Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Thinking patterns of users during content tagging in social media sites
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Thinking patterns of users during content tagging in social media sites

332

Published on

Presentation about a pilot study done as a part of qualitative research studies

Presentation about a pilot study done as a part of qualitative research studies

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
332
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Thinking Patterns of Users during Content Tagging in Social Media Sites Pilot Study Place logo or logotype here, otherwise delete this.Aravind Sesagiri Raamkumar
  • 2. Non-Textual TaggingAgendaResearch objectivesSignificance of the research Textual TaggingProposed methodologyFieldworkInitial findings
  • 3. Research Objectives Explore key themes that characterize the thought process of users duringcontent tagging in social media sites To use qualitative research methods to validate the key findings ofquantitative & other research studies on tagging behavior:- Tagging motivations vary across different tagging systems  Majority of users tend to be categorizers than describers  Tagging system enhancements (ex: Tag Recommenders) have a significant impact on user’s tagging behavior (Strohmaier, 2009) Categorizer or Describer? Public use or Personal use? Consistent or Inconsistent? Formal vs. Informal?
  • 4. a small but important note… Tagging in FB with person and place names is not free-text tagging!
  • 5. Significance of the ResearchSupposedly, first of its kind in qualitative research studiesFinding out new themes hitherto unattained by other research methodologiesUnderstanding the literacy level of users on the topic of content tagging So as to emphasize the need for educationProviding an entry point for ontology extraction from folksonomies
  • 6. Methodology • Researcher motivations – related to core research areas Build-up (Folksonomy and Ontologies) to topic • Brief idea of a potential topic selection • Survey of literature within discipline Literature • In this case, it was outside the discipline Review • Arriving at the research objectives of the topic in hand Framing the topic Participant • Validating the applicability of different research approaches observation Approach • Selection of the appropriate approach - Mixed methods selection • Selecting sampling method - Convenience! Sampling • Questions for the interview based on research objectives Tagging Interview and • Selection of content for tagging exercise Exercise Questions For tagging exercise, certain resources (content) selected on the potential of evoking multiple interpretations • Images and web pages used for the exercise can be got from this link
  • 7. Fieldwork Two pilot interviews within this pilot study • To evaluate the appropriateness of interview questions • To evaluate the effectiveness of the tagging exercise • To determine the flow of activities Initial set of Tagging 2nd set of Analyzing user Last set of questions exercise questions assigned tags questions Interviews and tagging exercise conducted in natural settings Semi-structured Interviews conducted in native language Transcription process and analysis • Major issues and categories (themes) identified from each transcription immediately after each interview – concurrent interviewing and analysis
  • 8. Initial Findings Main Themes Users have a natural desire to describe non-textual content rather than textual content -> Hence can’t say users tend to be categorizers than describers in general, but… Users’ tagging behavior consciously changes based on content type and not based on the system -> Tagging behavior change across systems is an implication! Users natural flow of thought is affected by tag enhancement features -> Perhaps, slight UI changes needed Users’ (lack of ) understanding of the entire tagging lifecycle is clearly seen in their perception of the whole process -> Most users (at least Asians) are in need of education Users think to add tags mainly for public usage and not for personal usage -> Goes with the expectations of tagging as an activityAverage of three to four tags added per resource - As Tagging as an activity doesn’t seem to demand persuasion! per NORM
  • 9. Issues & NotesUnsaturated potential themes Users’ tagging behavior is (in)dependant [of/on] personal life experiences Users’ tagging behavior changes from casual to formal in professional environmentsIssues Observation is an inappropriate method for this topic Tagging is an activity that normally demands very less attention from users in real word settings =>High probability of showcasing idealistic behavior during tagging exercise Lack of a representative sample Volume of content (ex: images) tagged, determines the validity of theme 1 High Categorization behavior Retort to theme 2 => Low High Volume of images uploaded
  • 10. Future WorkA case study approach concentrating on a group of users (perhaps pilot users for a newtagging based system) could be employed during the Requirements phaseContent analysis and questionnaires are the appropriate methods for analyzing largesamples (n=1000+) along with a few personal interviews – TriangulationNon-English social media sites could be brought into the purview
  • 11. Thank You Q&A

×