Difference between revisions of "Heckner et al., ICWSM2009"
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | = Citation = | |
Heckner, M., M. Heilemann, and C. Wolff. 2009. Personal Information Management vs. Resource Sharing: Towards a Model of Information Behaviour in Social Tagging Systems. In Paper accepted for the Third International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, ICWSM-09, Nashville/TN | Heckner, M., M. Heilemann, and C. Wolff. 2009. Personal Information Management vs. Resource Sharing: Towards a Model of Information Behaviour in Social Tagging Systems. In Paper accepted for the Third International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, ICWSM-09, Nashville/TN | ||
| − | + | [[http://epub.uni-regensburg.de/6820/1/ICWSM09-013.pdf]] | |
| + | |||
| + | = Abstract from the paper = | ||
Social tagging systems allow users to upload and assign keywords to digital resources. Thus a body of user annotated resources gradually evolves: Users can share resources, re-find their own resources or use the systems as search engines for items added by the whole user population. In this paper we want to contribute towards a better understanding of usage patterns within social tagging systems by presenting results from a survey of 142 users of the systems Flickr, Youtube, Delicious and Connotea. Data was gathered partly by using the Mechanical Turk service, and partly via an announcement on the Connotea blog. Our study reveals differences of user motivation and tag usage between systems. While resource sharing emerges as an all-embracing intra-system motivation, users differ with respect to social spheres of sharing. Based on our results which we integrated with earlier research from Cool and Belkin 2002, we propose a model of information behaviour in social tagging systems. | Social tagging systems allow users to upload and assign keywords to digital resources. Thus a body of user annotated resources gradually evolves: Users can share resources, re-find their own resources or use the systems as search engines for items added by the whole user population. In this paper we want to contribute towards a better understanding of usage patterns within social tagging systems by presenting results from a survey of 142 users of the systems Flickr, Youtube, Delicious and Connotea. Data was gathered partly by using the Mechanical Turk service, and partly via an announcement on the Connotea blog. Our study reveals differences of user motivation and tag usage between systems. While resource sharing emerges as an all-embracing intra-system motivation, users differ with respect to social spheres of sharing. Based on our results which we integrated with earlier research from Cool and Belkin 2002, we propose a model of information behaviour in social tagging systems. | ||
| + | |||
| + | = Summary = | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Social Tagging is easy == | ||
| + | * Professional Indexing is costly and suffer from low coverage | ||
| + | * Non-textual media are hard to index | ||
| + | * Shorter cognitive process than categorization | ||
| + | |||
| + | == [[AddressesProblem::Why people use tags]] == | ||
| + | A [[UsesMethod::MTurk]] user study ([[UsesMethod::qualitative]]). | ||
| + | Two motivation for tagging: (Results are same as the assumptions) | ||
| + | * Personal Information Management (Delicious, Connotea) | ||
| + | * Resource Sharing (Flickr, Youtube) | ||
| + | But base on quantitative data, motivations between Flickr, Delicious and Connotea is not statistically significant. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Social Tagging and Perceptions of IR == | ||
| + | * Search other collections ( Youtube, Flickr) | ||
| + | * Tags perceived as helpful for IR (Youtube, Flickr) | ||
| + | * Search own collection (Delicious, Connotea) | ||
| + | |||
| + | = Related Papers = | ||
| + | * Heckner, M.; Neubauer, T.; and Wolff, C. 2008. Tree, funny, to read, google: what are tags supposed to achieve? a comparative analysis of user keywords for different digital resource types. In SSM ’08: Proceeding of the 2008 ACM workshop on Search in social media, 3–10. New York, NY, USA: ACM. | ||
| + | * Strohmaier, M. 2008. Purpose tagging: capturing user intent to assist goal-oriented social search. In SSM ’08: Proceeding of the 2008 ACM workshop on Search in social media, 35–42. New York, NY, USA: ACM. | ||
| + | |||
| + | = Study Plan = | ||
| + | * Qualitative Methods [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualitative_research]] | ||
| + | ** Book: Basics of Qualitative Research [[http://www.amazon.com/Basics-Qualitative-Research-Techniques-Procedures/dp/0803959400]] | ||
| + | * [[UsesMethod::CrowdSourcing]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing]] | ||
| + | * Amazon MTurk [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Mechanical_Turk]] [[https://www.mturk.com/]] | ||
Latest revision as of 19:42, 3 October 2012
Contents
Citation
Heckner, M., M. Heilemann, and C. Wolff. 2009. Personal Information Management vs. Resource Sharing: Towards a Model of Information Behaviour in Social Tagging Systems. In Paper accepted for the Third International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, ICWSM-09, Nashville/TN
[[1]]
Abstract from the paper
Social tagging systems allow users to upload and assign keywords to digital resources. Thus a body of user annotated resources gradually evolves: Users can share resources, re-find their own resources or use the systems as search engines for items added by the whole user population. In this paper we want to contribute towards a better understanding of usage patterns within social tagging systems by presenting results from a survey of 142 users of the systems Flickr, Youtube, Delicious and Connotea. Data was gathered partly by using the Mechanical Turk service, and partly via an announcement on the Connotea blog. Our study reveals differences of user motivation and tag usage between systems. While resource sharing emerges as an all-embracing intra-system motivation, users differ with respect to social spheres of sharing. Based on our results which we integrated with earlier research from Cool and Belkin 2002, we propose a model of information behaviour in social tagging systems.
Summary
Social Tagging is easy
- Professional Indexing is costly and suffer from low coverage
- Non-textual media are hard to index
- Shorter cognitive process than categorization
Why people use tags
A MTurk user study (qualitative). Two motivation for tagging: (Results are same as the assumptions)
- Personal Information Management (Delicious, Connotea)
- Resource Sharing (Flickr, Youtube)
But base on quantitative data, motivations between Flickr, Delicious and Connotea is not statistically significant.
Social Tagging and Perceptions of IR
- Search other collections ( Youtube, Flickr)
- Tags perceived as helpful for IR (Youtube, Flickr)
- Search own collection (Delicious, Connotea)
Related Papers
- Heckner, M.; Neubauer, T.; and Wolff, C. 2008. Tree, funny, to read, google: what are tags supposed to achieve? a comparative analysis of user keywords for different digital resource types. In SSM ’08: Proceeding of the 2008 ACM workshop on Search in social media, 3–10. New York, NY, USA: ACM.
- Strohmaier, M. 2008. Purpose tagging: capturing user intent to assist goal-oriented social search. In SSM ’08: Proceeding of the 2008 ACM workshop on Search in social media, 35–42. New York, NY, USA: ACM.
