In collaborative tagging systems, it is generally assumed that users assign tags to facilitate retrieval of content at a later time. There is, however, little behavioral evidence that tags actually serve this purpose. Using a large-scale dataset from the social music website Last.fm, we explore how patterns of music tagging and subsequent listening interact to determine if there exist measurable signals of tags functioning as retrieval aids. Specifically, we describe our methods for testing if the assignment of a tag tends to lead to an increase in listening behavior. Results suggest that tagging, on average, leads to only very small increases in listening rates, and overall the data do

@incollection{lorince2015analysis, author = {Lorince, Jared and Joseph, Kenneth and Todd, PeterM.}, title = {Analysis of Music Tagging and Listening Patterns: Do Tags Really Function as Retrieval Aids?}, editor = {Agarwal, Nitin and Xu, Kevin and Osgood, Nathaniel}, booktitle = {Social Computing, Behavioral-Cultural Modeling, and Prediction}, series = {Lecture Notes in Computer Science}, publisher = {Springer International Publishing}, year = {2015}, volume = {9021}, pages = {141-152}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16268-3_15}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-16268-3_15}, isbn = {978-3-319-16267-6}, keywords = {folksonomy, last.fm, retrieval, tagging, usage}, abstract = {In collaborative tagging systems, it is generally assumed that users assign tags to facilitate retrieval of content at a later time. There is, however, little behavioral evidence that tags actually serve this purpose. Using a large-scale dataset from the social music website Last.fm, we explore how patterns of music tagging and subsequent listening interact to determine if there exist measurable signals of tags functioning as retrieval aids. Specifically, we describe our methods for testing if the assignment of a tag tends to lead to an increase in listening behavior. Results suggest that tagging, on average, leads to only very small increases in listening rates, and overall the data do } }

%0 = incollection %A = Lorince, Jared and Joseph, Kenneth and Todd, PeterM. %B = Social Computing, Behavioral-Cultural Modeling, and Prediction %D = 2015 %I = Springer International Publishing %T = Analysis of Music Tagging and Listening Patterns: Do Tags Really Function as Retrieval Aids? %U = http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16268-3_15

@inproceedings{doerfel2014evaluating, author = {Doerfel, Stephan and Zoller, Daniel and Singer, Philipp and Niebler, Thomas and Hotho, Andreas and Strohmaier, Markus}, title = {Evaluating Assumptions about Social Tagging - A Study of User Behavior
in BibSonomy}, editor = {Seidl, Thomas and Hassani, Marwan and Beecks, Christian}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 16th LWA Workshops: KDML, IR and FGWM, Aachen, Germany, September 8-10, 2014.}, publisher = {CEUR-WS.org}, year = {2014}, pages = {18--19}, url = {http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1226/paper06.pdf}, keywords = {2014, behavior, bibsonomy, myown, navigation, tagging} }

%0 = inproceedings %A = Doerfel, Stephan and Zoller, Daniel and Singer, Philipp and Niebler, Thomas and Hotho, Andreas and Strohmaier, Markus %B = Proceedings of the 16th LWA Workshops: KDML, IR and FGWM, Aachen, Germany, September 8-10, 2014. %D = 2014 %I = CEUR-WS.org %T = Evaluating Assumptions about Social Tagging - A Study of User Behavior
in BibSonomy %U = http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1226/paper06.pdf

@inproceedings{doerfel2014evaluating, author = {Doerfel, Stephan and Zoller, Daniel and Singer, Philipp and Niebler, Thomas and Hotho, Andreas and Strohmaier, Markus}, title = {Evaluating Assumptions about Social Tagging - A Study of User Behavior
in BibSonomy}, editor = {Seidl, Thomas and Hassani, Marwan and Beecks, Christian}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 16th LWA Workshops: KDML, IR and FGWM, Aachen, Germany, September 8-10, 2014.}, publisher = {CEUR-WS.org}, year = {2014}, pages = {18--19}, url = {http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1226/paper06.pdf}, keywords = {2014, behavior, lwa, myown, navigation, tagging} }

%0 = inproceedings %A = Doerfel, Stephan and Zoller, Daniel and Singer, Philipp and Niebler, Thomas and Hotho, Andreas and Strohmaier, Markus %B = Proceedings of the 16th LWA Workshops: KDML, IR and FGWM, Aachen, Germany, September 8-10, 2014. %D = 2014 %I = CEUR-WS.org %T = Evaluating Assumptions about Social Tagging - A Study of User Behavior
in BibSonomy %U = http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1226/paper06.pdf

@inproceedings{doerfel2014social, author = {Doerfel, Stephan and Zoller, Daniel and Singer, Philipp and Niebler, Thomas and Hotho, Andreas and Strohmaier, Markus}, title = {How Social is Social Tagging?}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 23rd International World Wide Web Conference}, series = {WWW 2014}, publisher = {ACM}, address = {New York, NY, USA}, year = {2014}, keywords = {2014, WWW, analyis, behavior, log, myown, social, tagging} }

%0 = inproceedings %A = Doerfel, Stephan and Zoller, Daniel and Singer, Philipp and Niebler, Thomas and Hotho, Andreas and Strohmaier, Markus %B = Proceedings of the 23rd International World Wide Web Conference %C = New York, NY, USA %D = 2014 %I = ACM %T = How Social is Social Tagging?

@inproceedings{doerfel2014social, author = {Doerfel, Stephan and Zoller, Daniel and Singer, Philipp and Niebler, Thomas and Hotho, Andreas and Strohmaier, Markus}, title = {How Social is Social Tagging?}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 23rd International World Wide Web Conference}, series = {WWW 2014}, publisher = {ACM}, address = {New York, NY, USA}, year = {2014}, keywords = {2014, WWW, analyis, behavior, log, myown, social, tagging, user} }

%0 = inproceedings %A = Doerfel, Stephan and Zoller, Daniel and Singer, Philipp and Niebler, Thomas and Hotho, Andreas and Strohmaier, Markus %B = Proceedings of the 23rd International World Wide Web Conference %C = New York, NY, USA %D = 2014 %I = ACM %T = How Social is Social Tagging?

Scholarometer (scholarometer.indiana.edu) is a social tool developed to facilitate citation analysis and help evaluate the impact of authors. The Scholarometer service allows scholars to compute various citation-based impact measures. In exchange, users provide disciplinary annotations of authors, which allow for the computation of discipline-specific statistics and discipline-neutral impact metrics. We present here two improvements of our system. First, we integrated a new universal impact metric hs that uses crowdsourced data to calculate the global rank of a scholar across disciplinary boundaries. Second, improvements made in ambiguous name classification have increased the accuracy from 80% to 87%.

@inproceedings{kaur2014scholarometer, author = {Kaur, Jasleen and JafariAsbagh, Mohsen and Radicchi, Filippo and Menczer, Filippo}, title = {Scholarometer: A System for Crowdsourcing Scholarly Impact Metrics}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 2014 ACM Conference on Web Science}, series = {WebSci '14}, publisher = {ACM}, address = {New York, NY, USA}, year = {2014}, pages = {285--286}, url = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2615569.2615669}, doi = {10.1145/2615569.2615669}, isbn = {978-1-4503-2622-3}, keywords = {citation, crowdsourcing, impact, scholarometer, tagging}, abstract = {Scholarometer (scholarometer.indiana.edu) is a social tool developed to facilitate citation analysis and help evaluate the impact of authors. The Scholarometer service allows scholars to compute various citation-based impact measures. In exchange, users provide disciplinary annotations of authors, which allow for the computation of discipline-specific statistics and discipline-neutral impact metrics. We present here two improvements of our system. First, we integrated a new universal impact metric hs that uses crowdsourced data to calculate the global rank of a scholar across disciplinary boundaries. Second, improvements made in ambiguous name classification have increased the accuracy from 80% to 87%.} }

%0 = inproceedings %A = Kaur, Jasleen and JafariAsbagh, Mohsen and Radicchi, Filippo and Menczer, Filippo %B = Proceedings of the 2014 ACM Conference on Web Science %C = New York, NY, USA %D = 2014 %I = ACM %T = Scholarometer: A System for Crowdsourcing Scholarly Impact Metrics %U = http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2615569.2615669

In this paper, we introduce a tag recommendation algorithm that mimics the way humans draw on items in their long-term memory. This approach uses the frequency and recency of previous tag assignments to estimate the probability of reusing a particular tag. Using three real-world folksonomies gathered from bookmarks in BibSonomy, CiteULike and Flickr, we show how incorporating a time-dependent component outperforms conventional "most popular tags" approaches and another existing and very effective but less theory-driven, time-dependent recommendation mechanism. By combining our approach with a simple resource-specific frequency analysis, our algorithm outperforms other well-established algorithms, such as FolkRank, Pairwise Interaction Tensor Factorization and Collaborative Filtering. We conclude that our approach provides an accurate and computationally efficient model of a user's temporal tagging behavior. We demonstrate how effective principles of information retrieval can be designed and implemented if human memory processes are taken into account.

@inproceedings{kowald2014probability, author = {Kowald, Dominik and Seitlinger, Paul and Trattner, Christoph and Ley, Tobias}, title = {Long Time No See: The Probability of Reusing Tags As a Function of Frequency and Recency}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the Companion Publication of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web Companion}, series = {WWW Companion '14}, publisher = {International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee}, address = {Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland}, year = {2014}, pages = {463--468}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2567948.2576934}, doi = {10.1145/2567948.2576934}, isbn = {978-1-4503-2745-9}, keywords = {aboutBibSonomy, frequency, recency, reusing, tagging}, abstract = {In this paper, we introduce a tag recommendation algorithm that mimics the way humans draw on items in their long-term memory. This approach uses the frequency and recency of previous tag assignments to estimate the probability of reusing a particular tag. Using three real-world folksonomies gathered from bookmarks in BibSonomy, CiteULike and Flickr, we show how incorporating a time-dependent component outperforms conventional "most popular tags" approaches and another existing and very effective but less theory-driven, time-dependent recommendation mechanism. By combining our approach with a simple resource-specific frequency analysis, our algorithm outperforms other well-established algorithms, such as FolkRank, Pairwise Interaction Tensor Factorization and Collaborative Filtering. We conclude that our approach provides an accurate and computationally efficient model of a user's temporal tagging behavior. We demonstrate how effective principles of information retrieval can be designed and implemented if human memory processes are taken into account.} }

%0 = inproceedings %A = Kowald, Dominik and Seitlinger, Paul and Trattner, Christoph and Ley, Tobias %B = Proceedings of the Companion Publication of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web Companion %C = Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland %D = 2014 %I = International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee %T = Long Time No See: The Probability of Reusing Tags As a Function of Frequency and Recency %U = http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2567948.2576934

@inproceedings{lorince2014supertagger, author = {Lorince, Jared and Zorowitz, Sam and Murdock, Jaimie and Todd, Peter}, title = {“Supertagger” Behavior in Building Folksonomies}, year = {2014}, keywords = {analysis, distribution, folksonomy, supertagger, tag, tagging, toRead} }

%0 = inproceedings %A = Lorince, Jared and Zorowitz, Sam and Murdock, Jaimie and Todd, Peter %D = 2014 %T = “Supertagger” Behavior in Building Folksonomies

This paper investigates whether CiteULike and Mendeley are useful for measuring scholarly influence, using a sample of 1,613 papers published in Nature and Science in 2007. Traditional citation counts from the Web of Science (WoS) were used as benchmarks to compare with the number of users who bookmarked the articles in one of the two free online reference manager sites. Statistically significant correlations were found between the user counts and the corresponding WoS citation counts, suggesting that this type of influence is related in some way to traditional citation-based scholarly impact but the number of users of these systems seems to be still too small for them to challenge traditional citation indexes.

@article{li2012validating, author = {Li, Xuemei and Thelwall, Mike and Giustini, Dean}, title = {Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement}, journal = {Scientometrics}, publisher = {Springer Netherlands}, year = {2012}, volume = {91}, number = {2}, pages = {461-471}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0580-x}, doi = {10.1007/s11192-011-0580-x}, issn = {0138-9130}, keywords = {Mendelay, citation, citeULike, google, scholar, tagging}, abstract = {This paper investigates whether CiteULike and Mendeley are useful for measuring scholarly influence, using a sample of 1,613 papers published in Nature and Science in 2007. Traditional citation counts from the Web of Science (WoS) were used as benchmarks to compare with the number of users who bookmarked the articles in one of the two free online reference manager sites. Statistically significant correlations were found between the user counts and the corresponding WoS citation counts, suggesting that this type of influence is related in some way to traditional citation-based scholarly impact but the number of users of these systems seems to be still too small for them to challenge traditional citation indexes.} }

%0 = article %A = Li, Xuemei and Thelwall, Mike and Giustini, Dean %D = 2012 %I = Springer Netherlands %T = Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement %U = http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0580-x

Web 2.0 technologies are finding their way into academics: specialized social bookmarking services allow researchers to store and share scientific literature online. By bookmarking and tagging articles, academic prosumers generate new information about resources, i.e. usage statistics and content description of scientific journals. Given the lack of global download statistics, the authors propose the application of social bookmarking data to journal evaluation. For a set of 45 physics journals all 13,608 bookmarks from CiteULike, Connotea and BibSonomy to documents published between 2004 and 2008 were analyzed. This article explores bookmarking data in STM and examines in how far it can be used to describe the perception of periodicals by the readership. Four basic indicators are defined, which analyze different aspects of usage: Usage Ratio, Usage Diffusion, Article Usage Intensity and Journal Usage Intensity. Tags are analyzed to describe a reader-specific view on journal content.

@article{haustein2011applying, author = {Haustein, Stefanie and Siebenlist, Tobias}, title = {Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage }, journal = {Journal of Informetrics }, year = {2011}, volume = {5}, number = {3}, pages = {446 - 457}, url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157711000393}, doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.04.002}, issn = {1751-1577}, keywords = {bibsonomy, bookmarking, citations, scientometrics, social, tagging}, abstract = {Web 2.0 technologies are finding their way into academics: specialized social bookmarking services allow researchers to store and share scientific literature online. By bookmarking and tagging articles, academic prosumers generate new information about resources, i.e. usage statistics and content description of scientific journals. Given the lack of global download statistics, the authors propose the application of social bookmarking data to journal evaluation. For a set of 45 physics journals all 13,608 bookmarks from CiteULike, Connotea and BibSonomy to documents published between 2004 and 2008 were analyzed. This article explores bookmarking data in STM and examines in how far it can be used to describe the perception of periodicals by the readership. Four basic indicators are defined, which analyze different aspects of usage: Usage Ratio, Usage Diffusion, Article Usage Intensity and Journal Usage Intensity. Tags are analyzed to describe a reader-specific view on journal content. } }

%0 = article %A = Haustein, Stefanie and Siebenlist, Tobias %D = 2011 %T = Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage %U = http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157711000393

@phdthesis{jaschke2011formal, author = {Jäschke, Robert}, title = {Formal concept analysis and tag recommendations in collaborative tagging systems}, series = {Dissertations in artificial intelligence}, publisher = {Akad. Verl.-Ges. AKA}, address = {Heidelberg}, year = {2011}, volume = {332}, url = {http://opac.bibliothek.uni-kassel.de/DB=1/PPN?PPN=231779038}, isbn = {1-60750-707-2}, keywords = {baarbeit, folksonomy, social, tagging, toread} }

%0 = phdthesis %A = Jäschke, Robert %C = Heidelberg %D = 2011 %I = Akad. Verl.-Ges. AKA %T = Formal concept analysis and tag recommendations in collaborative tagging systems %U = http://opac.bibliothek.uni-kassel.de/DB=1/PPN?PPN=231779038

Community mining is a prominent approach for identifying (user) communities in social and ubiquitous contexts. While there are a variety of methods for community mining and detection, the effective evaluation and validation of the mined communities is usually non-trivial. Often there is no evaluation data at hand in order to validate the discovered groups.

@incollection{mitzlaff2011community, author = {Mitzlaff, Folke and Atzmueller, Martin and Benz, Dominik and Hotho, Andreas and Stumme, Gerd}, title = {Community Assessment Using Evidence Networks}, editor = {Atzmueller, Martin and Hotho, Andreas and Strohmaier, Markus and Chin, Alvin}, booktitle = {Analysis of Social Media and Ubiquitous Data}, series = {Lecture Notes in Computer Science}, publisher = {Springer Berlin Heidelberg}, year = {2011}, volume = {6904}, pages = {79-98}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23599-3_5}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-23599-3_5}, isbn = {978-3-642-23598-6}, keywords = {aboutBibSonomy, community, evidence, networks, tagging}, abstract = {Community mining is a prominent approach for identifying (user) communities in social and ubiquitous contexts. While there are a variety of methods for community mining and detection, the effective evaluation and validation of the mined communities is usually non-trivial. Often there is no evaluation data at hand in order to validate the discovered groups.} }

%0 = incollection %A = Mitzlaff, Folke and Atzmueller, Martin and Benz, Dominik and Hotho, Andreas and Stumme, Gerd %B = Analysis of Social Media and Ubiquitous Data %D = 2011 %I = Springer Berlin Heidelberg %T = Community Assessment Using Evidence Networks %U = http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23599-3_5

This paper investigates the occurrence of tags in different languages in a collaborative bookmarking and publication sharing service - BibSonomy. Social tags assigned to URLs in multiple languages and users tagging these URLs multilingually are the main focus of this study. The results show that multilingual tags occur for the same URL and that users tag in different languages. Furthermore, the results give indications that the language of the content of a URL does not imply that its tags are in the same language.

@inproceedings{stiller2011tagging, author = {Stiller, Juliane and Gäde, Maria and Petras, Vivien}, title = {Is Tagging Multilingual?: A Case Study with BibSonomy}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 11th Annual International ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries}, series = {JCDL '11}, publisher = {ACM}, address = {New York, NY, USA}, year = {2011}, pages = {421--422}, url = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1998076.1998165}, doi = {10.1145/1998076.1998165}, isbn = {978-1-4503-0744-4}, keywords = {aboutBibSonomy, case, multilingual, study, tagging}, abstract = {This paper investigates the occurrence of tags in different languages in a collaborative bookmarking and publication sharing service - BibSonomy. Social tags assigned to URLs in multiple languages and users tagging these URLs multilingually are the main focus of this study. The results show that multilingual tags occur for the same URL and that users tag in different languages. Furthermore, the results give indications that the language of the content of a URL does not imply that its tags are in the same language.} }

%0 = inproceedings %A = Stiller, Juliane and Gäde, Maria and Petras, Vivien %B = Proceedings of the 11th Annual International ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries %C = New York, NY, USA %D = 2011 %I = ACM %T = Is Tagging Multilingual?: A Case Study with BibSonomy %U = http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1998076.1998165

Collaborative tagging systems are popular tools for organization, sharing and retrieval of web resources. Their success is due to their freedom and simplicity of use. To post a resource, the user should only define a set of tags that would position the resource in the system's data structure - folksonomy. This data structure can serve as a rich source of information about relations between tags and concepts they represent. To make use of information collaboratively added to folksonomies, we need to understand how users make tagging decisions. Three factors that are believed to influence user tagging decisions are: the tags used by other users, the organization of user's personal repository and the knowledge model shared between users. In our work we examine the role of another potential factor - resource title. Despite all the advantages of tags, tagging is a tedious process. To minimize the effort, users are likely to tag with keywords that are easily available. We show that resource title, as a source of useful tags, is easy to access and comprehend. Given a choice of two tags with the same meaning, users are likely to be influenced by their presence in the title. However, a factor that seems to have stronger impact on users' tagging decisions is maintaining the consistency of the personal profile of tags. The results of our study reveal a new, less idealistic picture of collaborative tagging systems, in which the collaborative aspect seems to be less important than personal gains and convenience.

@inproceedings{lipczak2010impact, author = {Lipczak, Marek and Milios, Evangelos}, title = {The Impact of Resource Title on Tags in Collaborative Tagging Systems}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 21st ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia}, series = {HT '10}, publisher = {ACM}, address = {New York, NY, USA}, year = {2010}, pages = {179--188}, url = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1810617.1810648}, doi = {10.1145/1810617.1810648}, isbn = {978-1-4503-0041-4}, keywords = {baarbeit, folksonomy, impact_title, social, tagging, toread}, abstract = {Collaborative tagging systems are popular tools for organization, sharing and retrieval of web resources. Their success is due to their freedom and simplicity of use. To post a resource, the user should only define a set of tags that would position the resource in the system's data structure -- folksonomy. This data structure can serve as a rich source of information about relations between tags and concepts they represent. To make use of information collaboratively added to folksonomies, we need to understand how users make tagging decisions. Three factors that are believed to influence user tagging decisions are: the tags used by other users, the organization of user's personal repository and the knowledge model shared between users. In our work we examine the role of another potential factor -- resource title. Despite all the advantages of tags, tagging is a tedious process. To minimize the effort, users are likely to tag with keywords that are easily available. We show that resource title, as a source of useful tags, is easy to access and comprehend. Given a choice of two tags with the same meaning, users are likely to be influenced by their presence in the title. However, a factor that seems to have stronger impact on users' tagging decisions is maintaining the consistency of the personal profile of tags. The results of our study reveal a new, less idealistic picture of collaborative tagging systems, in which the collaborative aspect seems to be less important than personal gains and convenience.} }

%0 = inproceedings %A = Lipczak, Marek and Milios, Evangelos %B = Proceedings of the 21st ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia %C = New York, NY, USA %D = 2010 %I = ACM %T = The Impact of Resource Title on Tags in Collaborative Tagging Systems %U = http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1810617.1810648

In studying categorization, cognitive science has focused primarily on cultural categorization, ignoring individual and institutional categorization. Because recent technological developments have made individual and institutional classification systems much more available and powerful, our understanding of the cognitive and social mechanisms that produce these systems is increasingly important. Furthermore, key aspects of categorization that have received little previous attention emerge from considering diverse types of categorization together, such as the social factors that create stability in classification systems, and the interoperability that shared conceptual systems establish between agents. Finally, the profound impact of recent technological developments on classification systems indicates that basic categorization mechanisms are highly adaptive, producing new classification systems as the situations in which they operate change.

@article{glushko2008categorization, author = {Glushko, Robert J. and Maglio, Paul P. and Matlock, Teenie and Barsalou, Lawrence W.}, title = {Categorization in the wild }, journal = {Trends in Cognitive Sciences }, year = {2008}, volume = {12}, number = {4}, pages = {129 - 135}, url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661308000557}, doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.01.007}, issn = {1364-6613}, keywords = {tagging, usage}, abstract = {In studying categorization, cognitive science has focused primarily on cultural categorization, ignoring individual and institutional categorization. Because recent technological developments have made individual and institutional classification systems much more available and powerful, our understanding of the cognitive and social mechanisms that produce these systems is increasingly important. Furthermore, key aspects of categorization that have received little previous attention emerge from considering diverse types of categorization together, such as the social factors that create stability in classification systems, and the interoperability that shared conceptual systems establish between agents. Finally, the profound impact of recent technological developments on classification systems indicates that basic categorization mechanisms are highly adaptive, producing new classification systems as the situations in which they operate change. } }

%0 = article %A = Glushko, Robert J. and Maglio, Paul P. and Matlock, Teenie and Barsalou, Lawrence W. %D = 2008 %T = Categorization in the wild %U = http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661308000557

The great success of Web 2.0 is mainly fuelled by an infrastructure that allows web users to create, share, tag, and connect content and knowledge easily. The tools for developing structured knowledge in this manner have started to appear as well. However, there are few, if any, user studies that are aimed at understanding what users expect from such tools, what works and what doesn't. We organized the Collaborative Knowledge Construction (CKC) Challenge to assess the state of the art for the tools that support collaborative processes for creation of various forms of structured knowledge. The goal of the Challenge was to get users to try out different tools and to learn what users expect from such tools-features that users need, features that they like or dislike. The Challenge task was to construct structured knowledge for a portal that would provide information about research. The Challenge design contained several incentives for users to participate. Forty-nine users registered for the Challenge; thirty-three of them participated actively by using the tools. We collected extensive feedback from the users where they discussed their thoughts on all the tools that they tried. In this paper, we present the results of the Challenge, discuss the features that users expect from tools for collaborative knowledge constructions, the features on which Challenge participants disagreed, and the lessons that we learned.

@article{noy2008challenge, author = {Noy, N F and Chugh, A and Alani, H}, title = {The CKC Challenge: Exploring Tools for Collaborative Knowledge Construction}, journal = {IEEE Intell Syst}, year = {2008}, volume = {23}, number = {1}, pages = {64-68}, url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3966208/}, doi = {10.1109/MIS.2008.14}, keywords = {aboutBibSonomy, bibsonomy, challenge, ckc, expectation, tagging, tools, user}, abstract = {The great success of Web 2.0 is mainly fuelled by an infrastructure that allows web users to create, share, tag, and connect content and knowledge easily. The tools for developing structured knowledge in this manner have started to appear as well. However, there are few, if any, user studies that are aimed at understanding what users expect from such tools, what works and what doesn't. We organized the Collaborative Knowledge Construction (CKC) Challenge to assess the state of the art for the tools that support collaborative processes for creation of various forms of structured knowledge. The goal of the Challenge was to get users to try out different tools and to learn what users expect from such tools-features that users need, features that they like or dislike. The Challenge task was to construct structured knowledge for a portal that would provide information about research. The Challenge design contained several incentives for users to participate. Forty-nine users registered for the Challenge; thirty-three of them participated actively by using the tools. We collected extensive feedback from the users where they discussed their thoughts on all the tools that they tried. In this paper, we present the results of the Challenge, discuss the features that users expect from tools for collaborative knowledge constructions, the features on which Challenge participants disagreed, and the lessons that we learned.} }

%0 = article %A = Noy, N F and Chugh, A and Alani, H %D = 2008 %T = The CKC Challenge: Exploring Tools for Collaborative Knowledge Construction %U = http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3966208/

New developments in the collaborative and participatory role of Web has emerged new web based fast lane information systems like tagging and bookmarking applications. Same authors have shown elsewhere, that for same papers tags and bookmarks appear and gain volume very quickly in time as compared to citations and also hold good correlation with the citations. Studying the rank prediction models based on these systems gives advantage of gaining quick insight and localizing the highly productive and diffusible knowledge very early in time. This shows that it may be interesting to model the citation rank of a paper within the scope of a conference or journal issue, based on the bookmark counts (i-e count representing how many researchers have shown interest in a publication.) We used linear regression model for predicting citation ranks and compared both predicted citation rank models of bookmark counts and coauthor network counts for the papers of WWW06 conference. The results show that the rank prediction model based on bookmark counts is far better than the one based on coauthor network with mean absolute error for the first limited to the range of 5 and mean absolute error for second model above 18. Along with this we also compared the two bookmark prediction models out of which one was based on total citations rank as a dependent variable and the other was based on the adjusted citation rank. The citation rank was adjusted after subtracting the self and coauthor citations from total citations. The comparison reveals a significant improvement in the model and correlation after adjusting the citation rank. This may be interpreted that the bookmarking mechanisms represents the phenomenon similar to global discovery of a publication. While in the coauthor nets the papers are communicated personally and this communication or selection may not be captured within the bookmarking systems.

@inproceedings{saeed2008citation, author = {Saeed, A.U. and Afzal, M.T. and Latif, A. and Tochtermann, K.}, title = {Citation rank prediction based on bookmark counts: Exploratory case study of WWW06 papers}, booktitle = {Multitopic Conference, 2008. INMIC 2008. IEEE International}, year = {2008}, pages = {392-397}, url = {http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=4777769}, doi = {10.1109/INMIC.2008.4777769}, keywords = {bookmarking, citation, prediction, scientometrics, social, tagging, www}, abstract = {New developments in the collaborative and participatory role of Web has emerged new web based fast lane information systems like tagging and bookmarking applications. Same authors have shown elsewhere, that for same papers tags and bookmarks appear and gain volume very quickly in time as compared to citations and also hold good correlation with the citations. Studying the rank prediction models based on these systems gives advantage of gaining quick insight and localizing the highly productive and diffusible knowledge very early in time. This shows that it may be interesting to model the citation rank of a paper within the scope of a conference or journal issue, based on the bookmark counts (i-e count representing how many researchers have shown interest in a publication.) We used linear regression model for predicting citation ranks and compared both predicted citation rank models of bookmark counts and coauthor network counts for the papers of WWW06 conference. The results show that the rank prediction model based on bookmark counts is far better than the one based on coauthor network with mean absolute error for the first limited to the range of 5 and mean absolute error for second model above 18. Along with this we also compared the two bookmark prediction models out of which one was based on total citations rank as a dependent variable and the other was based on the adjusted citation rank. The citation rank was adjusted after subtracting the self and coauthor citations from total citations. The comparison reveals a significant improvement in the model and correlation after adjusting the citation rank. This may be interpreted that the bookmarking mechanisms represents the phenomenon similar to global discovery of a publication. While in the coauthor nets the papers are communicated personally and this communication or selection may not be captured within the bookmarking systems.} }

%0 = inproceedings %A = Saeed, A.U. and Afzal, M.T. and Latif, A. and Tochtermann, K. %B = Multitopic Conference, 2008. INMIC 2008. IEEE International %D = 2008 %T = Citation rank prediction based on bookmark counts: Exploratory case study of WWW06 papers %U = http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=4777769

Why do people tag? Users have mostly avoided annotating media such as photos - both in desktop and mobile environments - despite the many potential uses for annotations, including recall and retrieval. We investigate the incentives for annotation in Flickr, a popular web-based photo-sharing system, and ZoneTag, a cameraphone photo capture and annotation tool that uploads images to Flickr. In Flickr, annotation (as textual tags) serves both personal and social purposes, increasing incentives for tagging and resulting in a relatively high number of annotations. ZoneTag, in turn, makes it easier to tag cameraphone photos that are uploaded to Flickr by allowing annotation and suggesting relevant tags immediately after capture. A qualitative study of ZoneTag/Flickr users exposed various tagging patterns and emerging motivations for photo annotation. We offer a taxonomy of motivations for annotation in this system along two dimensions (sociality and function), and explore the various factors that people consider when tagging their photos. Our findings suggest implications for the design of digital photo organization and sharing applications, as well as other applications that incorporate user-based annotation.

@inproceedings{ames2007motivations, author = {Ames, Morgan and Naaman, Mor}, title = {Why We Tag: Motivations for Annotation in Mobile and Online Media}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems}, series = {CHI '07}, publisher = {ACM}, address = {New York, NY, USA}, year = {2007}, pages = {971--980}, url = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1240624.1240772}, doi = {10.1145/1240624.1240772}, isbn = {978-1-59593-593-9}, keywords = {motivation, survey, tagging}, abstract = {Why do people tag? Users have mostly avoided annotating media such as photos -- both in desktop and mobile environments -- despite the many potential uses for annotations, including recall and retrieval. We investigate the incentives for annotation in Flickr, a popular web-based photo-sharing system, and ZoneTag, a cameraphone photo capture and annotation tool that uploads images to Flickr. In Flickr, annotation (as textual tags) serves both personal and social purposes, increasing incentives for tagging and resulting in a relatively high number of annotations. ZoneTag, in turn, makes it easier to tag cameraphone photos that are uploaded to Flickr by allowing annotation and suggesting relevant tags immediately after capture. A qualitative study of ZoneTag/Flickr users exposed various tagging patterns and emerging motivations for photo annotation. We offer a taxonomy of motivations for annotation in this system along two dimensions (sociality and function), and explore the various factors that people consider when tagging their photos. Our findings suggest implications for the design of digital photo organization and sharing applications, as well as other applications that incorporate user-based annotation.} }

%0 = inproceedings %A = Ames, Morgan and Naaman, Mor %B = Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems %C = New York, NY, USA %D = 2007 %I = ACM %T = Why We Tag: Motivations for Annotation in Mobile and Online Media %U = http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1240624.1240772

Collaborative tagging describes the process by which many users add metadata in the form of keywords to shared content. Recently, collaborative tagging has grown in popularity on the web, on sites that allow users to tag bookmarks, photographs and other content. In this paper we analyze the structure of collaborative tagging systems as well as their dynamic aspects. Specifically, we discovered regularities in user activity, tag frequencies, kinds of tags used, bursts of popularity in bookmarking and a remarkable stability in the relative proportions of tags within a given URL. We also present a dynamic model of collaborative tagging that predicts these stable patterns and relates them to imitation and shared knowledge.

@article{golder2006usage, author = {Golder, Scott A. and Huberman, Bernardo A.}, title = {Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems}, journal = {Journal of Information Science}, year = {2006}, volume = {32}, number = {2}, pages = {198-208}, url = {http://jis.sagepub.com/content/32/2/198.abstract}, doi = {10.1177/0165551506062337}, keywords = {golder, patterns, tagging, tags, usage}, abstract = {Collaborative tagging describes the process by which many users add metadata in the form of keywords to shared content. Recently, collaborative tagging has grown in popularity on the web, on sites that allow users to tag bookmarks, photographs and other content. In this paper we analyze the structure of collaborative tagging systems as well as their dynamic aspects. Specifically, we discovered regularities in user activity, tag frequencies, kinds of tags used, bursts of popularity in bookmarking and a remarkable stability in the relative proportions of tags within a given URL. We also present a dynamic model of collaborative tagging that predicts these stable patterns and relates them to imitation and shared knowledge.} }

%0 = article %A = Golder, Scott A. and Huberman, Bernardo A. %D = 2006 %T = Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems %U = http://jis.sagepub.com/content/32/2/198.abstract

Abstract. In this paper, we explore the increasingly popular social bookmarking services. These services powerfully combine personal tagging of information sources with interactive browsing, which allows for improved social navigation. We examine the use of a social bookmarking service, deployed in a large organization, to understand how social navigation is supported. We conclude that social tags used in the context of a social bookmarking service are an important way to improve social navigation. 1

@inproceedings{millen2006using, author = {Millen, David R and Feinberg, Jonathan}, title = {Using Social Tagging to Improve Social Navigation}, booktitle = {Workshop on the Social Navigation and Community based Adaptation Technologies}, year = {2006}, url = {http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.92.5563}, keywords = {dogear, millen, tagging, usage}, abstract = {Abstract. In this paper, we explore the increasingly popular social bookmarking services. These services powerfully combine personal tagging of information sources with interactive browsing, which allows for improved social navigation. We examine the use of a social bookmarking service, deployed in a large organization, to understand how social navigation is supported. We conclude that social tags used in the context of a social bookmarking service are an important way to improve social navigation. 1} }

%0 = inproceedings %A = Millen, David R and Feinberg, Jonathan %B = Workshop on the Social Navigation and Community based Adaptation Technologies %D = 2006 %T = Using Social Tagging to Improve Social Navigation %U = http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.92.5563