An empirical examination of the sustainability of social bookmarking websites

Original Article

Abstract

Given the continuous growth of social bookmarking sites, we investigated the reasons behind their sustainability as online social structures. Bookmarking sites offer users the option to post and tag web resources privately or to make them publicly available to other users of the sites. A prevalence of private tagging would threaten the sustainability of the social aspects at these sites. Using activity data from a sample of 1,000 users of Simpy, a popular social bookmarking site, we found that the majority of users contribute most of their tagged resources to the public repository, despite the option to keep them private. We also found that in social bookmarking sites there is a minority of extremely prolific contributors who are responsible for a large portion of public tagged resources. Finally, we found that new users make larger proportions of their contributions public than existing users and that there is a larger number of regular contributors to the site than irregular ones. All of these findings are consistent with the mechanisms predicted by a theoretical model of sustainable online social structures.

Keywords

Social bookmarking Social exchange Web 2.0 Public repositories 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research described in this paper was supported in part by a PSC-CUNY grant # 68634-00-37. An earlier version of this study was presented at the Social Computing Applications Session of the 6th Workshop on eBusiness (Web 2007), 9 December 2007 in Montreal, Canada.

References

  1. Adamic LA, Huberman BA (2000) The nature of markets in the World Wide Web. Q J Electron Commerce 1(1):5–12Google Scholar
  2. Auchard E (2007) Participation on Web 2.0 sites remain weak. Reuters, 17 April 2007. http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSN1743638820070418
  3. Benbunan-Fich R, Koufaris M (2008) Motivations and contribution behavior in social bookmarking systems: an empirical investigation. Electron Mark 18(2):150–160. doi:10.1080/10196780802044933 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blau PM (1964) Exchange and power in social life. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Butler BS (2001) Membership size, communication activity and sustainability: a resource-based model of online social structures. Inf Syst Res 12(4):346–362Google Scholar
  6. Constant D, Keisler S, Sproull L (1994) What’s mine is ours, or is it? A study of attitudes about information sharing. Inf Syst Res 5(4):400–421Google Scholar
  7. Fulk J, Heino R, Flanagin A, Monge PR, Bar F (2004) A test of the individual action model for organizational information commons. Organ Sci 15(5):569–585Google Scholar
  8. Golder SA, Huberman BA (2006) Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems. J Inf Sci 32(2):198–208Google Scholar
  9. Green H, Hof RD (2005) Picking up where search leaves off. Business Week, 11 April 2005. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_15/b3928112_mz063.htm
  10. Hammond T, Hanny T, Lund B, Scott J (2005) Social bookmarking tools (I): a general review. D-Lib Mag 11(4). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/april05/hammond/04hammond.html
  11. Jarvenpaa SL, Staples DS (2000) The use of collaborative electronic media for information sharing: an exploratory study of determinants. J Strategic Inf Syst 9(2–3):129–154Google Scholar
  12. Jones Q, Ravid G, Rafaeli S (2004) Information overload and the message dynamics of online interaction spaces. Inf Syst Res 15(2):194–210Google Scholar
  13. Kalman YM, Ravid G, Raban DR, Rafaeli S (2006) Pauses and response latencies: a chronemic analysis of asynchronous CMC. J Comput Mediated Commun 12(1) article 1. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue1/kalman.html
  14. Kollock P (1999) The economies of online cooperation: gifts and public goods in cyberspace. In: Smith MA, Kollock P (eds) Communities in cyberspace. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Marlow C, Naaman M, Boyd D, Davis M (2006) HT06, Tagging Paper, Taxonomy, Flickr, Academic Article, ToRead. Proc Hypertext 06:31–40Google Scholar
  16. Mathes A (2004) Folksonomies—cooperative classification and communication through shared metadata. http://www.adammathes.com/academic/computer-mediated-communication/folksonomies.html
  17. Oliver P, Marwell G, Teixeira R (1985) A theory of critical mass: Interdependence, group heterogeneity and the production of collective action. Am J Sociol 91:522–556Google Scholar
  18. Peddibohtla NB, Subramani MR (2007) Contributing to public document repositories: a critical mass theory perspective. Organ Stud 28(3):327–346Google Scholar
  19. Raban DR, Rafaeli S (2007) Investigating ownership and the willingness to share information online. Comput Human Behav 23:2367–2382. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2006.03.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Riddle P (2005) Tags: What are they good for? Working paper. University of Texas, Austin. http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~i385q/archive/riddle_p/riddle-2005-tags.pdf
  21. Ridings CM, Gefen D (2004) Virtual community attraction: Why people hang out online. J Comput Mediated Commun 10(1). http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue1/ridings_gefen.html
  22. Time (2006) Person of the year: You. Time 168(2):40–41Google Scholar
  23. Wasko MM, Faraj S (2005) Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Q 29(1):35–57Google Scholar
  24. Weinberger D (2007) Everything is miscellaneous: the power of the new digital disorder. Henry Holt and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Statistics and Computer Information Systems, Baruch CollegeCity University of New YorkNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations