2 thoughts on “Tags”

  1. Lorcan,

    These findings are in line with a number of other studies about the utility of folksonomy, including those of Margaret Kipp. She looked at user tags and professionally created metadata, and found classes of tags — such as those that referred to methodology — that weren’t in librarian-created metadata. These were distinct from the tags about managing one’s own method, such as @toread. In the steve.museum project, we’re also finding real differences between curator-supplied descriptions of works of art and the tags that users supply.


    Two of Margaret’s articles:

    Kipp, M. E. (2007). Tagging Practices on Research Oriented Social Bookmarking Sites. Canadian Association for Information Science, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Retrieved January 31, 2008 from http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/2027/01/kipp%5F2007.pdf.

    Kipp, M. E. (2006). Complementary or Discrete Contexts in Online Indexing: A Comparison of User, Creator and Intermediary Keywords. Canadian Association for Information Science, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Retrieved January 31, 2008 from http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1533/01/mkipp-caispaper.pdf.

  2. The authors find that “tags occur in over 50 percent of the pages that they annotate, and in only 20 percent of cases do they not occur in the page text, backlink page text, or forward link page text of the pages they annotate.”
    Only 20%? Given that back link and forward link pages have been considered to account for granularity shift (e.g. food-fruit-bananas), I would have thought that 20% is actually pretty high, suggesting that tagging is a subjective process open to idiosyncrasies.

Comments are closed.