ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
The complex dynamics of collaborative tagging
Full text PdfPdf (369 KB)
Source
International World Wide Web Conference archive
Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web table of contents
Banff, Alberta, Canada
SESSION: E-communities table of contents
Pages: 211 - 220  
Year of Publication: 2007
ISBN:978-1-59593-654-7
Authors
Harry Halpin  University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Valentin Robu  CWI: National Center for Mathematics and Computer Science, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Hana Shepherd  Princeton University, Princeton, NJ
Sponsor
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 46,   Downloads (12 Months): 382,   Citation Count: 35
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1242572.1242602
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

The debate within the Web community over the optimal means by which to organize information often pits formalized classifications against distributed collaborative tagging systems. A number of questions remain unanswered, however, regarding the nature of collaborative tagging systems including whether coherent categorization schemes can emerge from unsupervised tagging by users. This paper uses data from the social bookmarking site delicio. us to examine the dynamics of collaborative tagging systems. In particular, we examine whether the distribution of the frequency of use of tags for "popular" sites with a long history (many tags and many users) can be described by a power law distribution, often characteristic of what are considered complex systems. We produce a generative model of collaborative tagging in order to understand the basic dynamics behind tagging, including how a power law distribution of tags could arise. We empirically examine the tagging history of sites in order to determine how this distribution arises over time and to determine the patterns prior to a stable distribution. Lastly, by focusing on the high-frequency tags of a site where the distribution of tags is a stabilized power law, we show how tag co-occurrence networks for a sample domain of tags can be used to analyze the meaning of particular tags given their relationship to other tags.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
V. Batagelj and A. Mrvar. Pajek -- A program for large network analysis. Connections, 21:47--57, 1998.
 
2
B. Bollobas. Random Graphs. Academic Press, London, England, 1985.
 
3
D. Brickley and R. Guha. RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema, W3C Recomendation, 2004. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema.
 
4
S. Butterfield. Folksonomy, 2004. http://www.sylloge.com/personal/2004/08/folksonomy-social-classification-great.html.
 
5
R. F. Cancho and R. V. Sole. The small world of human language. Proc. Roy. Soc. London, B 268:2261--2266, 2001.
 
6
R. F. Cancho and R. V. Sole. Least effort and the origins of scaling in human language. Procs. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 100:788--791, 2003.
 
7
P. Diaconis, M. McGrath, and J. Pitman. Riffle shuffles, cycles and descents. Combinatorica, 15:11--29, 1995.
 
8
S. Golder and B. Huberman. The structure of collaborative tagging systems, 2006. HP Labs Technical Report http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/idl/papers/tags/.
 
9
E. Jacob. Classification and categorization: A difference that makes a difference. Library Trends, 52(3):515--540, 2004.
 
10
C. Marlow, M. Naaman, D. Boyd, and M. Davis. Position paper, tagging, taxonomy, flickr, article, to read. In Collaborative Web Tagging Workshop at WWW'06, Edinburgh, UK, 2006.
 
11
A. Mathes. Folksonomies: Cooperative classification and communication through shared metadata, 2004. http://www.adammathes.com/academic/computer-mediated-communication/folksonomies.html.
 
12
P. Mika. Ontologies are us: A unified model of social networks and semantics. In Proc. of the 4th Int. Semantic Web Conference (ISWC'05). Springer LNCS vol. 3729, 2005.
 
13
M. Newman. Power laws, pareto distributions and zipf's law. Contemporary Physics, 46:323--351, 2005.
 
14
V. Robu and JAL. Poutré. Retrieving utility graphs used in multi-item negotiation through collaborative filtering. In Proc. of RRS'06, Hakodate, Japan, 2006.
 
15
K. Shen and L. Wu. Folksonomy as a complex network, 2005. http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.IR/0509072.
 
16
C. Shirky. Ontology is over-rated, 2005. http://www.shirky.com/writings/ontology-overrated.html.
 
17
RV. Sole. Syntax for free? Nature, 434:289, 2005.
 
18
D. Watts and S. Strogatz. Collective dynamics of 'small-world' networks. Nature, 393(6684):440--442, 1998.
 
19
G. Zipf. Human Behaviour and the Principle of Least Effort. Addison-Wesley, Cambridge, Massachusets, 1949.

CITED BY  37

Collaborative Colleagues:
Harry Halpin: colleagues
Valentin Robu: colleagues
Hana Shepherd: colleagues