sign in sign up
<<
Home , Folksonomy, Social bookmarking, Subject indexing, Tag (metadata)

The Advantages and Disadvantages of Social Tagging: Evaluation of Website1

Ruslan

Lecturer of Library Science Department Faculty of Letter and Humanism Ar-Raniry State Islamic University Banda Aceh - Indonesia E-mail: [email protected]

Introduction

The is the fastest growing and largest tool for mass and information distribution in the world. It can be used to distribute large amounts of information anywhere in the world at a minimal cost. This progress also can be seen from the of Web 2.02, a form of which engages consumers at the grassroots level in systems that necessitate creative, collaborative or information sharing tasks. Web 2.0 encompasses , blogging, and online social networking among others. One of the ways users can do this is through tagging.

Tagging is referred to with several names: collaborative tagging, social classification, social indexing, , etc. The basic principle is that end users do instead of experts only, and the assigned tags are being shown immediately on the Web (Voss, 2007). Nowadays, social bookmarking systems have been successful in attracting and retaining users. This success initially originated from members’ ability to centrally store bookmarks on the web.

1 This is assignment paper of author when studying in School of Information Science, McGill University, Montreal-Canada, 2009. 2 Web 2.0 is a set of economic, social, and technology trends that collectively form the basis for the next generation of the Internet—a more mature, distinctive medium characterized by user participation, openness, and network effects. See John Musser, p.1.

Furthermore, these systems also allowing users to organize their bookmarks by assigning tags that reflect directly their own vocabulary and needs. The collection of user-assigned tags is referred to commonly as a folksonomy. Users are able to browse or search the in order to find documents of interest.

Although social tagging or social bookmarking is a recent phenomenon which has the potential to give us a great deal of data about pages on the web, it also has a number of weaknesses in the way that classifiers organize information.

In this paper will be described the advantages and disadvantages of social tagging as a way to content to facilitate retrieval. This is followed by an example into the specifics of Delicious site as a part of folksonomy sites.

Definition of Social Tagging and Folksonomy

Social tagging is a method of organizing information. A is a non- hierarchical keyword or term assigned to a piece of information (such as an internet , , or ). This kind of helps describe an item and allows it to be found again by browsing or searching. Tags are chosen informally and personally by the item's creator or by its viewer, depending on the system. On a in which many users tag many items, this collection of tags becomes a folksonomy (Wikipedia, 2009).

Another definition stated that tagging is an act of organizing through labeling, a way of making sense of many discrete, varied items according to their meaning. By looking at those tags, we can examine what kinds of distinctions are important to taggers (Golder and Huberman, 2006). Tags are words or phrases users attach to a web site/page. Tags are simply labels for web resources, selected to help the user in later retrieval of those web resources. Tags have the additional effect of grouping related web resources together. There is no fixed set of categories or officially approved choices. A user can use words, , numbers, whatever makes sense to him/her, without regard for anyone else's needs, interests, or requirements. With tagging, anyone is free to use the words s/he thinks are appropriate, without having to agree with anyone else about how something "should" be tagged (Shirky 2005),

Educause Learning Initiative (2005) described that social bookmarking is the practice of saving bookmarks to a public web site and ``tagging`` them with keywords. Bookmarking, on the other hand, is the practice of saving the address of a Web site you wish to visit in the future on your computer. To create a collection of social bookmarks, you register with a social bookmarking site, which lets you store bookmarks, add tags of your choice, and designate individual bookmarks as public or private. Some sites periodically verify that bookmarks still work, notifying users when a URL no longer functions. Visitors to social bookmarking sites can search for resources by keyword, person, or popularity and see the public bookmarks, tags, and classification schemes that registered users have created and saved.

Another term in this paper is folksonomy also known as collaborative tagging, social classification, social indexing, and social tagging. Folksonomy is the practice and method of collaboratively creating and managing tags to annotate and categorize content. It describes the bottom-up classification systems that emerge from social tagging. In contrast to traditional subject indexing, metadata is generated not only by experts but also by creators and consumers of the content.

Usually, freely chosen keywords are used instead of a

(Wikipedia, 2009). Hammon (2005) said that a folksonomy is a type of distributed classification system. It is usually created by a group of individuals, typically the resource users. Users add tags to online items, such as images, videos, bookmarks and text. These tags are then shared and sometimes refined. Basically, the word folksonomy is a portmanteau of the words folks and coined by Thomas

Vander Wal which implies that it can be understood as an organization of web contents by folks or users.

An important aspect of a folksonomy as mentioned by Adam Mates (2004) is that is comprised of terms in a flat : that is, there is no hierarchy, and no directly specified parent-child or sibling relationships between these terms.

There are, however, automatically generated “related” tags, which cluster tags based on common URLs. This is unlike formal and classification schemes where there are multiple kind of explicit relationships between terms.

These relationships include things like broader, narrower, as well as related terms.

These folksonomies are simply the set of terms that a group of users tagged content with, they are not a predetermined set of classification terms or labels.

Tagging Content in Delicious

Delicious is the most popular social bookmarking site Del.icio.us, or

Delicious, is a collaborative tagging system for web bookmarks that its creator,

Joshua Schachter, calls a “social bookmarks manager.” According to the site itself,

Delicous is a social bookmarking service that allows users to tag, save, manage and share web pages from a centralized source. With emphasis on the power of the community, Delicious greatly improves how people discover, remember and share on the Internet (Delicious, 2009). On this page, all the bookmarks the user has ever created are displayed in reverse-chronological order along with a list of all the tags the user has ever given to a bookmark. By selecting a tag, a user can filter his/her bookmark list so that only bookmarks with that tag are displayed (Golder and Huberman 2006). Once they have an account, users can bookmark webpages through Delicious using a special bookmark on their browser. They can optionally tag their bookmarks as well, and search and browse using those tags. When browsing tags on the

Delicious site, users can see all bookmarks that all users have tagged with that particular tag, not just their own personal collection (Mathes, 2004).

Delicious is really interesting, on their front page (see Figure 1.1), we will see not only display of the most popular bookmarks, but also the popular tags (see

Figure 1.3.) that help user to know popular information faster and easily. Another important thing of Delicious site is using popular (see Figure 1.2).

Delicious has specific definition on tag cloud and tag. Tag cloud is a list of tags where size reflects popularity. In addition, a tag is simply a word you can use to describe a bookmark. Unlike folders, you make up tags when you need them and you can use as many as you like. The result is a better way to organize your bookmarks and a great way to discover interesting things on the Web. Tag cloud could be displayed by size or alphabet.

Figure 1.1. Delicious Homepage and Snapshoot of Popular Bookmarks

Figure 1.2. Delicious Popular Tag Cloud

Figure 1.3. Popular tags on Delicious, as of March 16, 2009

Advantages of Social tagging

 Browsability Browsing is extremely fruitful using social tags and folksonomies. As mentioned Mathes (2004), that tags allow us to see what resources others have found useful, what things these resources might be useful for, and what other terms you might want to search under. This could be seen from Delicious site that is helpful if a user accesses information freely. Through others' personal pages and the "popular" page, users can get a sense of what other people find interesting. By browsing specific people and tags, users can find web resources that are of interest to them and can find people who have common interests.

 Tagging reflects users' vocabulary

Tagging directly represents the vocabulary of users, because they are the ones creating the metadata. Popular tags show us what terms are preferred by the group. This can lead to the creation of new controlled vocabularies that might be easier to search because they would better reflect users' language. Kroski said (2005) put another way, folksonomies are inclusive because users are participants and experts, and because users see themselves reflected in the metadata.

 Classification of large amounts of content at little cost

Social tagging takes advantage of the large number of users participating.

Because the more users who tag, the more data can be tagged. If we compare to traditional metadata creation by information professionals, it would not be able to come close to the productivity of taggers, especially for the huge amount of information that is on the Web. Tagging distributes the responsibility and increases productivity.

 Current and flexible

All information that are displayed on the Delicious site as a social bookmarking site indicate a real time information and flexibility. This as mentioned by Kroski (2005) that folksonomies are fluid by their very nature. Users can tag and untag data whenever they want with speed and ease, meaning that folksonomies remain current and reflect current viewpoints.

 Community Interaction of the people in accessing social tagging site indicates virtual community. Social tagging can bring people together. Not only are all taggers bound together by the shared goal of classifying information, but taggers can see who else shares their interests and their vocabulary (Kroski 2005). This community also will identify users' interests. Users' lists of tags can be considered descriptive of the interests they hold as well as of their method of classifying those interests. Users' tag lists grow over time, as they discover new interests and add new tags to categorize and describe them. It is possible that the newly growing tag represents a new interest or category to the user (Golder and Huberman 2005).

Disadvantages of tagging  Lack of control

Social tagging always allows people to tag freely on the site. User ability is

different in writing a vocabulary on the tag. This disadvantage is the issue that

led to the use of controlled vocabularies for subject cataloguing in libraries.

Kroski said (2005) that social tagging lets users use whatever tags they want,

meaning that users may tag the same item any number of different ways.,

 Lack of recall

A lack of control affects to a lack of recall. When we search of tags using the

search term "dog" will not pick up items tagged with , which means

that the search is only finding a small fraction of the information available on

the subject. This also mentioned by Kroski (2005) that the lack of vocabulary

control leads to a lack of recall.

 Lack of precision A lack of control and recall affect to a lack of precision. Users may not have

tagged items with relevant tags, or tagged too broadly, or tagged in such a way

that is too personal, leaving the user with irrelevant material.

 Syntax

Delicious site require that tags be only one word. This creates problems as

mentioned by Guy and Tonkin (2006) when there is no standard way of

creating multi-word tags. Should taggers use underscores, dashes, or just blend

words together? Different taggers employ different strategies, making

searching difficult.

Conclusion

Social tagging and folksonomy not only change the methodology of classification in term of retrieval information, but also change in the way that classifiers organize information. It has removed all concept of hierarchy from the scheme of organization, facilitating knowledge discovery and .

Although, Social tagging is not a perfect system in the world, but it has help users in browsing information and classify a lot of contents at little cost, as well as creating a new virtual community that can identify user`s interest. A number of disadvantages of social bookmarking can be a lesson to all information expert to create the best formula in the future. As a result, by controlling vocabularies, search engines could present search results in clusters and attach each cluster to terms having the highest frequency, designating them as the tagging terms of the cluster. In addition these advantages allowing users to tell a system what method of finding digital content works for them is a good start to having a truly interactive and responsive system.

References

7 things you should know about Social Bookmarking (2005). In Educause learning Initiative. Retrieved March 15, 2009, from http://educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7001.pdf.

Folksonomy (2009). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved March 12, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomy

Golder, Scott A. and Bernardo A. Huberman. (2006). "Usage Patterns of Collaborative Tagging Systems.In Journal of Information Science, 32(2). 198- 208. Retrieved March 13, 2009, from http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/idl/papers/tags/tags.pdf

Guy, M. and Tonkin, E. (2006). Folksonomies: tidying up tags? D-Lib Magazine, 12:1. Retrieved March 16, 2009 from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january06/guy/01guy.html

Hammond, T., Hannay, T. Lund, B., Scott, J., (2005) Social Bookmarking Tools A General Review , D-Lib Magazine, April 2005, Volume 11 Number 4. Retrieved March 15, 2009, from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/april05/hammond/04hammond.html

Kroski, E. (2005). The hive mind: folksonomies and user-based tagging. Retrieved March 15, 2009 from http://infotangle.blogsome.com/2005/12/07/the- hive-mind-folksonomies-and-user-based-tagging/

Mathes, A. (2004). Folksonomies - cooperative classification and communication through shared metadata. Retrieved March 17, 2009 from http://www.adammathes.com/academic/computer-mediated- communication/folksonomies.html

Musser, John. and Tim O’Reilly (2006). Web 2.0 Principles and Best Practices, Fall 2006. Retrieved March 12, 2009, from http://oreilly.com/catalog/web2report/chapter/web20_report_excerpt.pdf

Shirky, Clay (2005). Ontology is Overrated: Categories, Links, and Tags. Retrieved March 11, 2009, from http://shirky.com/writings/ontology_overrated.html

Tag, 2009. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved March 12, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_(metadata)

Voss, Jakob (2007). “Tagging, Folsonomy & Co – Renaissance of Manual Indexing?.” In Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium of Information Science, Cologne. Retrieved March 13, 2009, from http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cs/pdf/0701/0701072v2.pdf