of Context in Question Answering , 2003, INTERACT.

[16]  Catherine C. Marshall,et al.  No bull, no spin: a comparison of tags with other forms of user metadata , 2009, JCDL '09.

[17]  Roelof van Zwol,et al.  Flickr tag recommendation based on collective knowledge , 2008, WWW.

[18]  Andrew D. Miller,et al.  Give and take: a study of consumer photo-sharing culture and practice , 2007, CHI.

[19]  Margaret E. I. Kipp,et al.  Patterns and Inconsistencies in Collaborative Tagging Systems: An Examination of Tagging Practices , 2007, ASIST.