User

Tagging

By Graham Fox, Tiffany Johnson, Sarah Toll, and Matthew Upson

What is Web 2.0?

• “A perceived second generation of web development and design, that aims to facilitate communication, secure information sharing, interoperability, and collaboration on the World Wide Web.”

Key Elements of Web 2.0

• It takes place on the Web.• It is a service, not a product.• It is not limited to a single software product or

a single machine.• It is open and shared.• Users in group and social interaction are part

of its organization.• Users provide content and add value.

Library 2.0 Services• Users are able to customize and/or personalize

online content, format, & style.• Users can share and interact with others’

reviews, recommendations, annotations, and lists of resources.

• Allows library staff to create and publish regular blogs.

• Provides users with enhanced and enriched catalogue records.

• Allows for the distribution of library information, activities, and resources through RSS feeds.

Examples of Web 2.0

• Del.icio.us• LibraryThing• OPAC 2.0• PennTags• Facebook• YouTube• Twitter

Folksonomies

• Folk + Taxonomy = Folksonomy

• “Classification by the people”

• The vocabulary of tagging

Folksonomies• Versus Taxonomies– From the top down or bottom up?

https://segueuserfiles.middlebury.edu/ET/taxonomies-folksonomies01.png

Taxonomies vs. Folksonomies

https://segueuserfiles.middlebury.edu/achapin-etech/organization_continuums01.png

Why Folksonomies?

• Organize Personal Information• Supplement Existing Controlled Vocabularies• Create Online Communities of Interest• Collaboration• Cost-Effective• Self-Adapting; Easily updated

Folksonomies in Action

http://www.vanderwal.net/images/broadfolksonomy.jpg

What is it?

• Tagging

• User Tagging

• Other titles

User Tagging is:

• User oriented• Empowering• Democratic• Cheap• Collaborative• Dynamic• Instructive

Motivations of Taggers

• Participate in the community• Identify individuals who share interests• Engage with resources• Contribute to improvements• Share knowledge• Demonstrate extent of knowledge

Criteria for Evaluation

• Effectiveness

• Cost- efficiency

• Usability

Library Implementation of Tagging

• Functionality of the tagging service• Functionality of associated search service• Motivation of users• Grants the library the ability to provide an

index of quality internet sources• Gives library patrons the ability to discover

'gray literature'http://tags.library.upenn.edu/

http://www.citeulike.org/

Goals of Tagging Services

• Develop a sense of community among remote users

• Encourage engagement with resources• Allow for effective retrieval or records and

discovery of resources• Improve entertainment value• Reduce costs of manually cataloging

Tagging Feature Sets• Degree of restriction on tagging

• Context-sensitive suggestions

• Access to structured vocabulary

• Access to clouds of frequently • used tags

• Ability to tag after viewing online

http://www.archimuse.com/mw2006/papers/wyman/wymanFig2.userTagsObject-400.png

Bibliography• Arch, X. (2007). Creating the academic library folksonomy: Put social

tagging to work at your institution. College and Research Library News, 68, 80-81.

• Fichter, D. (2006). Intranet applications for tagging and folksonomies. Online, 30, 43-45.

• Furner, J. (2008). User Tagging of Library Resources: Toward a Framework for System Evaluation. International Cataloguing and Bibliographic Control , 37 (3), 47-51. Snipes, P. R. (2007). Folksonomy vs. Minnie Earl and Melville. Library Media Connection, 25(7), 54-56.

• Spiteri, L. F. (2007). The structure and form of folksonomy tags: The road to the public library catalog. Information Technology and Libraries, 26(3), 13-25.

• Spiteri, L. F. (2006). The use of folksonomies in public library catalogues. The Serials Librarian, 51(2), 75-89.