CSCW Paper: Tagging, communities, vocabulary, evolution
Comments: 0 - Date: December 11th, 2006 - Categories: Social Tools
This paper was presented at CSCW in Banff, Canada, Nov 4-8, 2006.
Authors:
- Shilad Sen
- Shyong K. (Tony) Lam
- Al Mamunur Rashid
- Dan Cosley
- Dan Frankowski
- Jeremy Osterhouse
- F. Maxwell Harper
- John Riedl
- all from University of Minnesota
Tags can be characterized as “selfish work that benefits the community.” So they are a good thing and we should understand what gets people to contribute them.
Types of tags:
- factual: e.g. del.icio.us
- subjective: e.g. amazon.com (”good” “great”)
- personal: personally meaningful, perhaps date related
Today, most of the tags are factual in MovieLens, a movie recommendation site and their research platform.
Experiment
Created 4 tagging communities to determine what sharing conditions influenced how tags were created. The four conditions:
- no shared tags
- randomly chose some tags to share
- shared the most popular tags to share
- inference algorithm that found similar movies and found most popular tags across all of these movies, shared those
These 4 conditions generated 4 different types of tagging practices:
- tags were split evenly between personal, subjective, and factual
- favored subjective tags with a fair share of factual too
- favored factual tags
- favored factual tags
2,3,4 had very few personal tags
Conclusions:
- people only liked the subjective tags they agree with
- people like factual tags a lot
- personal tags of others are not useful at all, but personally, they are very useful
Their data is highly influenced by a few number of people contributing a high proportion of the tags, but Shilad didn’t think this skew influenced the results.
Leave a comment