Tagging from personal to social

1

www.uzanto.comWWW06 Tagging Workshop

Tagging – From Personal to Social:

Some Observations & Design PrinciplesRashmi Sinha

Uzanto

2


Structure of Talk

• My Perspective

• Tagging on a Personal Level Compared to categorization

• Social Systems formed by Tagging

• Tagging & Wisdom of Crowds

• Some weaknesses

• 9 Design Principles

3


Cognition in the wild

• Cognitive Anthropology: Understanding culture by understanding cognition

• Two main methods Pile Sorting Freelisting

4


Free-listing

• Goals Explore boundaries & scope of

domain Capture cultural consensus Gain familiarity with user

vocabulary

• Strengths Simplicity Flexibility

Conducted as part of interview, or as written exercise

% of times items were mentioned

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Items

“Name all the x's you know.”

5


Digital Categorization

Multiple concepts activated

Choose ONE of the activated concepts.

Categorize it!

Object worth

remembering (article, image…)

Analysis-Paralysis!

•Analysis Paralysis•Balancing your scheme•Over time – category boundaries change, labels obsolete

6


• Cannot place in more than one place

• Disappears from view

• Mistakes are costly

7


Tagging is simpler

Multiple concepts

are activated

Tagit!

Note all concepts

Object worth

remembering (article, image…)

•Goal is to categorize•Maps to cognitive process•Reduced load•Fun, Self-feedback, social feedback•Less balancing of scheme

8


Tagging still leads to anxiety

• Differs from person to person And by domain

• Solution not simpler input process (though that could help) Confidence in finding

9


Some hypothesis• Tagging takes lesser time than categorizing

Users generate tags/categorize for new emails / bookmarks Measure: Time to categorize compared to time for 1 OR 2 OR 3

tags

• Categories are more memorable than a tag Give users 30 secs. per item to generate tag OR categorize Measure: Recall of tag / category after a week

• Comparing different types of tags Personal tags are more memorable than Semantic ones

Measure: Tag recall after a week

Semantic tags are generated first Measure: Order of Semantic and Personal tag generation

10


Hypothesis (cont)

• Hierarchy & non-exclusivity Compare time taken Recall Difficulty

Flat Hierarchical

Non-Exclusive

(A)

Tagging

(B)

Hierarchical Tagging

Exclusive (C)

Flat Categorization

(D)

Categorization

11


The Personal to the Social

12


Browsing alone

13


Along together• Alone together

(Ducheneaut et al. CHI 2006) Passive presence of others Playing for the audience

but not necessarily interacting

• Social facilitation (Zajonc, 1960) Improvement in

performance in presence of others

Presence does not need to be active

Observed even in cockroaches!

14


Tagging as second generation social network• Actually useful!

• Lots of weak ties (Granovetter: The strength of weak ties) Social networks emphasize strong ties (lists of contacts,

friendship ratings)

• Objects (tags) mediate social relationships Objects are reasons people affiliate with each other Provide context for relationship. Means for new relationships. Theory: Object centered sociality (sociologist Karin Knorr

Cetina)

• Application: Interest based groups Collaborative Tagging & Expertise in the Enterprise (John &

Seligman) Fringe Contacts: People Tagging for the Enterprise (Ferrell & Lau)

15


Tagging and Wisdom of Crowds

1. Cognitive Diversity

2. Independence

3. Decentralization

4. Easy Aggregation

16


1. Cognitive Diversity

• Need many perspectives for good answers

• Groups become homogenous Members bring less and less new information in Varying levels of insight & knowledge provide good mix

Better than everyone having a lot of knowledge!

• Diversity reduces groupthink Groupthink works by shielding members from outside

opinions Rationalize away counterarguments

• Diversity reduces conformity Chance that you will change opinion to match group

17


2. Independence

• Keeps people’s mistakes from getting correlated (uncorrelated mistakes averaged out)

• Encourages people to bring in new viewpoints (diversity)

• Concept of Social Proof Milgram experiment People assume that groups know what they are doing Assuming crowd is wise, leads to herd like behavior

Can sometimes lead to good decisions

18


2. Independence (cont.)• Information Cascades

Sequence of uninformed choices, building upon each other Example: Thai & Indian restaurant Information is imperfect – sometimes incorrect, sometimes

correct Decisions made in sequence

• Everyone relies on own information• And what everyone else is doing• Wrong information propagates down in a chain

Ideal when people make decision relying on private information

Compare Del.icio.us & digg Information Cascades can be good

Example: Iowa farmers decision about hybrid corn

19


Imitation & Suggestion

• Intelligent & mindless imitation Human beings are imitation machines Imitation is a good thing

Bad when you don’t reply on private information And don’t make independent judgment

• Example: Japanese macaques learning to separate wheat from stones

Build some method to let people evaluate tag suggestions

• Imitation & Suggestion in Tagging Systems Lazy Sheep bookmarklet Google Suggest approach Towards the Semantic Web: Collaborative Tag Suggestions (Xu

et al.) Implicit Tagging using Donated Bookmarks (Markines, et al.)

20


3. Decentralization

• Encourages independence

• Takes advantage of tacit knowledge People have specialized knowledge that might not be

communicable to right person in centralized structure Problems: Valuable information uncovered in one part of

the system does not get communicated to another part Need some type of loose coordination

“A crowd of decentralized people working to solve a problem on their own without any central effort to guide them, come up with better solutions, rather than a top-down driven solution.” Suroweicki

21


4. Easy Aggregation

• A decentralized system can pick right solution With easy way for information to be aggregated across

system

• Example: Francis Galton A crowd of people made independent decisions He added the votes

22


Some Weaknesses of tag-based Social Systems

23


1. Tag Specificity, Expertise & Perspective• Shirky example: Dewey Decimals

categorization of world religionsWhat about Flickr?

Hinduism: 6512 photosChristianity: 5207 photos

24


Tagging systems are better, but…

• Tagging systems represent people who participate in them Their viewpoints & perspective

• Types of biases In-groups might use more specific tags than Out-groups Experts might use more specific tags than novices

25


2. No easy way to show minority viewpoint• Consensus viewpoint bubbles up

How to give alternative viewpoints a voice?

• Example: Catholic Church recognizes Devil’s advocate

26


3. Why Amazon tags did not work

• No clear articulation of benefits

• Mixed with other, more common participation methods

• Busy interface

• No organic growth (seeding with select few)

27


• Too many options?

28


4. Adoption by Average User

• Tag navigation does not suit user task?

• Users do not understand its for navigation?

29


Design Principles for Tagging Systems

30


#1: Make System Personally Useful

• For end-user system should have strong personal use Memorable Personal Snippets (e.g., Del.icio.us & Flickr) Self-expression (e.g., Newsvine) My expertise or interests (RawSugar)

• Don’t count on altruism System should thrive on people’s selfishness Incent the behavior you want

• Clearly communicate benefits to users Create a positive reinforcement cycle

31


del.icio.us Useful before Saving First Link

32


#2:Identify Symbiotic Relationship Between Personal & Social

• Individual participation in system should naturally aggregate into social stream What personal snippets do people like to share? Personal snippets > Social stream

Example• Pictures > Organized by Events• Music > Organized by Playlists

33


#3: Make Porous Boundary Between Public & Private

• Earlier systems Personal (Personal Desktop

Software, e.g., Picasa, EndNote) OR Social websites (Shutterfly)

• Rethink public & private People will share for the right

returns Set defaults to public, allow

easy change to private Provide clear benefit of sharing

• Give user control Over individual pieces & sets Delete items from history Reset /remove profile

Privacy settings on Flickr

34


#4: Provide Outlet for Self-expression• Creative self-expression

Artistic expression (Flickr, YouTube) Humor (YouTube)

• Individual piece should be small Can create sets & lists Do Mashups Simple, guessable URLs for

everything

• Leave room for games & social play Appreciation Stalking (some!) Gossip

Writers on Newsvine

35


#4a. Allow for Different Types of Participation

• Social sites don’t require 100% active participation Implicit creation (creating by consuming) Remixing—adding value to others’ content

Source: Bradley Horowitz’s weblog, Elatable, Feb. 17, 2006, “Creators, Synthesizers, and Consumers”

36


#4b. How to Encourage Participation• Insights from Social Psychology research

Highlight unique contribution Allow for smaller local groups Highlight benefit to self from participation Highlight benefit to group

Source: Using social psychology to motivate contributions to online communities, Ling et al. 2005

37


#5. Provide Scent of Others in the System• What paths are well

worn, what are not

• User profiles / photos

• Real-time updating Feels like a

conversation sense that others

are out there

What people are digging right now!

38


#6. And yet, Moments of Independence

• Choreography: when alone, when part of group

• Prevent mobs, optimize “wisdom of crowds”

• Don’t make it too easy to mimic others Incentives for

originality & uniqueness

39


#7. Enable Serendipity

• Don’t make navigation all about popularity Access to some popular stuff (keep this fast moving)

• Make the “long tail” accessible Use popularity as a jump off point to other ways of

exploring

• Provide personalization Recommendations using collaborative filtering

Similar tags, content, others

• Ad-hoc groups?

40


#8. Allow for alternative viewpoints & perspectives• Tags bias perspective in specific manner

People of a group know more Likely to use more specific tags Hence less exposure (no hierarchy)

Similar problem for experts

41


#9. Keep input simple. Solve problems with good findability

• Tagging shows success of simplicity Don't’ increase cognitive cost of tagging

• Tagging systems can support different types of findability Some metaphors

42


#9a. User Experience for Faceted Browse Interfaces

• User is in control

• Every movement (forward, making a turn) is a conscious choice

System should provide information at every step

• If user makes mistakes, she can go back or start againLike driving a car…

43


#9b. User Experience with Recommender Systems

• User has less control over specifics of interaction

• System does not provide information about specifics of action

• More of a “black box” model (some input from user, output from systems)

Like riding a roller coaster…

44


User Experience with Browsing Tagging Systems

• Pivot Browsing Move at a slower pace Get the lay of the land,

directly experience surroundings

Change paths when you want

Choose paths based on what looks promising, how well worn, what signs say

Like a hike in the woods

45


You can do all three with tags• Faceted Systems from

Tags Inducing Ontology from

Flickr, Schmitz

• Collaborative Filtering from Tags Automatic Tag Clustering,

Begelman, Keller & Smajda

• Pivot Browsing on Tagging Systems Tag-Based Navigation for

Peer-to-Peer Wikipedia, Fokker et al.

46


Parting thoughts

• Tagging is in the eyes of the tagger Can implicit tagging be tagging?

• Tagging by others is more useful than tagging by self Is tagging about harnessing consensus or personal

perspective?

• Will Categorization will be back? Better interface Non-exclusive

47


Questions?

[email protected]

URLs

www.uzanto.com

www.rashmisinha.com

48


• “In essence tag systems mirror the pagerank structure of Google's system, but make the internal structures browsable and viewable directly.” Lee Iverson

Technology

Tagging from personal to social