Acting or reacting? Preferential attachment in a people-tagging system

Social technologies tend to attract research on social structure or interaction. In this paper we analyze the individual use of a social technology, specifically an enterprise people-tagging application. We focus on active participants of the system and distinguish between users who initiate activity and those who respond to activity. This distinction is situated within the preferential attachment theory in order to examine which type of participant contributes more to the process of tagging. We analyze the usage of the people-tagging application in a snapshot representing 3 years of activity, focusing on self-tagging compared to tagging by and of others. The main findings are: (1) People who tag themselves are the most productive contributors to the system. (2) Preferential attachment saturation is reached at 12–14 tags per user. (3) The nature of participation is more significant than the number of participants for system growth. The paper concludes with theoretical and practical implications. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

[1]  Jennifer Preece,et al.  The top five reasons for lurking: improving community experiences for everyone , 2004, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[2]  David R. Millen,et al.  Dogear: Social bookmarking in the enterprise , 2006, CHI.

[3]  Lee Sproull,et al.  What's Mine Is Ours, or Is It? A Study of Attitudes about Information Sharing , 1994, Inf. Syst. Res..

[4]  Coye Cheshire,et al.  Readers are not free-riders: reading as a form of participation on wikipedia , 2010, CSCW '10.

[5]  Albert Lazslo Barabasi,et al.  Statistical Inference from Power Law Distributed Web-Based Social Interactions , 2009 .

[6]  M. Lynne Markus,et al.  Toward a “Critical Mass” Theory of Interactive Media , 1987 .

[7]  T. Lau,et al.  Fringe Contacts: People-Tagging for the Enterprise , 2006 .

[8]  Danyel Fisher,et al.  Visualizing the Signatures of Social Roles in Online Discussion Groups , 2007, J. Soc. Struct..

[9]  Mark J. Safferstone.  Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy , 1999 .

[10]  Shari Thurow,et al.  Search Engine Visibility , 2003 .

[11]  Stephen Farrell,et al.  Socially augmenting employee profiles with people-tagging , 2007, UIST.

[12]  Mark S. Melenhorst,et al.  Incorporating user motivations to design for video tagging , 2009, Interact. Comput..

[13]  Daphne R. Raban,et al.  Statistical inference from power law distributed web-based social interactions , 2009, Internet Res..

[14]  B. Shneiderman,et al.  The Reader-to-Leader Framework: Motivating Technology-Mediated Social Participation , 2009 .

[15]  Peter A. Gloor,et al.  Swarm Creativity: Competitive Advantage Through Collaborative Innovation Networks , 2006 .

[16]  Gilad Ravid,et al.  De-lurking in virtual communities: a social communication network approach to measuring the effects of social and cultural capital , 2004, 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the.

[17]  Cliff Lampe,et al.  The ties that bind: Social network principles in online communities , 2009, Decis. Support Syst..

[18]  R. Armstrong.  The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More , 2008 .

[19]  Michael J. Muller,et al.  Social Tagging and Self-Tagging for Impression Management * , 2006 .

[20]  Sheizaf Rafaeli,et al.  Knowledge Building and Motivations in Wikipedia: Participation as “Ba” , 2009 .

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

[22]  Kathy J. Lee.  What goes around comes around: an analysis of del.icio.us as social space , 2006, CSCW '06.

[23]  Alexander Halavais,et al.  DO DUGG DIGGERS DIGG DILIGENTLY? , 2009 .

[24]  Michael S. Bernstein,et al.  Collabio: a game for annotating people within social networks , 2009, UIST '09.

[25]  Sonja Utz,et al.  Show me your friends and I will tell you what type of person you are: How one's profile, number of friends, and type of friends influence impression formation on social network sites , 2010, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[26]  Sheizaf Rafaeli,et al.  Information Sharing Online: A Research Challenge , 2005, Int. J. Knowl. Learn..

[27]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.

[28]  Eytan Adar,et al.  Free Riding on Gnutella , 2000, First Monday.

[29]  Stephen Farrell,et al.  Building Communities with People-Tags , 2007, INTERACT.

[30]  Robin Teigland,et al.  Collective Action and Knowledge Contribution in Electronic Networks of Practice , 2004, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[31]  Shari Thurow.  Search engine visibility, second edition , 2007 .

[32]  T. Schelling.  Micromotives and Macrobehavior , 1978 .

[33]  G. Marwell,et al.  A Theory of the Critical Mass. I. Interdependence, Group Heterogeneity, and the Production of Collective Action , 1985, American Journal of Sociology.

[34]  G. Marwell,et al.  A Theory of the Critical Mass , 1991 .

[35]  Fay Sudweeks,et al.  Interactivity on the Nets , 1998 .

[36]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[37]  Fay Sudweeks,et al.  Networked Interactivity , 1997, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[38]  M. Newman.  Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf's law , 2005 .

[39]  Stephen Farrell,et al.  Harvesting with SONAR: the value of aggregating social network information , 2008, CHI.

[40]  P. Adler,et al.  Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept , 2002 .

[41]  Maryam Najafian Razavi,et al.  Improving personal privacy in social systems with people-tagging , 2009, GROUP '09.

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

[43]  Michael J. Muller.  Comparing tagging vocabularies among four enterprise tag-based services , 2007, GROUP.