1. Background2. Implicit Division of Tags in Tagging Systems3. Decreasing Tag Efficiency: A Need for Tag Separation4. Why People use Non Subject Tags5. The Model5.1 Benefit to Taggers5.2 Benefit to Community6. Suggested Tagging Interface7. System and View Changes7.1 User View7.2 Tag view7.3 URL View8. Manual Tag Refactoring9. Future Work and Potential UseReferences:08FallAme WongsaINF 385TDecember 2, 2008Fall08Recognition of Non Subject Tags: A Model for Improving Tag Quality by Adding Personal valueAme WongsaINF 385TDec 12, 2008Table of Contents1. BACKGROUND 32. IMPLICIT DIVISION OF TAGS IN TAGGING SYSTEMS 43. DECREASING TAG EFFICIENCY: A NEED FOR TAG SEPARATION 54. WHY PEOPLE USE NON SUBJECT TAGS 65. THE MODEL 75.1 BENEFIT TO TAGGERS 75.2 BENEFIT TO COMMUNITY 76. SUGGESTED TAGGING INTERFACE 77. SYSTEM AND VIEW CHANGES 87.1 USER VIEW 97.2 TAG VIEW 97.3 URL VIEW 108. MANUAL TAG REFACTORING 109. FUTURE WORK AND POTENTIAL USE 10REFERENCES: 122Ame WongsaINF 385TDec 12, 20081. BackgroundCollaborative tagging systems are often defined by complementary personal and public aspects. “Individuals employ personal vocabulary to describe personal objects. Organically through the efforts of many diverse users, a global language is developed thatis used to describe the global set of objects” (Chi 2008). Through the use of a personal vocabulary in the form of “tags”, individuals organize and categorize web pages for later retrieval. On the community level, the rich descriptions provide by individual tags provide a “folk taxonomy” or “folksonomy”, a term defined by Thomas Vander Wal to classify resources on the web. The popularity of tagging systems on the web such as Delicious for web pages, Flickr for photos, and Connotea and CiteULike for academic papers can be attributed to alow barrier of entry. Sinha describes how tagging “taps into an existing cognitive process without adding add much cognitive cost” (2005). Tagging systems allows anyone to freely attach keywords to content without knowledge of a classification system or a controlled vocabulary, yet through aggregate use, it allows precise information retrieval. Tagging is most useful “when there is simply too much content for a single authority to classify… which is true of the web (Golder & Huberman 2006).While collaborative tagging may be better suited for classifying web content compared to other traditional taxonomies, it does face certain limitations. Vocabulary control is an issue for any classification system but becomes more of a problem for tagging systems that depend on users varying vocabularies. Other areas of tagging such as tag formatting, tag clustering, query expansion and disambiguation stand to improve (Peters & Weller 2008). As tagging systems mature, information theory analysis has shown waning tag efficiency and the reduced usefulness of tags for information retrieval (Chi 2008). Many research in this regard currently deals with developing different algorithms to restructure folksonomies automatically. Some of these methods include automatic tag recommendation, natural language processing for query expansion, and 3Ame WongsaINF 385TDec 12, 2008semantic navigation of tags. Peters and Weller suggest “tag gardening” “manual activity, performed by the users to manage folksonomies and gain better retrieval results, which can be supported by certain automatic processes” (2008). While they present many reasons for “tag gardening” and list many areas of tagging systems that need tending by users, they do not present multiple models for accomplishing this task.This paper presents a model for “tag gardening” and explores its use in the social bookmarking system Delicious. We explore the idea of a tagging system that recognizes subject tags and non subject tags separately. This model increases the value for personal organization, which in turns provides the foundation for improving the quality of tags by algorithmic methods. 2. Implicit Division of Tags in Tagging SystemsIn studies of tagging systems, many researchers employ informal divisions of tagsinto public and private domains. Golder and Huberman describe seven functions tags perform for bookmarks and separate them into information extrinsic to the tagger and information relative to or only relevant to the tagger (2006). Kipp found that 16% of tags on Delicious are non subject tags (2006). And in a later study grouped these non-subject tags into affective tags, tags that describe an emotional state, and time and task related tags, both of which do not describe the aboutness of a resource and have been excluded intraditional classification systems (2006b). Peters and Weller acknowledge the need for distinguishing different tag qualities and purposes and suggest “distinguishing different tag qualities using forms of facets, categories or fields”(2008). Guy and Tonkin posit “the real problem with folksonomies is not in their chaotic tags but that they are trying to serve two masters at once; the personal collection and the collective collection”. Their proposed solution for this problem mirrors current development of appropriate set of algorithms to “revisit data with another aim” to reveal usefulness in certain “sloppy” tags (2006). Interestingly, even Delicious’s tagging bookmarklet makes the distinction between “most popular tags”, tags that describe the aboutness of the document and “yourtags”, previously used tags that help add the document to the tagger’s information space. 4Ame WongsaINF 385TDec 12, 2008While this distinction help tagger brainstorm indexing terms, the selections made from these two groups are added to the flat namespace through the single tag box, which arguably defeats the purpose of separating the two contexts in the first place. If Delicious were to keep the distinction between social and personal tags in that tagging system couldthey add new dimensions to their system that both individuals and the community can useto their advantage?Examined Delicious pages of Delicious power users may help answer that question. Delicious users develop different methods to deal with tag entropy. Some Delicious power users employ hierarchical tags such as “web/programming/flash”. Others use conventions such as @Name and to+Verb to add context to their