Pragmatic evaluation of folksonomies

Recently, a number of algorithms have been proposed to obtain hierarchical structures - so-called folksonomies - from social tagging data. Work on these algorithms is in part driven by a belief that folksonomies are useful for tasks such as: (a) Navigating social tagging systems and (b) Acquiring semantic relationships between tags. While the promises and pitfalls of the latter have been studied to some extent, we know very little about the extent to which folksonomies are pragmatically useful for navigating social tagging systems. This paper sets out to address this gap by presenting and applying a pragmatic framework for evaluating folksonomies. We model exploratory navigation of a tagging system as decentralized search on a network of tags. Evaluation is based on the fact that the performance of a decentralized search algorithm depends on the quality of the background knowledge used. The key idea of our approach is to use hierarchical structures learned by folksonomy algorithm as background knowledge for decentralized search. Utilizing decentralized search on tag networks in combination with different folksonomies as hierarchical background knowledge allows us to evaluate navigational tasks in social tagging systems. Our experiments with four state-of-the-art folksonomy algorithms on five different social tagging datasets reveal that existing folksonomy algorithms exhibit significant, previously undiscovered, differences with regard to their utility for navigation. Our results are relevant for engineers aiming to improve navigability of social tagging systems and for scientists aiming to evaluate different folksonomy algorithms from a pragmatic perspective.

[1]  Dominik Benz,et al.  Stop thinking, start tagging: tag semantics emerge from collaborative verbosity , 2010, WWW '10.

[2]  Dunja Mladenic,et al.  Golden Standard Based Ontology Evaluation Using Instance Assignment , 2006, EON@WWW.

[3]  Steffen Staab,et al.  Measuring Similarity between Ontologies , 2002, EKAW.

[4]  Sharon L. Milgram,et al.  The Small World Problem , 1967 .

[5]  Christoph Trattner,et al.  On the Navigability of Social Tagging Systems , 2010, 2010 IEEE Second International Conference on Social Computing.

[6]  Ciro Cattuto,et al.  Semantic Grounding of Tag Relatedness in Social Bookmarking Systems , 2008, SEMWEB.

[7]  Delbert Dueck,et al.  Clustering by Passing Messages Between Data Points , 2007, Science.

[8]  Diana Maynard,et al.  Metrics for Evaluation of Ontology-based Information Extraction , 2006, EON@WWW.

[9]  Kristina Lerman,et al.  Constructing folksonomies from user-specified relations on flickr , 2009, WWW '09.

[10]  Andreas Hotho,et al.  Mining Association Rules in Folksonomies , 2006, Data Science and Classification.

[11]  Steffen Staab,et al.  On How to Perform a Gold Standard Based Evaluation of Ontology Learning , 2006, SEMWEB.

[12]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  The small-world phenomenon: an algorithmic perspective , 2000, STOC '00.

[13]  Shi Zhong,et al.  Efficient online spherical k-means clustering , 2005, Proceedings. 2005 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, 2005..

[14]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  Small-World Phenomena and the Dynamics of Information , 2001, NIPS.

[15]  M E J Newman,et al.  Identity and Search in Social Networks , 2002, Science.

[16]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  Search in Power-Law Networks , 2001, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[17]  Markus Strohmaier,et al.  Of categorizers and describers: an evaluation of quantitative measures for tagging motivation , 2010, HT '10.

[18]  Dominik Benz,et al.  Semantics made by you and me: Self-emerging ontologies can capture the diversity of shared knowledge , 2010 .

[19]  Rui Li,et al.  Towards effective browsing of large scale social annotations , 2007, WWW '07.

[20]  Kristina Lerman,et al.  Growing a tree in the forest: constructing folksonomies by integrating structured metadata , 2010, KDD.

[21]  Bamshad Mobasher,et al.  Evaluating the Impact of Attacks in Collaborative Tagging Environments , 2009, 2009 International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering.

[22]  Andreas Hotho,et al.  FolkRank : A Ranking Algorithm for Folksonomies , 2006, LWA.

[23]  Ulrik Brandes,et al.  Centrality Estimation in Large Networks , 2007, Int. J. Bifurc. Chaos.

[24]  Rossano Schifanella,et al.  Folks in Folksonomies: social link prediction from shared metadata , 2010, WSDM '10.

[25]  Peter Mika,et al.  Ontologies are us: A unified model of social networks and semantics , 2005, J. Web Semant..

[26]  Vittorio Loreto,et al.  Network properties of folksonomies , 2007, AI Commun..

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

[28]  Inderjit S. Dhillon,et al.  Efficient Clustering of Very Large Document Collections , 2001 .

[29]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  How to search a social network , 2005, Soc. Networks.

[30]  Hector Garcia-Molina,et al.  Collaborative Creation of Communal Hierarchical Taxonomies in Social Tagging Systems , 2006 .

[31]  Andreas Hotho,et al.  BibSonomy: a social bookmark and publication sharing system , 2006 .