Kerstin Bischoff
ABSTRACT
Collaborative tagging has become an increasingly popular means for sharing and organizing Web resources, leading to a huge amount of user generated metadata. These tags represent quite a few different aspects of the resources they describe and it is not obvious whether and how these tags or subsets of them can be used for search. This paper is the first to present an in-depth study of tagging behavior for very different kinds of resources and systems - Web pages (Del.icio.us), music (Last.fm), and images (Flickr) - and compares the results with anchor text characteristics. We analyze and classify sample tags from these systems, to get an insight into what kinds of tags are used for different resources, and provide statistics on tag distributions in all three tagging environments. Since even relevant tags may not add new information to the search procedure, we also check overlap of tags with content, with metadata assigned by experts and from other sources. We discuss the potential of different kinds of tags for improving search, comparing them with user queries posted to search engines as well as through a user survey. The results are promising and provide more insight into both the use of different kinds of tags for improving search and possible extensions of tagging systems to support the creation of potentially search-relevant tags.
- M. Ames and M. Naaman. Why we tag: motivations for annotation in mobile and online media. In Proceedings SIGCHI, 2007. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- S. Bao, X. Wu, B. Fei, G. Xue, Z. Su, and Y. Yu. Optimizing web search using social annotations. In Proceedings WWW, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Brin and L. Page. The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual Web search engine. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 30(1-7):107--117, 1998. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Cohen. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1):37--46, 1960.Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. D. Davison. Topical locality in the web. In Proceedings SIGIR, 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. D. Eugenio and M. Glass. The kappa statistic: A second look. Computational Linguistics, 30(1):95--101, 2004. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. S. Firan, W. Nejdl, and R. Paiu. The benefit of using tag-based profiles. In Proceedings LA-WEB, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. A. Golder and B. A. Huberman. Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems. Journal of Information Science, 32(2):198--208, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. Halpin, V. Robu, and H. Shepherd. The complex dynamics of collaborative tagging. In Proceedings WWW, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Heymann, G. Koutrika, and H. Garcia-Molina. Can social bookmarking improve web search? In Proceedings WSDM, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Hotho, R. Jäschke, C. Schmitz, and G. Stumme. Information retrieval in folksonomies: Search and ranking. In Proceedings ESWC, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M.-Y. Kan. Web page categorization without the web page. In Proceedings WWW, 2004. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Knees, T. Pohle, M. Schedl, and G. Widmer. A music search engine built upon audio-based and web-based similarity measures. In Proceedings SIGIR, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Kraft and J. Zien. Mining anchor text for query refinement. In Proceedings WWW, 2004. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Marlow, M. Naaman, D. Boyd, and M. Davis. Ht06, tagging paper, taxonomy, flickr, academic article, to read. In Proceedings HYPERTEXT, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- O. A. McBryan. GENVL and WWWW: Tools for Taming the Web. In Proceedings WWW, 1994.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Naaman, S. Harada, Q. Wang, H. Garcia-Molina, and A. Paepcke. Context data in geo-referenced digital photo collections. In Proceedings MULTIMEDIA '04, pages 196--203, New York, NY, USA, 2004. ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Pass, A. Chowdhury, and C. Torgeson. A picture of search. In Proceedings Infoscale, 2006.Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Sen, S. K. Lam, A. M. Rashid, D. Cosley, D. Frankowski, J. Osterhouse, F. M. Harper, and J. Riedl. tagging, communities, vocabulary, evolution. In Proceedings CSCW, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Shen, J.-T. Sun, Q. Yang, and Z. Chen. A comparison of implicit and explicit links for web page classification. In Proceedings WWW, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Z. Xu, Y. Fu, J. Mao, and D. Su. Towards the semantic web: Collaborative tag suggestions. WWW Workshop on Collaborative Web Tagging, 2006.Google Scholar
- A. Zollers. Emerging motivations for tagging: Expression, performance, and activism. WWW Workshop on Tagging and Metadata for Social Information Organization, 2007.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Can all tags be used for search?
Recommendations
Latent dirichlet allocation for tag recommendation
RecSys '09: Proceedings of the third ACM conference on Recommender systemsTagging systems have become major infrastructures on the Web. They allow users to create tags that annotate and categorize content and share them with other users, very helpful in particular for searching multimedia content. However, as tagging is not ...
Survey on social tagging techniques
Social tagging on online portals has become a trend now. It has emerged as one of the best ways of associating metadata with web objects. With the increase in the kinds of web objects becoming available, collaborative tagging of such objects is also ...
Tags weighting based on user profile
AMT'11: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Active media technologyThe 'Collaborative Tagging' is gaining popularity on Web 2.0, this new generation of Web which makes user reader/writer. The 'Tagging' is a mean for users to express themselves freely through additions of label called 'Tags' to shared resources. One of ...
Comments