Participants’ tagging behaviors, including tags used and time spent, were logged; and their perceptions of the interface were captured by the questionnaires.
http://joemls.tku.edu.tw We then analyzed the tag set assigned to books (both fiction and non-fiction) by a set of criteria for quantitative comparison, including: the average number of tags, the number of distinct tags, tag similarity (as measured by Jaccard’s coefficient), convergence of tags (as measured by the Gini Index), and the distribution of tags by facets. In addition, the cost of the tagging process and participants’ experience using the different tagging interfaces were also compared.
The experimental interface was shown to elicit tags from a wider variety of facets, both in fiction and non-fiction (See Figure3 and Figure 4); and to produce more tags per work, F(1, 30)= 10.889, p= .002. The experimental interface was also shown to produce more distinct tags (n=904) than baseline (n=516), which suggests that the tags generated by the faceted interface had a higher term speci-ficity (Wolfram & Zhang, 2002). The results suggest that the faceted interface was conducive to higher indexing specificity and exhaustivity.
Figure 3 Distribution of Tags in Facets for Fiction
Figure 4 Distribution of Tags in Facets for Non-fiction
http://joemls.tku.edu.tw The faceted structure was shown to promote similarity and consensus in the assignment of tags. The distribution of the tags exhibited the power-law phenom-enon where a small number of tags accounted for a disproportionally large number of usages. The distribution of the tags was also more skewed in the experimental interface, showing a higher consensus in tag assignment. Genre was not shown to have any interactive effect with the interfaces.
While the results suggest that the faceted interface generated tags of better quality, it also required more user effort. Participants spent significant time and reported more difficulty when using the faceted interface. Some of their com-ments suggest that a universal set of facets may not always be applicable to differ-ent titles. While participants indicated that the faceted structure might be helpful for tagging, they did not show strong intention to use it in the future.
It should also be noted that “familiarity with the title” was an important confounding variable as it was shown to have significant effects on time spent on tagging (F(1, 29)=63.705, p=.000), satisfaction with tagging (F(1, 29)=86.699, p=.000) and self-perceived correctness of tagging (F(1, 29)=71.38, p=.000). The results point to one of the limitations of the study. Unlike a real tagging situation, where users often have a substantial amount of knowledge regarding the works they are tagging, our participants had not read the titles and had varying degrees of familiarity with the books in the simulated task. This might explain the diffi-culty they had when using the faceted structure as it required a deeper understand-ing of the works beunderstand-ing tagged. Future studies could test the effectiveness of the faceted structure for users who have read the titles before tagging. We suspect that actual readers would have an easier time using the faceted interface. Further studies could also be done to test empirically whether the tags elicited by the fac-eted structure promote retrieval performance.
ROMANIZED & TRANSLATED REFERENCES FOR ORIGINAL TEXT
卜小蝶[Pu, Hsiao-Tieh](2006)。淺談社會性標記之意涵與應用[Qiantan shehuihsing piao-chi piao-chih ihan yu yingyung]。在[In]淡江大學編[Tamkang University (Ed.)]，Web 2.0 與圖書館研討會論文集[Web2.0 yu tushuguan yantaohui lunwenji]（頁83-100）[pp.
83-100]。台北縣：編者[Taipei: Tamkang University]。
卜小蝶[Pu, Hsiao-Tieh](2007)。使用者導向之網路資源組織與檢索[User-oriented net-worked information organization and retrieval]。台北市：文華[Taipei: Wen-Hua]。
林雯瑤[Lin, Wen-Yau Cathy](2006)。層面分類的概念與應用[The concept and applications of faceted classification]。教育資料與圖書館學[Journal of Educational Media & Li-brary Science]，44(2)，153-171。
陳光華[Chen, Kuang-Hua](2008)。圖書館自動化系統與Web2.0的資訊服務[Integrated library systems and web 2.0 information services]。九十六學年度全國公私立大學校院 圖書館館長聯席會議[96 xueniandu quanguo gongsili daxuexiaoyuan tushuguan
guan-http://joemls.tku.edu.tw zhang lianxihuiyi]，台中市：國立中興大學[Taichung: National Chung Hsing Univer-sity]。
游子賢[Yu, Tzu-Hsien](2005)。通俗分類標記之自動組織[Automatic organization of user-generated tags from the web]。未出版之碩士論文[Unpublished master’s thesis]，國立 台灣大學資訊管理學研究所[Department of Information Management, National Taiwan University]，台北市[Taipei]。
Angus, E., Thelwall, M., & Stuart, D. (2008). General patterns of tag usage among university groups in Flickr. Online Information Review, 32(1), 89-101.
Bar-Ilan, J., Shoham, S., Idan, A., Miller, Y., & Shachak, A. (2008). Structured versus unstruc-tured tagging: A case study. Online Information Review, 32(5), 635-647.
Bar-Ilan, J., Zhitomirsky-Geffet , M., Miller, Y., & Shoham, S. (2010). The effects of back-ground information and social interaction on image tagging. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(5), 940-951
Begelman, G., Keller, P., & Smadja, F. (2006). Automated tag clustering: Improving search and exploration in the tag space. Available from WWW2006 Collaborative Tagging Work-shop (http://www.pui.ch/phred/automated_tag_clustering/).
Beghtol, C. (1994). The classification of fiction: The development of a system based on theoreti-cal principles. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
Brooks, C. H., & Montanez, N. (2006). Improved annotation of the blogosphere via autotagging and hierarchical clustering. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 625-632). New York: ACM Press.
Broughton, V. (2006) The need for a faceted classification as the basis of all methods of infor-mation retrieval. Aslib Proceedings, 58(1/2), 49-72.
Campbell, G. D., & Fast, K.V. (2006). From pace layering to resilience theory: The complex implications of tagging from information architecture. Retrieved November 20, 2008, from http://www.iasummit.org/2006/files/164_Presentation_Desc.pdf
Chen, Y. C. (2008). Analysis of social tagging and book cataloging: A case study. Paper pre-sented at the HKLA 50th Anniversary Conference, Hong Kong.
Choi, S. D. (2002). A study on user-oriented fiction retrieval system design. Journal of Informa-tion, Communication and Library Science, 8(3), 23-33.
Danowski, P. (2007). Library 2.0 and user-generated content what can the users do for us? Re-trieved December 30, 2007, from http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla73/papers/113-Danowski-en.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of infor-mation technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
DeZelar-Tiedman, C. (1996). Subject access to fiction: An application of the guidelines. Library Resources & Technical Services, 40(3), 203-210.
Down, N. (1995). Subject access to individual works of fiction: Participating in the OCLC/LC Fiction Project. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 20(2), 61-69.
Furner, J. (2007). User tagging of library resources: Toward a framework for system evaluation.
Paper presented at the 157 Classification and Indexing. Retrieved March 6, 2009, from http://www.ifla.org/iv/ifla73/index.htm.
http://joemls.tku.edu.tw Golder, S. A., & Huberman, B. A. (2006). Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems.
Journal of Information Science, 32(2), 198-208.
Golub, K., Jones, C., Matthews, B., Puzoń, B., Lykke Nielsen, M., Moon, J., & Tudhope, D.
(2009). EnTag: Enhancing social tagging for discovery. Paper presented at Joint Confer-ence on Digital Libraries, JCDL 2009, Austin, Texas.
Guy, M., & Tonkin, E. (2006). “Folksonomies: Tidying up tags?” D-Lib Magazine, 12(1), 1-15.
Retrieved July 2, 2008, from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january06/guy/01guy.html
Hassan-Montero, Y., & Herrero-Solana, V., (2006). Improving tag-clouds as visual information retrieval interfaces. Paper presented at International Conference on Multidisciplinary Information Sciences and Technologies, InSciT2006, Merida, Spain. Retrieved March 6, 2009, from http://www.nosolousabilidad.com/hassan/improving_tagclouds.pdf
Heckner, M., Mühlbacher, S., & Wolff, C. (2008). Tagging tagging. Analysing user keywords in scientific bibliography management systems. Journal of Digital Information, 9(27). Re-trieved July 2, 2008, from http://journals.tdl.org/jodi/article/view/246
Hidderley, R., & Rafferty, P. (1997). Democratic indexing: An approach to the retrieval of fic-tion. Information Services and use, 17(2/3), 101-109
Kipp, M. E., & Campbell, D. G. (2006). Patterns and inconsistencies in collaborative tagging practices: An examination of tagging practices. Paper presented at Proceedings of the An-nual General Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Austin, TX. Retrieved March 6, 2009, from http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00008315/
Kipp, M. E. (2006). Complementary or discrete contexts in online indexing: A comparison of user, creator, and intermediary keywords. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 30(3). Retrieved June 18, 2008, from http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1533/
Kipp, M. E. (2007). @Toread and cool: Tagging for time, task and emotion. In Proceedings 8th Information Architecture Summit, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. Retrieved March 6, 2009, from http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00010445/
Kome, S. H. (2005). Hierarchical subject relationships in folksonomies. Retrieved March 6, 2009, from http://etd.ils.unc.edu/dspace/handle/1901/238
Lancaster, F. W. (2003). Indexing and abstracting in theory and practice (3rd ed.). London:
Facet Publishing.
Lin, X., Beaudoin, J. E., Bui, Y., & Desai, K. (2006). Exploring characteristics of social clas-sification. Paper presented at 17th Annual SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop, Austin, TX.
Macgregor, G., & McCulloch, E. (2006). Collaborative tagging as a knowledge organisation and resource discovery tool. Library Review, 55(5), 291-300.
Marlow, C., Naaman, M., Boyd, D., & Davis, M. (2006). HT06, tagging paper, taxonomy, flickr, academic article, to read. In U. K. Wiil et al. (Eds), Proceedings of the 17th Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia (pp. 31-39). New York: ACM Press.
Mathes, A. (2004). Folksonomies - cooperative classification and communication through shared metadata. Retrieved October 18, 2007, from http://www.adammathes.com/aca-demic/computer-mediated-communication/folksonomies.html
http://joemls.tku.edu.tw Matthews, B., Jones, C., Puzoń, B., Moon, J., Tudhope, D., Golub, K., & Lykke Nielsen, M.
(2009). An evaluation of enhancing social tagging with a knowledge organization system.
Paper presented at ISKO UK Conference, London. Retrieved March 6, 2010, from http://
www.iskouk.org/conf2009/papers/matthews_ISKOUK2009.pdf
Mejias, U. (2005). Tag literacy. Retrieved December 7, 2008, from http://blog.ulisesmejias.
com/2005/04/26/tag-literacy/
Munk, T. B., & Mørk, K. (2007). Folksonomy, the power law & the significance of the least ef-fort. Knowledge Organization, 34(1), 16-33.
Munk, T., & Mørk, K. (2007). Folksonomies, tagging communities, and tagging strategies--An empirical study. Knowledge Organization, 34(3), 115-127.
Nasir Uddin, M., & Janecek, P. (2007). Faceted classification in web information architecture: A framework for using semantic web tools. The Electronic Library, 25(2), 219-233.
Olson, H. A., & Boll, J. J. (2001). Subject analysis in online catalogs. Englewood, Colo: Librar-ies Unlimited.
Peters, I., & Weller, K. (2008). Tag gardening for folksonomy enrichment and maintenance. We-bology, 5(3), Article 58. Available at: http://www.webology.ir/2008/v5n3/a58.html Peterson, E. (2006). Beneath the metadata: Some philosophical problems with folksonomy. D-Lib
Magazine, 12(10). Retrieved March 6, 2009, from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november06/
peterson/11peterson.html
Peterson, E. (2008). Parallel systems: The coexistence of subject cataloging and folksonomy.
Library Philosophy and Practice, 2008, 1-5. Retrieved March 6, 2009, from http://libr.
unl.edu:2000/LPP/e-peterson3.pdf
Quintarelli, E., Resmini, A., & Rosati L. (2007). FaceTag: Integrating bottom-up and top-down classification in a social tagging system. Paper presented at International IA Summit 2007, Las Vegas, Nevada, United States. Retrieved March 6, 2009, from http://www.fac-etag.org/download/facetag-20070325.pdf
Rafferty, P., & Hidderley, R. (2007). Flickr and democratic indexing: Dialogic approaches to indexing. Aslib Proceedings, 59(4/5), 397-410.
Saarti, J. (1999). Fiction indexing and the development of fiction thesauri. Journal of Librarian-ship and Information Science, 31(2), 85-92.
Saarti, J. (2002). Consistency of subject indexing of novels by public library professionals and patrons. Journal of Documentation, 58(1), 49-65.
Sauperl, A. (2004). Catalogers’ common ground and shared knowledge. Journal of the Ameri-can Society for Information Science and Technology, 55, 55-63.
Sen, S., Lam, S. K., Rashid, A. M., Cosley, D., Frankowski, D., Osterhouse, J., Harper, F. M.,
& Riedl, J. (2006). Tagging, communities, vocabulary, evolution. Paper presented at 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work 2006, Banff, Alberta, Canada. Retrieved March 6, 2009, from http://www.cs.cornell.edu/~danco/research/pa-pers/sen-cscw2006.pdf
Sinclair, J., & Cardew-Hall, M. (2008). The folksonomy tag cloud: When is it useful? Journal of Information Science, 34(1), 15-29.
http://joemls.tku.edu.tw Sinha, R. (2005). A cognitive analysis of tagging. Retrieved March 3, 2009, from
http://rash-misinha.com/2005/09/27/a-cognitive-analysis-of-tagging/
Smith, G. (2008). Tagging: Five emerging trends. Retrieved March 3, 2009, from http://www.
iasummit.org/proceedings/2008/tagging_five_emerging_trends
Smith, G. (2008). Tagging: People-powered metadata for the social web. Berkeley, CA: New Riders Press.
Soergel, D. (1994). Indexing and retrieval performance: The logical evidence. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(8), 589-599.
Song, Y., Zhuang, Z., Li, H., Zhao, Q., Li, J., Lee, W. C., & Giles, C.L. (2008). Real-time auto-matic tag recommendation. Paper presented at the 31st Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference, Singapore.
Spiteri, L. F. (2007). Structure and form of folksonomy tags: The road to the public library catalogue. Webology, 4(2). Retrieved June 18, 2008, from http://www.webology.ir/2007/
v4n2/a41.html
Tennis, J. (2006). Social tagging and the next steps for indexing. Paper presented at the 17th Annual SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop, Austin, TX.
Tonkin, E., Corrado, E. M., Moulaison, H. L., Kipp, M. E., Resmini, A., Pfeiffer, H. D., &
Zhang, Q. (2008). Collaborative and social tagging networks. ARIADNE, 54. Retrieved March 6, 2009, from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue54/tonkin-et-al/
Travis, W. (2006). The strict faceted classification model. Retrieved December 1, 2008, from http://facetmap.com/pub/strict_faceted_classification.pdf
Van Dijck, P. (2006). Tags and facets, tags and languages: A case study. Retrieved March 11, 2009, from http://www.iasummit.org/2006/files/15_Presentation_Desc.ppt
Vander Wal, T. (2007). Folksonomy coinage and definition. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from http://vanderwal.net/folksonomy.html
Voß, J. (2007). Tagging, folksonomy & co - renaissance of manual indexing? Retrieved Decem-ber 19, 2007, from http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0701072v2
Weaver, M. (2007). Contextual metadata: Faceted schemas in virtual library communities. Li-brary Hi Tech, 25(4), 579-594.
Weinberger, D. (2005). Tagging and why it matters. Retrieved November 7, 2007, from http://
cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/uploads/507/07-WhyTaggingMatters
Wolfram, D., & Zhang , J. (2002). An investigation of the influence of indexing exhaustivity and term distributions on a document space. Journal of the American Society for Informa-tion Science and Technology, 53(11), 943-952.
Xu, Z., Fu, Y., Mao, J., & Su, D. (2006). Towards the semantic web: Collaborative tag sugges-tions. Paper presented at the Collaborative Web Tagging Workshop at WWW2006, Edin-burgh, Scotland, United Kingdom. Retrieved March 6, 2009, from http://www.semantic-metadata.net/hosted/taggingws-www2006-files/13.pdf