UKOLN is supported by:

1
EnTag Enhancing Social Tagging for
Discovery K. Golub, C. Jones, B. Matthews, J.
Moon, M. L. Nielsen, B. Puzon, D. Tudhope JCDL
2009, Austin, Texas
UKOLN is supported by
2
classification system knowledge.organi
zation.system thesaurus descriptors c
lasses controlled vocabularies subjectindexin
g
folksonomy folksonomies social_tagging s
ocial tagging tagging tags keywords
information retrieval searching finding
informationretrieval
3
EnTag project

• UK JISC
• One year
• Six institutional partners

http//www.ukoln.ac.uk/projects/enhanced-tagging/

4
Objectives

• Social tagging only
• versus
• Social tagging combined with controlled
  vocabulary
• Indexing aspects
• Influence on retrieval
• Two studies
• Major Intute subject gateway

5
Intute http//www.intute.ac.uk
6
Intute metadata
7
Approach
8
Demonstrator

• 11,042 stripped records
• Politics
• Interfaces
• Searching
• Simple free tagging
• Enhanced DDC / LCSH / Relative Index

9
Intute demonstrator searching
Searching
10
Intute demonstrator Enhanced
Tagging interfaces
11
Enhanced interface
12
User study 1

• Research questions
• Choice of tag
• Retrieval implications
• Participants
• 28 UK politics students
• Little tagging experience

13
User study 2

• Data collection
• Logging
• Three questionnaires
• Four tagging tasks
• Two controlled, two free
• Tag 15 documents in each task

14
User study 3

• Hypothetical group project scenario
• Instructions
• 5 to 10 min per document
• Open document but focus
• Try consider enhanced suggestions where
  appropriate

Imagine that as part of one of your courses, you
are asked to write a four-page essay on the topic
of European integration, as a joint project in
groups of four. The essay should critically
discuss existing theories about the creation of
the European Union and its institutions. Your
lecturer has instructed you to look for resources
in the EnTag system. Since you will be working
together with three other students, you should
tag the documents you retrieve with tags that
would be useful to you but would also enable
other students to find those documents in EnTag
and understand from your tags what the documents
are about.
15
Results
16
Number of tags

• 7,568 tags in total
• 278 tags per person
• 94 751 documents tagged (controlled free
  task)
• More in simple interface
• More in free task

17
Tag selection

• Simple interface
• 91 freely assigned
• Enhanced interface
• 71 freely assigned
• 17 controlled tags
• Other features (both interfaces)
• 8 other taggers tags
• 2 main tag cloud
• lt 1 own tag

18
Browsing for tags

• Simple interface
• 73 others tags
• 17 main tag cloud
• 10 own tag
• Enhanced interface
• 74 controlled vocabulary
• 18 others tags

19
Retrieval implications

• Versus metadata records
• All tags new access points for 36 documents
• Controlled tags new access points for 69
  documents
• Search terms
• More in tags than in (un)controlled keywords (2x
  / 3x)

20
Post-questionnaires 1

• Post-task
• Familiar / easy / satisfied / certain
• Useful own tags, DDC disambiguation pane, DDC
  suggestions
• Not useful main tag cloud, others names,
  hierarchical DDC pane

21
Post-questionnaires 2

• Post-study
• Easy to learn and useful in real life
• Simple
• Simplicity, speed, freedom of choice
• ? No suggestions
• Enhanced
• Suggestions
• ? Inappropriate suggestions, cluttered interface,
  number of steps

22
Conclusions

• Controlled vocabulary suggestions valued if
  appropriate
• More access points potential
• Value of consistency for IR

23
Further research

• Qualitative analysis
• Enhancements
• Controlled vocabulary
• Auto suggestions
• Interface
• Motivation for tagging