Advertisement

Web 2.0: Tagging Usefulness

  • Joaquim Filipe P. Santos
  • Ana Almeida
Conference paper
Part of the Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering book series (ISCA, volume 61)

Abstract

User tagging in social networks has emerged in the recent years like a very promising way of new knowledge extraction. Our work focus is to understand tags importance and the correlation between them and user emotions. Understanding the meaning of certain tags for a single and unique user will allow the creation of better profiles almost without asking anything directly to users. This knowledge generation will allow the creation of a Social Recommender System for Tourism only based in the knowledge previous referred.

Keywords

Social networks Tags Tourism Emotions Recommendation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by FEDER Funds through the “Programa Operacional Factores de Competitividade – COMPETE” program and by National Funds through FCT “Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia” under the project: FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-PEst-OE/EEI/UI0760/2011

References

  1. 1.
    Ostrow A (2009) Twitter’s massive 2008: 752 percent growth. Mashable – the social media guide. http://mashable.com/2009/01/09/twitter-growth-2008/
  2. 2.
    Shreeharsh K, Ajita J, Doree Duncan S (2007) An activity-based perspective of collaborative tagging. In: Proceedings of the international conference on weblogs and social media (ICWSM), Boulder, 26–28 Mar 2007Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Otis Gospodnetic (2005) Web 2.0 quick study: tag use patterns. BlogGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kipp MEI (2006) Exploring the context of user, creator and intermediary tagging. In: Proceedings of the Information Architecture Summit. VancouverGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Golder S, Huberman BA (2006) Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems. J Info Sci 32(2):198–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Marlow C, Naaman M, Boyd D, Davis M (2006) Tagging paper, taxonomy, Flickr, academic article, to read. In: Proceedings of the seventeenth conference on hypertext and hypermedia, Odense, 22–25 August 2006Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Spalding T (2007) When tags work and when they don’t: amazon and library thing. Thingology blogGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mejias U (2005) Tag literacy. Ulises mejias’s Blog. http://blog.ulisesmejias.com/2005/04/26/tag-literacy/
  9. 9.
    Shilad S, Lam SK, Al Mamunur R, Cosley D, Frankowski D, Osterhouse J, Maxwell Harper F, Riedl J (2006) Tagging, communities, vocabulary, evolution. In: Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on computer supported cooperative work (CSCW ‘06). ACM, New York, pp 181–190Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Trant J (2009) Studying social tagging and folksonomy: a review and framework. J Digit Info 10:1 [Online]Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rashmi (2005) A cognitive analysis of tagging, Rashmi’s blog. http://rashmisinha.com/2005/09/27/a-cognitive-analysis-of-tagging/
  12. 12.
    Zollers A (2007) Emerging motivations for tagging: expression, performance and activism. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on world wide web 2007. Banff, AlbertaGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Morrison PJ (2007) Why are they tagging, and why do we want them to? ASIS&T bulletin: special section: Folksonomies. http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Oct-07/morrison.html. Oct/Nov 2007
  14. 14.
    Morgan A, Naaman M (2007) Why we tag: motivations for annotation in mobile and online media. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘07). ACM, New York, pp 971–980Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lawley L (2005) Social consequences of social tagging. Many2ManyBlog, comment posted 20 Jan 2005Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maarek YS, Marmasse N, Navon Y, Soroka V (2006) Tagging the physical world. Collaborative web tagging workshop at WWW2006, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Balahur A, Montoyo A (2010) OpAL: applying opinion mining techniques for the disambiguation of sentiment ambiguous adjectives in SemEval-2 task 18. In: Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on semantic evaluation (SemEval ‘10). Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, pp 444–447Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gemmell J, Ramezani M, Schimoler T, Christiansen L, Mobasher B (2009) The impact of ambiguity and redundancy on tag recommendation in folksonomies. In: Proceedings of the third ACM conference on recommender systems – RecSys ’09, New York, p 45Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Weinberger KQ, Slaney M, Van Zwol R (2008) Resolving tag ambiguity. In: Proceeding of the 16th ACM international conference on Multimedia – MM ’08, New York, p 111Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shepitsen A, Gemmell J, Mobasher B, Burke R (2008) Personalized recommendation in social tagging systems using hierarchical clustering. In: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Recommender systems – RecSys ’08, New York, p 259Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Krestel R, Fankhauser P, Nejdl W (2009) Latent dirichlet allocation for tag recommendation. In: Proceedings of the third ACM conference on Recommender Systems – RecSys ’09, New York, p 61Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Anderson A, Raghunathan K, Vogel A (2008) TagEz: Flickr tag recommendation. Association for the advancement of artificial intelligence (www.aaai.org). http://cs.stanford.edu/people/acvogel/tagez/
  23. 23.
    Garg N, Ingmar I (2008) Personalized tag suggestion for flickr. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on World Wide Web (WWW ‘08). ACM, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wu L, Yang L, Yu N, Hua XS (2009) Learning to tag. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on World Wide Web – WWW ’09, New York, p 361Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sigurbjörnsson B, Van Zwol R (2008) Flickr tag recommendation based on collective knowledge. In: WWW ‘08: Proceeding of the 17th international conference on World Wide Web. ACM, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lipczak M, Milios E (2010) Learning in efficient tag recommendation. In: Proceedings of the fourth ACM conference on recommender systems. ACM, New York, pp 167–174Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pak A, Paroubek P (2010) Twitter based system: using twitter for disambiguating sentiment ambiguous adjectives. In: Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on semantic evaluation. Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, pp 436–439Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kipp MEI (2007) @toread and cool: tagging for time, task and emotion. In: Proceedings of the 8th information architecture summit, Las Vegas, 22–27 March 2007Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zanardi V, Capra L (2008) Social ranking. In: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Recommender Systems – RecSys ’08, New York, p 51Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Liu D, Hua XS, Yang L, Wang M, Zhang HJ (2009) Tag ranking. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on World Wide Web – WWW ’09, New York, p 351Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Li X, Snoek CGM, Worring M (2009) Learning social tag relevance by neighbor voting. IEEE Trans Multimed 11(7):1310–1322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dubinko M, Kumar R, Magnani J, Novak J, Raghavan P, Tomkins A (2006) Visualizing tags over time. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on World Wide Web – WWW ’06, New York, p 193Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lee SE, Son DK, Han SS (2007) Qtag. In: Proceedings of the 25th annual ACM international conference on design of communication – SIGDOC ’07, New York, p 189Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Budura A, Michel S, Cudré-Mauroux P, Aberer K (2008) To tag or not to tag: harvesting adjacent metadata in large-scale tagging systems. In: SIGIR ’08: Proceedings of the 31st annual international on research and development in retrieval, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fahrni A, Klenner M (2008) Old wine or warm beer: target-specific sentiment analysis of adjectives. In: Proceedings of the AISB 2008 symposium on affective language in human and machine. The Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour Press, Aberdeen, pp 60–63Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Andreevskaia A, Sabine Bergler S (2006) Senses and sentiments: sentiment tagging of adjectives at the meaning level. In: Proceedings of the 19th canadian conference on artificial intelligence, AI’06, Quebec. Lecture Notes in Computer Science vol. 4013, pp 336–346, 7–9 June 2006Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Twitter (2009) http://twitter.com
  38. 38.
  39. 39.
    Flickr (2009) http://www.flickr.com
  40. 40.
    Somekh B (2005) Action research: a methodology for change and development. Open University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentInstitute of Engineering – Polytechnic of Porto (ISEP/IPP)PortoPortugal
  2. 2.GECAD – Knowledge Engineering and Decision Support Research CenterInstitute of Engineering – Polytechnic of Porto (ISEP/IPP)PortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations