Proceedings of the 2006 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work 2006
DOI: 10.1145/1180875.1180904
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

tagging, communities, vocabulary, evolution

Abstract: A tagging community's vocabulary of tags forms the basis for social navigation and shared expression. We present a user-centric model of vocabulary evolution in tagging communities based on community influence and personal tendency. We evaluate our model in an emergent tagging system by introducing tagging features into the MovieLens recommender system. We explore four tag selection algorithms for displaying tags applied by other community members. We analyze the algorithms' effect on vocabulary evolution, tag… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
277
2
6

Year Published

2008
2008
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 308 publications
(296 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
7
277
2
6
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: 73%
“…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: 73%
“…Santos-Neto, Condon, Andrade, Iamnitchi og Ripeanu (2009) har sett på hvordan gjenbruk av tagger blant brukerne kan ses på som et kvalitetsmå l og hvordan likhet i tagger som ulike brukere benytter kan ses på som et må l for delt interesse blant brukerne. Sen, Shyong, Cosley, Rashid, Frankowski, Harper, Osterhouse, & Riedl, (2006) observerer at brukere lar seg på virke av de tagger de har sett andre bruke: «A gentle upward trend is apparent; users who view more tags before their first tag application are more likely to have their first tag influenced by the community.» Andre forskere, derimot, som Farooq et al (2007), trekker fram at tagger bør vaere diskriminerende (dvs. de bør skille de enkelte laeringsobjektene godt) og bør ikke vaere selvfølgelige.…”
Section: Søken Etter Kvalitetstaggingunclassified
“…Other research activities have been conducted on tagging behavior and tag distribution in social tagging systems [3,15]. However, to the best of our knowledge the usage of social tags for matching heterogeneous objects has not been investigated so far.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Music and places can both raise emotions and we conjectured that the commonality of the raised emotions could provide the base for establishing a degree of match between a place and a music track. Moreover, using tags to describe both music and POIs is a promising and viable approach since there is a rapid growth of the amount of user-generated tagging data (a phenomena also known as social, or collaborative tagging) [3,15].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%