Cited By
View all- Xu YYin DZhou D(2019)Investigating Users' Tagging Behavior in Online Academic Community Based on Growth ModelInformation Systems Frontiers10.1007/s10796-018-9891-221:4(761-772)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2019
Characteristics of tagging behavior in digitized humanities online collections
Pages 1089 - 1104
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine user tags that describe digitized archival collections in the field of humanities. A collection of 8,310 tags from a digital portal (Nineteenth‐Century Electronic Scholarship, NINES) was analyzed to find out what attributes of primary historical resources users described with tags. Tags were categorized to identify which tags describe the content of the resource, the resource itself, and subjective aspects (e.g., usage or emotion). The study's findings revealed that over half were content‐related; tags representing opinion, usage context, or self‐reference, however, reflected only a small percentage. The study further found that terms related to genre or physical format of a resource were frequently used in describing primary archival resources. It was also learned that nontextual resources had lower numbers of content‐related tags and higher numbers of document‐related tags than textual resources and bibliographic materials; moreover, textual resources tended to have more user‐context‐related tags than other resources. These findings help explain users' tagging behavior and resource interpretation in primary resources in the humanities. Such information provided through tags helps information professionals decide to what extent indexing archival and cultural resources should be done for resource description and discovery, and understand users' terminology.
References
[1]
Al‐Khalifa, H., & Davis, H. (2007). Toward better understanding of folksonomies patterns. In Proceedings of the 18th Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, Manchester, UK, September 10–12 (pp. 163–166). New York: ACM.
[2]
Archer, J., Hanlon, A.M., & Levine, J.A. (2009). Investigating primary source literacy. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35(5), 410–420.
[3]
Arends, M., Froschauer, J., Goldfarb, D., & Merkl, D. (2011). Analysing user generated content related to art history. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Technologies (pp. 1–12). New York: ACM.
[4]
Arends, M., Weingartner, M., Froschauer, J.F., Goldfarb, D., & Merkl, D. (2012). Learning about art history by exploratory search, contextual view and social tags. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, July 4–6 (pp. 395–399). Rome, Italy: IEEE.
[5]
Barrett, A. (2005). The information‐seeking habits of graduate student researchers in the humanities. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31(4), 324–331.
[6]
Bates, M.J., Wilde, D.N., & Siegfried, S. (1993). An analysis of search terminology used by humanities scholars: The Getty online searching project report. Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy, 63(1), 1–39.
[7]
Beaudoin, J. (2007). Flickr image tagging: Patterns made visible. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 34(1), 26–29.
[8]
Bischoff, K., Firan, C.S., Nejdl, W., & Paiu, R. (2008). Can all tags be used for searching? In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM ’08), Napa Valley, CA, October 26–30 (pp. 203–212). New York: ACM.
[9]
Bulger, M.E., Meyer, E.T., De la Flor, G., Terras, M., Wyatt, S., Jirotka, M., Eccles, K., & Madsen, C.M. (2011). Reinventing research? Information practices in the humanities. A Research Information Network Report. April 2011. Retrieved from http://www.rin.ac.uk/our‐work/using‐and‐accessing‐information‐resources/information‐use‐case‐studies‐humanities
[10]
Cantador, I., Konstas, I., & Jose, J.M. (2011). Categorising social tags to improve folksonomy‐based recommendations. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 9(1), 1–15.
[11]
Chen, X. (2007). Data and structure characteristics analysis for a scientific research e‐management platform in the humanities and social sciences. Data Science Journal, 6(20), 760–769.
[12]
Chen, Y., & Ke, H. (2013). An analysis of users' behavior patterns in the organisation of information: A case study of CiteULike. Online Information Review, 37(4), 638–656.
[13]
Cho, C.‐W., Yeh, T.‐K., Cheng, S.‐W., & Chang, C.‐Y. (2012). The searching effectiveness of social tagging in museum websites. Educational Technology & Society, 15(4), 126–136.
[14]
Choi, Y. (2010). Effects of contextual factors on image searching on the web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(10), 2011–2028.
[15]
Choi, Y. (2013). Analysis of image search queries on the web: Query modification patterns and semantic attributes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(7), 1423–1441.
[16]
Collins, E., Bulger, M., & Meyer, E. (2012). Discipline matters: Technology use in the humanities. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 11(1–2), 76–92.
[17]
Dalton, M.S., & Charnigo, L. (2004). Historians and their information sources. College & Research Libraries, 65(5), 400–425.
[18]
Dunn, S., & Hedges, M. (2013). Crowd‐sourcing as a component of humanities research infrastructures. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 7(1–2), 147–169.
[19]
Ge, X. (2010). Information‐seeking behavior in the digital age: A multidisciplinary study of academic researchers. College & Research Libraries, 71(5), 435–455.
[20]
Golder, S.A., & Huberman, B.A. (2006). Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems. Journal of Information Science, 32(2), 198–208.
[21]
Golub, K., Lykke, M., & Tudhope, D. (2014). Enhancing social tagging with automated keywords from the Dewey Decimal Classification. Journal of Documentation, 70(5), 801–828.
[22]
Gorzalski, M. (2013). Examining user‐created description in the archival profession. Journal of Archival Organization, 11(1–2), 1–22.
[23]
Gupta, M., Li, R., Yin, Z., & Han, J. (2010). Survey on social tagging techniques. SIGKDD Explorations, 12(1), 58–72.
[24]
Guy, M., & Tonkin, E. (2006). Tidying up tags. D‐lib Magazine, 12(1). Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january06/guy/01guy.html
[25]
Hamburger, S. (2004). How researchers search for manuscript and archival collections. Journal of Archival Organization, 2(1–2), 79–102.
[26]
Haustein, S., & Peters, I. (2012). Using social bookmarks and tags as alternative indicators of journal content description. First Monday, 17(11). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4110/3357
[27]
Heckner, M., Mühlbacker, S., & Wolff, C. (2008). Tagging tagging: Analysing user keywords in scientific bibliography management systems. Journal of Digital Information, 9(2), 1–19. Retrieved from https://journals.tdl.org/jodi/index.php/jodi/article/view/246/208
[28]
Heckner, M., Neubauer, T., & Wolff, C. (2008). Tree, funny, to_read, google: What are tags supposed to achieve? A comparative analysis of user keywords for different digital resource types. In I. Soboroff, E. Agichtein, & R. Kumar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Workshop on Search in Social Media, Napa Valley, CA, October 26–30 (pp. 3–10). New York: ACM.
[29]
Heymann, P., Koutrika, G., & Garcia‐Molina, H. (2008). Can social bookmarking improve web search? In M. Najork, A. Broder, & S. Chakrabarti (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Search and Web Data Mining, Palo Alto, CA, February 11–12 (pp. 195–206). New York: ACM.
[30]
Holsti, O.R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA: Addison‐Wesley.
[31]
Huang, H., & Jörgensen, C. (2013). Characterizing user tagging and co‐occurring metadata in general and specialized metadata collections. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(9), 1878–1889.
[32]
Huang, M., & Chang, Y. (2008). Characteristics of research output in social sciences and humanities: From research evaluation perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1819–1828.
[33]
Jansen, B.J. (2008). Searching for digital images on the web. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 81–101.
[34]
Jörgensen, C. (1998). Attributes of images in describing tasks. Information Processing & Management, 34(2/3), 161–174.
[35]
Ke, H., & Chen, Y. (2012). Structure and pattern of social tags for keyword selection behaviors. Scientometrics, 92(1), 43–62.
[36]
Kipp, M.E. (2011). User, author and professional indexing in context: An exploration of tagging practices on CiteULike. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 35(1), 17–48.
[37]
Kipp, M.E., & Campbell, D.G. (2006). Patterns and inconsistencies in collaborative tagging systems: An examination of tagging practices. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 43(1), 1–18.
[38]
Klavans, J.L., LaPlante, R., & Golbeck, J. (2014). Subject matter categorization of tags applied to digital images from art museums. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(1), 3–12.
[39]
Lee, D.H., & Schleyer, T. (2012). Social tagging is no substitute for controlled indexing: A comparison of Medical Subject Headings and CiteULike tags assigned to 231,388 papers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(9), 1747–1757.
[40]
Lu, C., Park, J., & Hu, X. (2010). User tags versus expert‐assigned subject terms: A comparison of LibraryThing tags and Library of Congress Subject Headings. Journal of Information Science, 36(6), 763–779.
[41]
Lu, K., & Kipp, M.E.I. (2014). Understanding the retrieval effectiveness of collaborative tags and author keywords in different retrieval environments: An experimental study on medical collections. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(3), 483–500.
[42]
Miller, D. (2000). Out from under: Form/genre access in LCSH. Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, 29(1–2), 169–188.
[43]
National Information Standards Organization Standards (NISO) . (2005). ANSI/NISO Z39.19—Guidelines for the construction, format, and management of monolingual controlled vocabularies. Retrieved from http://www.niso.org/kst/reports/standards?step=2&gid=&project_key=7cc9b583cb5a62e8c15d3099e0bb46bbae9cf38a
[44]
Oomen, J., Belice Baltussen, L., Limonard, S., van Ees, A., Brinkerink, M., Aroyo, L., et al. (2010). Emerging practices in the cultural heritage domain‐social tagging of audiovisual heritage. In Proceedings of the WebSci10: Extending the Frontiers of Society On‐Line, April 26–27. Raleigh, NC. Retrieved from http://journal.webscience.org/337/
[45]
Palmer, C.L., Teffeau, L.C., & Pirmann, C.M. (2009). Scholarly information practices in the online environment: Themes from the literature and implications for library service development. Report commissioned by OCLC Research. Retrieved from http://www.oclc.org/programs/publications/reports/2009‐02.pdf
[46]
Peters, I. (2009). Folksonomies: Indexing and retrieval in Web 2.0. Berlin, Germany, and Boston, MA: K. G. Saur.
[47]
Peters, I., Schumann, L., Terliesner, J., & Stock, W.G. (2011). Retrieval effectiveness of tagging systems. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 48(1), 1–4. Retrieved from Wiley Online Library.
[48]
Procter, R., Williams, R., & Stewart, J. (2010). If you build it, will they come? How researchers perceive and use Web 2.0. London: Research Network Information. Retrieved from http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/56246/
[49]
Pu, H. (2005). A comparative analysis of web image and textual queries. Online Information Review, 29(5), 457–467.
[50]
Ridge, M. (2013). From tagging to theorizing: Deepening engagement with cultural heritage through crowdsourcing. Curator: The Museum Journal, 56(4), 435–450.
[51]
Rieger, O.Y. (2010). Framing digital humanities: The role of new media in humanities scholarship. First Monday, 15(10). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/3198/2628
[52]
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, 61(11), 2230–2242.
[53]
Schaffner, J. (2009). The metadata is the interface: Better description for better discovery of archives and special collections, synthesized from user studies. Dublin, OH: OCLC Research. Retrieved from http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/library/2009/2009‐06.pdf
[54]
Sinn, D. (2012). Impact of digital archival collections on historical research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(8), 1521–1527.
[55]
Smith‐Yoshimura, K., & Shein, C. (2011). Social metadata for libraries, archives and museums part 1: Site reviews. Dublin, OH: OCLC Research. Retrieved from http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/library/2011/2011‐02.pdf
[56]
Spink, A., & Jansen, B.J. (2006). Searching multimedia federated content web collections. Online Journal Review, 30(5), 485–495.
[57]
Stone, S. (1982). Humanities scholars: Information needs and uses. Journal of Documentation, 38(4), 292–313.
[58]
Stvilia, B., Jörgensen, C., & Wu, S. (2012). Establishing the value of socially‐created metadata to image indexing. Library & Information Science Research, 34(2), 99–109.
[59]
Syn, S.Y., & Spring, M.B. (2009). Tags as keywords—Comparison of the relative quality of tags and keywords. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 46(1), 1–19.
[60]
Thomas, M., Caudle, D.M., & Schmitz, C.M. (2009). To tag or not to tag? Library Hi Tech, 27(3), 411–434.
[61]
Tibbo, H.R. (1994). Indexing for the humanities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(8), 607–619.
[62]
Tillett, B.B. (2004). What is FRBR? (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records). Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/cds/downloads/FRBR.PDF
[63]
Tjondronegoro, D.W., Spink, A., & Jansen, B.J. (2009). A study and comparison of multimedia web searching: 1997–2006. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(9), 1756–1768.
[64]
Toms, E.G., & O'Brien, H. (2008). Understanding the information and communication technology needs of the e‐humanist. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 102–130.
[65]
Trant, J. (2006). Social classification and folksonomy in art museums: Early data from the steve.museum tagger prototype. Advances in Classification Research Online, 17(1), 1–30.
[66]
Trant, J. (2009). Tagging, folksonomy and art museums: Early experiments and ongoing research. Journal of Digital Information, 12(1), 1–50. Retrieved from https://journals.tdl.org/jodi/index.php/jodi/article/view/270/277
[67]
Trant, J., & Wyman, B. (2006). Investigating social tagging and folksonomy in art museums with steve.museum. In Proceedings of the WWW'06 Collaborative Web Tagging Workshop, May 22 (pp. 1–6). Edinburgh, UK: School of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton. Retrieved from http://www.archimuse.com/research/www2006‐tagging‐steve.pdf
[68]
Watson‐Boone, R. (1994). The information needs and habits of humanities scholars. Renaissance Quarterly, 34(2), 203–215.
[69]
Wiberley, S.E., & Jones, W.G. (1994). Humanists revisited: A longitudinal look at the adoption of information technology. College & Research Libraries, 55(6), 499–510.
[70]
Xu, C., Ma, B., Chen, X., & Ma, F. (2013). Social tagging in the scholarly world. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(10), 2045–2057.
[71]
Yi, K., & Chan, L.M. (2009). Linking folksonomy to Library of Congress Subject Headings: An exploratory study. Journal of Documentation, 65(6), 872–900.
Index Terms
- Characteristics of tagging behavior in digitized humanities online collections
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Convergence and divergence in tagging systems: an examination of tagging practices over a four year period
ASIS&T '10: Proceedings of the 73rd ASIS&T Annual Meeting on Navigating Streams in an Information Ecosystem - Volume 47This paper analyses the tagging patterns on delicious.com for a set of documents (URLs) over a 4 year period using informetrics methods to assess how collaborative tagging supports and enhances traditional document indexing. Results of the study show ...
Tagging and folksonomies for information retrieval in Web 2.0
CNS '13: Proceedings of the 16th Communications & Networking SymposiumThe aim of this paper is to emphasize the role of tagging and folksonomies in information retrieval in Web 2.0. Also, this paper justifies the existence of tagging and folksonomies for better information retrieval in Web 2.0. In recent years, Web 2.0 ...
Learning user characteristics from social tagging behavior
HT '12: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM conference on Hypertext and social mediaIn social tagging systems the tagging activities of users leave a huge amount of implicit information about them. The users choose tags for the resources they annotate based on their interests, background knowledge, personal opinion and other criteria. ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
© 2015 ASIS&T.
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
United States
Publication History
Published: 16 April 2016
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-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 10 Nov 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View all- Xu YYin DZhou D(2019)Investigating Users' Tagging Behavior in Online Academic Community Based on Growth ModelInformation Systems Frontiers10.1007/s10796-018-9891-221:4(761-772)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2019
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