• Save
Presentation at School of Information and Library Science, UNC, USA
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Presentation at School of Information and Library Science, UNC, USA

on

  • 1,192 views

Presentation of the PhD-project: Folksonomies: When the users are the information Architects in connection with a visit to SILS, UNC, North Carolina.

Presentation of the PhD-project: Folksonomies: When the users are the information Architects in connection with a visit to SILS, UNC, North Carolina.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,192
Views on SlideShare
1,191
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.slideshare.net 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Findings: Use of information Use of Delicious – Social navigation Connectivity
  • Users employ folksonomies for a number of reasons - Folksonomies gives an unique insight in the users information behavior
  • Brugernes omfavnelse af folksonomier Hvordan udvikler folksonomier sig – flere og flere tags – flere og flere brugere Typisk anvendelse af en folksonomi? Underliggende antagelse at: Brugernes tags betyder noget! Brugerne vil interagerer med hinanden – noget udover det personlige
  • 1: To what extent does social navigation express itself in users’ information seeking behavior in folksonomies? How are tags, indexed information objects or user profiles utilized in social navigation and information seeking behavior in folksonomies? How is the facility for social navigation affecting user’s information seeking in folksonomies?
  • Chain referral technique recruitment of participants by phone Entry point: pilot 2 Referred 3 To the 5 level
  • Participants seem to use of lot of the information discovered in Delicious as arguments in the work e.g. Pilot 2: Seeks arguments not to do ‘brugerråd’ (user councils) other participants notice “this will be nice to as a demonstration of …” or “ I can use this to explain a colleague what she can use Twitter to” Follows the peers in the network: interest, projects A participant finds it interesting that a colleague from another organization has indexed a company specialized in Facebook apps. When they don’t have one, and participant wants to make a common facebook campaign (scouts). Interesting to now, new technologies and services
  • About recommended tags: Easy quick, “just click them, they don’t hurt’ “ I can give it some search terms which are my own and I get some recommended to me. This way I can make a system, without thinking about making the system first.” Participant14 Delicious is just one setting (Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, IM, Skype, Phone, Text messaging and E-mail) Google=Spam, Delicious people behind Stream of information – collective and topical ‘ Hooked up to the stream’ ‘ log on to the stream’ ‘ tjeck the stream’ Most get the Delicious network stream (or single users) directly in their RSS reader
  • For Participant 14 information seeking and use of Delicious is the same Participant 14 notices that massive information in the same field, but haven’t got the enough time now for information seeking. [Analyze the master thesis tag] behavior mostly acoured in connection with master thesis. Two sets of participants noted that they used Delicious as a collective memory (used a tag for the common project as well as send bookmarks to each other in Delicious). These four participants still work A lot of the Participants started using Delicious 2005, and just to handle their own bookmarks. Multiple computer problem, the social aspect came later - some participants said through blogging.
  • Education: Master thesis work pairs Particpant 5 mentions that one in her network, doesn’t really know so much about the subject in question

Presentation at School of Information and Library Science, UNC, USA Presentation Transcript

  • 1. User to User: Browsing for information through other users profiles Presentation at SILS PhD student Charles Seger, RSLIS
  • 2. Charles Seger, PhD-student
    • Royal School of Library and Information Science
    • Research program: Information interaction and information architecture
    • Project title:
    • Folksonomies: when the user is the information architect.
    • Main supervisor: Associate Professor Pia Borlund
    • Project supervisor: Associate Professor Jesper Wiborg Schneider
  • 3. Agenda
    • Background and motivation
      • Demonstration: Delicious.com
    • Social navigation
    • Aim for the project
    • Research questions
    • Methods
    • Findings
  • 4. Definition: Folksonomies
    • A folksonomy is the collection of user generated subject headings (tags) applied by the end-users which describes information objects.
  • 5. Background and motivation
    • The users employment of folksonomies are personal as well as collective
    • (Golder & Huberman, 2006)
    • The users navigates folksonomies by browsing other users profiles
    • (Millen, Feinberg, & Kerr, 2005)
    • Studies show that engineers interact socially to get information rather than search a database
    • (Hertzum & Pejtersen, 2000)
  • 6. Delicious.com
    • A folksonomy where the users can save and tag Internet bookmarks, as well as see other users bookmarks and tags
    • (Delicious, 2009)
  • 7.  
  • 8. Tags Network
  • 9. Network
  • 10. Popular tags User: Charles User: kaeru
  • 11.  
  • 12.  
  • 13.  
  • 14. Social navigation
    • Users’ exploration of information spaces using other users’ actions
      • Path in a forest
      • Dogears in used books
      • Recommender systems
      • Most lended books in the library
      • (See: Dieberger, Dourish, Höök, Resnick, & Wexelblat, 2000).
  • 15.  
  • 16. Aim for the project
    • Better understanding of the social potential of folksonomies
    • Identify use patterns in folksonomies
    • Investigate to what extent social navigation takes place in a folksonomy
  • 17. Research Questions
    • How do users employ social navigation in folksonomies?
    • How does users’ experience connectivity with other users in folksonomies?
  • 18. Methods
    • Multiple case study of a interlinked group of expert users of a folksonomy (delicious.com)
      • Logged search sessions
      • Post search interview
      • Social network analysis
  • 19. Multiple case study I
    • 15 participants recruited by chain referral
    • Search sessions:
      • 3 simulated work task sitiuations
        • Vacation planning
        • Vegetarian
        • Delicious
      • (see: Borlund, 2000; 2003)
      • + 1 own search task
  • 20. Multiple case study II
    • Post search interview
      • Semi structured – conversation style
    • Search log analysis
    • Social network analysis
  • 21. Use of information
    • News stream
      • Demonstration of services
      • New technologies
    • Information as argument
    • Follows the peers in the network:
      • Interest
      • Projects
    • Business intelligence (light)
  • 22. Delicious as an information system
    • “ For me it is more than a collection of bookmarks, it’s a stream of recommendations”
    • (P2)
    • Delicious is just one information setting for sharing
    • Recommended tags
    • Google vs. Delicious
  • 23. Use of Delicious – Social navigation
    • Own bookmarks
      • Networks bookmarks
        • Delicious bookmarks
    • Delicious as a collective memory
    • Users as filter against information
    • Users as each others editors
  • 24. Connectivity
    • “ social bookmarking is for helping ones network, If I bookmark this one, it would be because one in my network is going on a trip - then it would be of some good for others.”
    • (P4 about a travellink)
    • Education – intensive use of Delicious
    • The Delicious network stream
      • Stream of pertinent information
    • Rely on their network for information
  • 25. Findings – in short
    • The participants rely heavily on their network for information discovery
    • The interactions of the participants are on multiple platforms
    • More social than anticipated
  • 26. Thanks for listening
    • Comments and Questions
    • The background of the study
    • Methodology
    • Findings
  • 27. References
    • Borlund, P. (2000). Experimental components for the evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems. Journal of Documentation, 56(1) , 71-90.
    • Borlund, P. (2003). The IIR evaluation model: a framework for evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems. Information Research -an International Electronic Journal, 8(3).
    • Delicious (2009). Delicious , 2009, from http://delicious.com/
    • Golder, S. A., & Huberman, B. A. (2006). Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems. Journal of Information Science, 32(2) , 198-208.
    • Hertzum, M., & Pejtersen, A. M. (2000). The information-seeking practices of engineers: searching for documents as well as for people. Information Processing & Management, 36(5) , 761-778.
    • Millen, D., Feinberg, J., & Kerr, B. (2005). Social bookmarking in the enterprise. Queue, 3 (9), 28-35.
  • 28. Historic perspective on my research
    • Democratic indexing, Author generated keywords and image indexing
    • Bibliometric studies
    • User perspective
  • 29. (Bates, 1989)