2009
DOI: 10.1145/1457507.1457512
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An epistemic dynamic model for tagging systems

Abstract: In recent literature, several models were proposed for reproducing and understanding the tagging behavior of users. They all assume that the tagging behavior is influenced by the previous tag assignments of other users. But they are only partially successful in reproducing characteristic properties found in tag streams. We argue that this inadequacy of existing models results from their inability to include user's background knowledge into their model of tagging behavior. This paper presents a generative taggi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
25
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
1
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In this section, we analyze the immediate impact of the image description on user tagging behavior by comparing the two sets of tags produced by crowdworkers with and without descriptions. To discover the nature of the difference of collected tags, we follow the literature (see Tag Properties and Methods of Tag Analysis) and focus on (a) the descriptive properties of tags (Golder & Huberman, 2006), (b) the imitation of image description (Dellschaft & Staab, 2008), (c) the similarity of tags assigned to the same resource (Dellschaft & Staab, 2012;Fu et al, 2010), (d) tag frequencies for popular tags in each setting (Lee & Schleyer, 2012), (e) tag diversity (unique tags in each setting), (f) tag specificity (Lee & Schleyer, 2012), tag length and dictionary matching (Suchanek et al, 2008), and (g) tag reusability (Nowak & Rüger, 2010;Sen et al, 2006) and resource discrimination (Dellschaft & Staab, 2012).…”
Section: The Impact Of Image Descriptions On User Tagging Behaviormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this section, we analyze the immediate impact of the image description on user tagging behavior by comparing the two sets of tags produced by crowdworkers with and without descriptions. To discover the nature of the difference of collected tags, we follow the literature (see Tag Properties and Methods of Tag Analysis) and focus on (a) the descriptive properties of tags (Golder & Huberman, 2006), (b) the imitation of image description (Dellschaft & Staab, 2008), (c) the similarity of tags assigned to the same resource (Dellschaft & Staab, 2012;Fu et al, 2010), (d) tag frequencies for popular tags in each setting (Lee & Schleyer, 2012), (e) tag diversity (unique tags in each setting), (f) tag specificity (Lee & Schleyer, 2012), tag length and dictionary matching (Suchanek et al, 2008), and (g) tag reusability (Nowak & Rüger, 2010;Sen et al, 2006) and resource discrimination (Dellschaft & Staab, 2012).…”
Section: The Impact Of Image Descriptions On User Tagging Behaviormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In essence, Dellschaft and Staab have added (at least) two new parameters to a Yule-Simon process, and these additional parameters allows the reinforcement of existing tags to be more finely tuned. Instead of a single power law memory kernel with a single parameter τ , these additional parameters allow the modeling of "an effect that is comparable to the fat-tailed access of the Yule-Simon model with memory" while keeping tag-growth sub-linear [6]…”
Section: Adding Parameters and Background Knowledgementioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is a group of works that empirically support somewhat similar results in tag convergence and power law distribution of tags. Cattuto, Loreto, and Pietronero (2007), Dellschaft and Staab (2008), and Heymann, Koutrika, Garcia-Molina (2008) all demonstrate that a power law distribution, that is, a relationship between two scalar quantities of a power function form, is drawn in tag distributions over tag frequency and tag ranking. Like the work by Golder and Huberman (2006), Robu, Halpin, and Shepherd (2009) provide an analysis of how tag frequencies per tagged resource actually converge in time to stable distributions.…”
Section: Collaborative Tagging In Deliciousmentioning
confidence: 99%