What could possibly motivate people to voluntarily tag content on a day-to-day basis? This was a question that I had continually asked myself at the beginning of semester. In this post I’m going to share my insights and handy articles that I have found on my quest for answers.
Needless to say, as user participation is entirely voluntary, user motivation has been identified as a key factor in the mechanisms contributing to the success of tagging systems. However, as mentioned in a study conducted by Korner et al., we still know very little about the ‘underlying user motivations for tagging, and how they influence resulting folksonomies and tags’ (Korner et al. 2010).
Many of the articles that I was able to source online suggest that tagging motivation is a rather complex construct. The consensus in several of these articles is that the distinction between users as either ‘categorizers’ or ‘describers’ is one that is effective. Apart from this, Korner et al. notes that the ‘reasons why users tag- and ways to measure it- have remained largely elusive’ (Korner et al. 2010).
Who are ‘categorizers’? Why do they matter?
- They want to construct and maintain a navigational aid to the resources being tagged. Let’s say for instance if I wanted to make sure that I could navigate my way back to a set of resources, I would use a limited, stable set of terms (eg. ‘Sophie’s family photos’ or ‘favorite sites’).
- Tags assigned are very similar to the mental model of users.
- Tags can act as effective facilitators for navigation and browsing.
- A categorizer will probably reject tags that are from the online community because they are solely interested in maintaining and developing their own taxonomy.
- This process is subjective.
Who are ‘describers’? Why do they matter?
- Describers engage in tagging because they want to accurately and precisely describe the resources being tagged. This involves the describer wanting to create an open set of tags consisting of an unlimited set of terms.
- A descriptor aims to identify tags that match the source the best.
- These tags are suitable facilitators for description and searching.
- A describer is a useful addition to any social bookmarking system, as they focus on the content of their own and other people’s resources.
- This process is objective.
I would like to point out to everyone that it is a combination of both these categorizers and describers that contribute to folksonomies. We should also recognize that of course not every user of a social bookmarking site is either one or the other. I assume that it is common that there are people at all ends of the spectrum, from people that both categorize and describe right up until those people that are extreme describers/ categorizers.
This image is an example of an extreme-categorizer.
This is an example of an extreme describer.
This image is an example of an extreme-categorizer.
This is an example of an extreme describer.
It is interesting that many bloggers have reported finding themselves in a ‘mess’ and have actually indentified this as a result of inconsistencies in their tagging practice. If you’re interested Jason Falls has put together a number of practical tips for tagging your content as well as some ‘Delicious tricks’.
Virtual Communities
This blog is a great example of a virtual community. Similarly to traditional communities, virtual communities requires a vehicle for participation. Blogger is the vehicle which is allowing us to exchange electronic information. Unlike most social bookmarking sites which encompass a wide range of contribution motivations, blog sites consist of a small range of contribution motivations. For instance, I enjoy expressing myself through this blog and the possibility that one day somebody out there will find my information of some use. I have no doubts in saying that all bloggers highly value collaboration. Without such a wide blogging sphere in which bloggers can interact, share and react to each others comments, I am sure that the quality of blogs out there would be considerably lower.
I would like to take a moment to consider an issue that I believe to be of key concern. Recent studies have revealed that an inordinately large number of knowledge base users seek information rather than contribute information. It seems to me that a community cannot be formed on the practice whereby the "takers" far outweigh the "givers". In a study conducted by Tisselli (2010), he also states that this phenomenon should at least be acknowledged.
I would really appreciate your comments on this particular issue. Do you believe that if such motivational factors allow a community to be sustainable then this issue should not be of concern?
Strategic Tagging
In 2007 a huge wave of outrage crashed through Flickr. The result has provided a unique opportunity for scholars to analyze the semiotic dynamics of a particular word within Flickr and social bookmarking sites alike. Tisselli jumped on the opportunity to see just what this means for our perceptions of communities online. Tisselli's article was a very easy read and one that I would recommend for people wanting to gain an insight to the uses of tags and of course, the sense of a virtual community.
They say that at times of crisis, communities come together. Does this apply to virtual communities?
On June 12 2007 Flickr announced that they would be censoring content marked by Flickr users as "inappropriate" or "unsafe"in Singapore, Hong Kong, Germany and Korea. This announcement was met with a massive uproar from the Flickr community, who predominantly channeled their discontent into their tags. The tag 'thinkflickrthink' was quickly taken up by Flickr users. On June 20 this activity peaked with 1854 photos tagged by 60 users on a single day.
Interestingly, most of the anti-censorship tags were added to images originating from images that had already been uploaded! What is even more interesting and more relevant to this post is that the high speed at which a strongly connected network of users was speculated to have been influenced by the topological feature of the network.
As a reaction against studies of tagging motivation which have focused on one type of virtual community, Moore & Serva (2007) argue that a users motivation differs across different types of virtual communities.
The mindmap that I created on Mindomo below (also another handy site...with tagging!) details the fourteen motivational categories and their correlating expressions that Moore & Serva (2007) have collaborated from previous studies. These motivational categories are comprehensive and I suggest they would be a great guide for anybody that is undertaking research in this area. The link to the article can be found here.
Virtual Communities
This blog is a great example of a virtual community. Similarly to traditional communities, virtual communities requires a vehicle for participation. Blogger is the vehicle which is allowing us to exchange electronic information. Unlike most social bookmarking sites which encompass a wide range of contribution motivations, blog sites consist of a small range of contribution motivations. For instance, I enjoy expressing myself through this blog and the possibility that one day somebody out there will find my information of some use. I have no doubts in saying that all bloggers highly value collaboration. Without such a wide blogging sphere in which bloggers can interact, share and react to each others comments, I am sure that the quality of blogs out there would be considerably lower.
I would like to take a moment to consider an issue that I believe to be of key concern. Recent studies have revealed that an inordinately large number of knowledge base users seek information rather than contribute information. It seems to me that a community cannot be formed on the practice whereby the "takers" far outweigh the "givers". In a study conducted by Tisselli (2010), he also states that this phenomenon should at least be acknowledged.
I would really appreciate your comments on this particular issue. Do you believe that if such motivational factors allow a community to be sustainable then this issue should not be of concern?
Strategic Tagging
In 2007 a huge wave of outrage crashed through Flickr. The result has provided a unique opportunity for scholars to analyze the semiotic dynamics of a particular word within Flickr and social bookmarking sites alike. Tisselli jumped on the opportunity to see just what this means for our perceptions of communities online. Tisselli's article was a very easy read and one that I would recommend for people wanting to gain an insight to the uses of tags and of course, the sense of a virtual community.
They say that at times of crisis, communities come together. Does this apply to virtual communities?
On June 12 2007 Flickr announced that they would be censoring content marked by Flickr users as "inappropriate" or "unsafe"in Singapore, Hong Kong, Germany and Korea. This announcement was met with a massive uproar from the Flickr community, who predominantly channeled their discontent into their tags. The tag 'thinkflickrthink' was quickly taken up by Flickr users. On June 20 this activity peaked with 1854 photos tagged by 60 users on a single day.
Interestingly, most of the anti-censorship tags were added to images originating from images that had already been uploaded! What is even more interesting and more relevant to this post is that the high speed at which a strongly connected network of users was speculated to have been influenced by the topological feature of the network.
As a reaction against studies of tagging motivation which have focused on one type of virtual community, Moore & Serva (2007) argue that a users motivation differs across different types of virtual communities.
The mindmap that I created on Mindomo below (also another handy site...with tagging!) details the fourteen motivational categories and their correlating expressions that Moore & Serva (2007) have collaborated from previous studies. These motivational categories are comprehensive and I suggest they would be a great guide for anybody that is undertaking research in this area. The link to the article can be found here.
References:
No comments:
Post a Comment