Shilad Sen
F. Maxwell Harper
John Riedl
ABSTRACT
Many online communities use tags - community selected words or phrases - to help people find what they desire. The quality of tags varies widely, from tags that capture akey dimension of an entity to those that are profane, useless, or unintelligible. Tagging systems must often select a subset of available tags to display to users due to limited screen space. Because users often spread tags they have seen, selecting good tags not only improves an individual's view of tags, it also encourages them to create better tags in the future. We explore implicit (behavioral) and explicit (rating) mechanisms for determining tag quality. Based on 102,056 tag ratings and survey responses collected from 1,039 users over 100 days, we offer simple suggestions to designers of online communities to improve the quality of tags seen by their users.
- A. Arnt and S. Zilberstein. Learning to perform moderation in online forums. Web Intelligence, 2003. WI 2003. Proceedings. IEEE/WIC International Conference on, pages 637--641, 2003. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- S. Asch. Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70, 1956.Google Scholar
- M. Balabanovic and Y. Shoham. Content-based, collaborative recommendation. Communications of the ACM, 40(3):66--72, 1997. Google ScholarDigital Library
- V. Bouthors and O. Dedieu. Pharos, a collaborative infrastructure for web knowledge sharing. In ECDL, pages 215--233, London, UK, 1999. Springer-Verlag. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Carson and V. Ogle. Storage and Retrieval of Feature Data for a Very Large Online Image Collection. Data Engineering Bulletin, 19(4):1927, 1996.Google Scholar
- C. Cattuto, V. Loreto, and L. Pietronero. Semiotic dynamics in online social communities. In The European Physical Journal C (accepted). Springer-Verlag, 2006.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. Cosley, D. Frankowski, S. Kiesler, L. Terveen, and J. Riedl. How oversight improves member-maintained communities. In Proceedings of CHI 2005, pages 11--20, New York, NY, 2005. ACM Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Cosley, D. Frankowski, L. Terveen, and J. Riedl. Using intelligent task routing and contribution review to help communities build artifacts of lasting value. In Proceedings of ACM CHI, Montreal, CA, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Dietterich. Ensemble methods in machine learning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1857:115, 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Frank and G. Paynter. Predicting Library of Congress classifications from Library of Congress subject headings. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(3):214--227, 2004. Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. Glance, D. Arregui, and M. Dardenne. Knowledge pump: Supporting the flow and use of knowledge. In Information Technology for Knowledge Management. Springer-Verlag, 1998.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Golder and B. A. Huberman. The structure of collaborative tagging systems. Journal of Information Science (accepted), 2006.Google Scholar
- C. Lampe and P. Resnick. Slash (dot) and Burn: Distributed Moderation in a Large Online Conversation Space. Proceedings of SIGCHI, pages 543--550. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. MacGregor and E. McCulloch. Collaborative tagging as a knowledge organisation and resource discovery tool. Library View (accepted), 55(5), 2006.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. Millen, J. Feinberg, and B. Kerr. Social bookmarking in the enterprise. ACM Queue, 3(9):2835, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Schmitz. Inducing ontology from flickr tags. Collaborative Web Tagging Workshop at WWW2006, Edinburgh, Scotland, May, 2006.Google Scholar
- 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 of the ACM 2006 Conference on CSCW, Banff, Alberta, Canada, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Shirky. Ontology is overrated. http://www.shirky.com/writings/ontology overrated.html, 2005. Retrieved on May 26, 2007.Google Scholar
- J. Voss. Measuring wikipedia. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, Stockholm, Sweden, 2005.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- The quest for quality tags
Recommendations
Learning to recognize valuable tags
IUI '09: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Intelligent user interfacesMany websites use tags as a mechanism for improving item metadata through collective user effort. Users of tagging systems often apply far more tags to an item than a system can display. These tags can range in quality from tags that capture a key facet ...
Visualizing Tags with Spatiotemporal References
IV '11: Proceedings of the 2011 15th International Conference on Information VisualisationNowadays, a great amount of data is created and distributed on the Internet. Tagging has become common practice to structure these data for easy access. Often the data and the associated tags contain spatial and temporal information. In this paper, we ...
Content-Based Tag Generation for the Grouping of Tags
ELML '09: Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Mobile, Hybrid, and On-line LearningA tagging system can encounter too few or too many tags. To solve these problems, we propose a content-based automatic generation of tags. Applied to an e-Learning 2.0 application, the proposal creates tags based on lecture slide contents, generating an ...
Comments