2006
DOI: 10.1108/00242530610667558
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Collaborative tagging as a knowledge organisation and resource discovery tool

Abstract: This version is available at https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/2335/ Strathprints is designed to allow users to access the research output of the University of Strathclyde. Unless otherwise explicitly stated on the manuscript, Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Please check the manuscript for details of any other licences that may have been applied. You may not engage in further distribution of the material for any prof… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
147
0
9

Year Published

2008
2008
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 207 publications
(157 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
1
147
0
9
Order By: Relevance
“…Eight questionnaire respondents participated in follow-up semi-structured interviews that further explored tagging practices by situating questionnaire responses within concrete experiences using popular websites such as YouTube, Facebook, Del.icio.us, and Flickr. Preliminary results of this study echo findings found in the growing literature concerning social tagging from the fields of computer science (Sen et al, 2006) and information science Macgregor & McCulloch, 2006). Generally, two classes of social taggers emerge: those who focus on tagging for individual purposes, and those who view tagging as a way to share or communicate meaning to others.…”
Section: A Comparison Of Social Tagging Designs and User Participationsupporting
confidence: 66%
“…Eight questionnaire respondents participated in follow-up semi-structured interviews that further explored tagging practices by situating questionnaire responses within concrete experiences using popular websites such as YouTube, Facebook, Del.icio.us, and Flickr. Preliminary results of this study echo findings found in the growing literature concerning social tagging from the fields of computer science (Sen et al, 2006) and information science Macgregor & McCulloch, 2006). Generally, two classes of social taggers emerge: those who focus on tagging for individual purposes, and those who view tagging as a way to share or communicate meaning to others.…”
Section: A Comparison Of Social Tagging Designs and User Participationsupporting
confidence: 66%
“…Tags can help learners discover new material that they would otherwise miss [47]. Macgregor and McCulloch [48] explain how a collaborative tagging mechanism can be more effective in learning material discovery than controlled vocabulary tagging.…”
Section: Recommendation Enginementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Tags are typically single terms and are often pictured as a tag cloud where the most used tags are shown in bigger font and least used are shown as smaller font. Multiple tags can be assigned to a single source by removing punctuation and by using symbols to combine terms (Macgregor & McCulloch, 2006).…”
Section: Social Tagging (Folksonomy)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To ensure an appropriate balance between recall and precision, an indexing term process is used to allow more control over the creation of index terms. Controlled vocabulary is an example of an indexing process which ensures that index terms are standardized and related resources are collected for an easy access (Macgregor & McCulloch, 2006). In addition to its use in library science, controlled vocabulary guides users as they gather information resources on the internet using traditional search engines like Google, Yahoo, or Microsoft MSN.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%