Cited By
View all- Dam Christensen H(2017)Rethinking image indexing?Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology10.1002/asi.2381268:7(1782-1785)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2017
Assessing the relationships among tag syntax, semantics, and perceived usefulness
Pages 836 - 849
Abstract
With the recent interest in socially created metadata as a potentially complementary resource for image description in relation to established tools such as thesauri and other forms of controlled vocabulary, questions remain about the quality and reuse value of these metadata. This study describes and examines a set of tags using quantitative and qualitative methods and assesses relationships among categories of image tags, tag assignment order, and users' perceptions of usefulness of index terms and user-contributed tags. The study found that tags provide much descriptive information about an image but that users also value and trust controlled vocabulary terms. The study found no correlation between tag length and assignment order, and tag length and its perceived usefulness. The findings of this study can contribute to the design of controlled vocabularies, indexing processes, and retrieval systems for images. In particular, the findings of the study can advance the understanding of image tagging practices, tag facet/category distributions, relative usefulness and importance of these categories to the user, and potential mechanisms for identifying useful terms.
References
[1]
Albrechtsen, H. 1997, August-September. The order of catalogues: Towards democratic classification and indexing in public libraries. Paper presented at 63rd IFLA General Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark.
[2]
Alves, H., &Santanchè, A. 2013. Folksonomized ontology and the 3E steps technique to support ontology evolvement. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, Volume 18 Issue 1, pp.19-30.
[3]
Archer, J. 2010. Reading clouds: An analysis of group tag clouds on Flickr. Unpublished master's thesis. Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC.
[4]
Beaudoin, J.E. 2007. Folksonomies: Flickr image tagging: Patterns made visible. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Volume 34 Issue 1, pp.26-29.
[5]
Beghtol, C. 1991. The classification of fiction. American Society for Information Science SIG/CR News Special Interest Group/Classification Research News, pp.3-4.
[6]
Boduroglu, A., Shah, P., &Nisbett, R.E. 2009. Cultural differences in allocation of attention in visual information processing. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Volume 40 Issue 3, pp.349-360.
[7]
Brown, P., &Hidderley, G.R. 1995, May. Capturing iconology: A study in retrieval modelling and image indexing. Proceedings of the 2nd International Elvira Conference, De Montfort University ASLIB pp. pp.79-91. London: ASLIB.
[8]
Bruns, A. 2006. Towards produsage: Futures for user-led content production. In F.Sudweeks, H.Hrachovec, &C.Ess Eds., Proceedings of Cultural Attitudes towards Communication and Technology CATaC06 pp. pp.275-284. Perth, Australia: Murdoch University.
[9]
Bruns, A. 2012. Reconciling community and commerce? Collaboration between produsage communities and commercial operators. Information, Communication & Society, Volume 15 Issue 6.
[10]
Chen, H., Schatz, B., Yim, T., &Fye, D. 1995. Automatic thesaurus generation for an electronic community system. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Volume 46 Issue 3, pp.175-193.
[11]
Chua, H.F., Boland, J.E., &Nisbett, R.E. 2005. Cultural variation in eye movements during scene perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Volume 102 Issue 35, pp.12629-12633.
[12]
Chua, T.-S., Tang, J., Hong, R., Li, H., Luo, Z., &Zheng, Y. 2009. NUS-WIDE: A real-world web image database from National University of Singapore. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Image and Video Retrieval CIVR '09 pp. Volume 48: pp.1-48:9. New York: ACM Press.
[13]
Chung, E., &Yoon, J. 2008. A categorical comparison between user-supplied tags and web search queries for images. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Volume 45 Issue 1, pp.1-3.
[14]
Cleverdon, C. 1997. The Cranfield Tests on index language devices. In K.Sparck Jones &P.Willet Eds., Readings in information retrieval. Morgan Kaufmann multimedia information and systems series pp. pp.47-59. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
[15]
Clough, P., Müller, H., &Sanderson, M. 2010. Seven years of image retrieval evaluation, In H.Müller, P.Clough, T.Deselaers, &B.Caputo, B. Eds. ImageCLEF-Experimental evaluation of visual information retrieval pp. pp.3-18. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
[16]
Conduit, N., &Rafferty P. 2007. Constructing an image indexing template for The Children's Society: Users' queries and archivists' practice. Journal of Documentation Volume 63 Issue 6, pp.898-919.
[17]
Cunningham, S., &Masoodian, M. 2006. Looking for a picture: An analysis of everyday image information searching. In G.Marchionini &M.Nelson Eds., Proceedings of the 6th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries Vol. Volume 3644, pp. pp.198-199. New York: ACM.
[18]
Dong, W., &Fu, W.-T. 2010. Cultural difference in image tagging. In Proceedings of the ACM 28th International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction CHI '10 pp. pp.981-984. New York: ACM.
[19]
Escalante, H.J., Hernández, C.A., Gonzalez, J.A., López-López, A., Montes, M., Morales, E.F., ', &Grubinger, M. 2010. The segmented and annotated IAPR TC-12 benchmark. Computer Vision and Image Understanding, Volume 114 Issue 4, pp.419-428.
[20]
Feinberg, M. 2006. An examination of authority in social classification systems. Advances in Classification Research Online, Volume 17 Issue 1, pp.1-11.
[21]
Fry, E. 2007. Of torquetums, flute cases, and puff sleeves: A study in folksonomic and expert image tagging. Art Documentation, Volume 26 Issue 1, pp.21-27.
[22]
Golbeck, J., Koepfler, J., &Emmerling, B. 2011. An experimental study of social tagging behavior and image content. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Volume 62 Issue 9, pp.1750-1760.
[23]
Hollink, L,. Schreiber, A., Wielinga, B.J., &Worring, M. 2004. Classification of user image descriptions. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Volume 61 Issue 5, pp.601-626.
[24]
Heidorn, B. 1999. Image retrieval as linguistic and nonlinguistic visual model matching. Library Trends, Volume 48 Issue 2, pp.303-325.
[25]
Jörgensen, C. 1994. The applicability of existing classification systems to image indexing: A selected review. In R.Green Ed., Advances in Knowledge Organization 5, Proceedings of the Fourth International ISKO Conference, pp. pp.189-197. Frankfurt/Main: Indeks Verlag.
[26]
Jörgensen, C. 1995. Image attributes: An investigation Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.
[27]
Jörgensen, C. 1996. Indexing images: Testing an image description template. In ASIS '96: Proceedings of the 59th ASIS Annual Meeting, 33, 209.
[28]
Jörgensen, C. 1998. Attributes of image images in describing tasks. Information Processing and Management, Volume 34 Issue 2/3, pp.161-174.
[29]
Jörgensen, C. 1999. Retrieving the unretrievable: Art, aesthetics, and emotion in image retrieval systems. In B.E.Rogowitz &T.N.Pappas Eds., Electronic Imaging '99 pp. pp.348-355. Bellingham, WA: International Society for Optics and Photonics.
[30]
Jörgensen, C., Jaimes, A., Benitez, A., Chang, S.-F. 2002. A conceptual framework and empirical research for classifying visual descriptors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Volume 52 Issue 11, pp.938-947.
[31]
Jörgensen, C. 2004. Unlocking the museum-A manifesto 2004. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Volume 55 Issue 5, pp.462-464.
[32]
Jörgensen, C. 2007, November. Image access, the semantic gap, and social tagging as a paradigm shift. In J.Lussky Ed., Advances in Classification Research Online, Volume 18 Issue 1. Retrieved from "https://journals.lib.washington.edu/index.php/acro/article/view/12868/11366".
[33]
Jörgensen, C., Stvilia, B., &Jörgensen, P. 2008. Is there a role for controlled vocabulary in taming tags? In 19th Workshop of the American Society for Information Science and Technology Special Interest Group in Classification Research. Symposium conducted at the meeting of American Society for Information Science and Technology, Columbus, OH.
[34]
Jörgensen, C., Stvilia, B., &Wu, S. 2011. Assessing the quality of socially created metadata to image indexing. Poster presentation at ASIS&T 2011 Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA.
[35]
Jörgensen, C., Stvilia, B., &Wu, S. 2012. Relationships among perceptions of term utility, category semantics, and term length and order in a social content creation system. Poster presentation at iConference 2012, Toronto, Canada: iSchools.
[36]
Kakali, C., &Papatheodorou, C. 2010, February. Could social tags enrich the library subject index? In Proceedings of the International Conference Libraries in the Digital Age LIDA 2010 pp. pp.24-28.
[37]
Liu, N., Dellandréa, E., Tellez, B., &Chen, L. 2011. Associating textual features with visual ones to improve affective image classification. Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction ACII 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Volume 6974, pp.195-204.
[38]
Loy, G., &Eklundh, J.O. 2005, July. A review of benchmarking content based image retrieval. Presented at the Workshop on Image and Video Retrieval Evaluation, Fourth International Conference on Image and Video Retrieval CIVR '05, Singapore. Retrieved from "http://muscle.ercim.eu/images/DocumentPDF/MP_407_loy_evaluation_workshop.pdf"
[39]
Manning, C., Raghavan, P., &Schutze, H. 2008. Introduction to information retrieval. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[40]
Mai, J.-E. 2007. Trusting tags, terms, and recommendations. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science "Unity in Diversity". Information Research, Volume 15 Issue 3. Retrieved from "http://informationr.net/ir/15-3/colis7/colis705.html"
[41]
Masuda, T., &Nisbett, R.E. 2001. Attending holistically versus analytically: Comparing the context sensitivity of Japanese and Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 81 Issue 5, pp.922-934.
[42]
Matusiak, K. 2006. Towards user-centered indexing in digital image collections. OCLC Systems & Services: International Digital Library Perspectives, Volume 22, pp.283-298.
[43]
Munk, T., &Mork, K. 2007. Folksonomy, the power law & the significance of the least effort. Knowledge Organization, Volume 34 Issue 1, pp.16-33.
[44]
Naaman, M., Harada, S., Wang, Q., Garcia-Molina, H., &Paepcke, A. 2004. Context data in geo-referenced digital photo collections. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM International Conference on Multimedia MULTIMEDIA '04 pp. pp.196-203. New York: ACM.
[45]
Palmer, S.E. 1992. Modern theories of gestalt perception. In G.W.Humphreys Ed., Understanding vision: An interdisciplinary perspective. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
[46]
Petek, M. 2012. Comparing user-generated and librarian-generated metadata on digital images. OCLC Systems & Services: International Digital Library Perspectives, Volume 28 Issue 2, pp.101-111.
[47]
Peters, I., &Stock, W.G. 2007. Folksonomy and information retrieval. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Volume 44 Issue 1, pp.1-28.
[48]
Rafferty, P. 2011. Informative tagging of images: The importance of modality in interpretation. Knowledge Organization, Volume 38 Issue 4, pp.283-298.
[49]
Rafferty, P., &Hidderley, R. 2007, December. Flickr and democratic indexing: dialogic approaches to indexing. In ASLIB Proceedings, Volume 59 Issue 4/5, pp. pp.397-410. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
[50]
Ransom, N., &Rafferty, P. 2011. Facets of user-assigned tags and their effectiveness in image retrieval. Journal of Documentation, Volume 67 Issue 6, pp.1038-1066.
[51]
Rasmussen, E.M. 1997. Indexing images. In M.E.Williams Ed</publisherLoc>., Annual Review of Information Science and Technology pp. pp.169-196. <publisherLoc>Medford, NJ: Learned Information.
[52]
Redden, C.S. 2010. Social bookmarking in academic libraries: Trends and applications. Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 36 Issue 3, pp.219-227.
[53]
Rolla, P.J. 2009. User tags versus subject headings: Can user-supplied data improve subject access to library collections? Library Resources and Technical Services, Volume 53 Issue 3, pp.174-184.
[54]
Rolling, L. 1981. Indexing consistency, quality and efficiency. Information Processing & Management, Volume 17 Issue 2, pp.69-76.
[55]
Rorissa, A. 2010. A comparative study of Flickr tags and index terms in a general image collection. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Volume 59, pp.1383-1392.
[56]
Schmidt, S., &Stock, W. 2009. Collective indexing of emotions in images: A study in emotional information retrieval. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Volume 60 Issue 5, pp.863-876.
[57]
Schmitz, P. 2006, May. Inducing ontology from Flickr tags. Presented at the Workshop on Collaborative Tagging at the 15th International World Wide Web Conference WWW 2006, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. Retrieved from "http://www.ibiblio.org/www_tagging/2006/22.pdf"
[58]
Shatford, S. 1986. Analyzing the subject of a picture: A theoretical approach. Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, Volume 6 Issue 3, pp.39-61.
[59]
Shatford-Layne, S. 1994. Some issues in the indexing of images. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Volume 45 Issue 8, pp.583-588.
[60]
Sigurbjörnsson, B., &Zwol, R. 2008, April. Flickr tag recommendation based on collective knowledge. In Proceedings of the 17th International World Wide Web Conference WWW 2008 pp. pp.327-336. Retrieved from "http://www.conference.org/www.2008/papers/pdf/p327-sigurbjornssonA.pdf"
[61]
Smeulders, A.W.M., Worring, M., Santini, S., Gupta, A., &Jain, R.C. 2000. Content-based retrieval at the end of the early years. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Volume 22 Issue 12, pp.1349-1380.
[62]
Smith, M.K. 2011. Viewer tagging in art museums: Comparisons to concepts and vocabularies of art museum visitors. Advances in Classification Research Online, Volume 17 1, pp.1-19.
[63]
Soergel, D. 1994. Indexing and retrieval performance: The logical evidence. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Volume 45 Issue 8, pp.589-599.
[64]
Spiteri, L.F. 2010. Incorporating facets into social tagging applications: An analysis of current trends. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, Volume 48 Issue 1, pp.94-109.
[65]
Springer, M., Dulabahn, B., Michel, P., Natanson, B., Reser, D., Woodward, D., &Zinkham, H. 2008. For the common good: The Library of Congress Flickr pilot project. Washington, DC: The Library of Congress. Retrieved from "http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/flickr_report_final.pdf"
[66]
Strong, D., Lee, Y., &Wang, R. 1997. Data quality in context. Communications of the ACM, Volume 40 Issue 5, pp.103-110.
[67]
Stvilia, B., Gasser, L., Twidale, M., &Smith, L.C. 2007. A framework for information quality assessment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Volume 58 Issue 12, pp.1720-1733.
[68]
Stvilia, B., &Gasser, L. 2008. Value-based metadata quality assessment. Library and Information Science Research, Volume 30 Issue 1, pp.67-74.
[69]
Stvilia, B., &Jörgensen, C. 2009. User-generated collection level metadata in an online photo-sharing system. Library and Information Science Research, Volume 31 Issue 1, pp.54-65.
[70]
Stvilia, B., &Jörgensen, C. 2010. Member activities and quality of tags in a collection of historical photographs in Flickr. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Volume 61 Issue 12, pp.2477-2489.
[71]
Stvilia, B., Jörgensen, C., &Wu, S. 2012. Establishing the value of socially created metadata to image indexing. Library and Information Science Research, Volume 34, pp.99-109.
[72]
Tang, J., Yan, S., Hong, R., Qi, G.-J., &Chua, T.-S. 2009. Inferring semantic concepts from community-contributed images and noisy tags. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Multimedia MM '09 pp. pp.223-232. New York: ACM Press.
[73]
Trant, J. 2009. Studying social tagging and folksonomies: A review and framework. Journal of Digital Information, Volume 10 Issue 1. Retrieved from "http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/2595"/
[74]
Wetterstrom, M. 2008. The complementarity of tags and LCSH-A tagging experiment and investigation into added value in a New Zealand library context. New Zealand Library and Information Management Journal, Volume 50, pp.296-310.
[75]
Winget, M. 2011. User-defined classification on the online photo sharing site Flickr ' Or, how I learned to stop worrying and love the million typing monkeys. Advances in Classification Research Online, Volume 17 Issue 1, pp.1-16.
[76]
Zhitomirsky-Geffet, M., Bar-Ilan, J., Miller, Y., &Shoham, S. 2010. A generic framework for collaborative multi-perspective ontology acquisition. Online Information Review Volume 34 Issue 1, pp.145-159.
Index Terms
- Assessing the relationships among tag syntax, semantics, and perceived usefulness
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Linked tag: image annotation using semantic relationships between image tags
State of the art image tagging systems are limited because they allow users to annotate image tags in noun form, which cannot fully express the semantics of image content. In this paper, we propose Linked Tag, a semi-automatic image annotation system ...
The Mediating of Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use: The Case of Mobile Banking in Yemen
While there are a wide range of business opportunities available via mobile technologies, mobile banking services have not been widely accepted by bank clients in Yemen. This article aims to test the mediation effect of TAM core constructs between the ...
Relationships among category semantics, perceptions of term utility, and term length and order in a social content creation system
iConference '12: Proceedings of the 2012 iConferenceWhile there are increased efforts to extend existing controlled vocabularies through harvesting socially created image metadata from content creation communities (e.g., Flickr), questions remain about the quality and reuse value of this metadata. Data ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
United States
Publication History
Published: 01 April 2014
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Article
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- View Citations1Total Citations
- 0Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)0
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 03 Sep 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View all- Dam Christensen H(2017)Rethinking image indexing?Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology10.1002/asi.2381268:7(1782-1785)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2017
View Options
View options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in