Connotea Users Introduction
Download 252.32 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- A cknowledgment
Conclusion Since an SB website requires users’ activities and contributions to maintain its sustainability (Butler, 2001), it is important to understand users’ bookmarking behaviors and their perceptions about the service. The results of this study contribute to further understanding of academic users’ SB behaviors and their opinions, which has not yet been fully understood. The recent decline in the number of visitors on some academic SB websites may be an indicator that SB for academic purposes may not have been a very successful application of the technology. For a technology to become popular, it requires not only a positive user perception of its usefulness, but also of its ease and convenience in use. This empirical investigation may help to improve the design, development, and use of academic SB applications. The benefits of SB systems (flexible personal information management, group collaboration, and enhanced information discovery) make it well worth the effort. Acknowledgment
References Al-Khalifa, H.S., & Davis, H.C. (2007). Towards better understanding of folksonomic patterns. In Proceedings of the 18th Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia (pp. 163-166). New York, NY: ACM. Arakji, R., Benbunan-Fich, R., & Koufaris, M. (2009). Exploring contributions of public resources in social bookmarking systems. Decision Support Systems, 47(3), 245-253. Butler, B.S. (2001). Membership size, communication activity, and sustainability: A resource-based model of online social structures. Information Systems Research, 12(4), 346-362. Cattuto, C., Benz, D. Hotho, A., & Stumme, G. (2008). Semantic grounding of tag relatedness in social bookmarking systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5318, 615-631. Compete (2011). About Compete.com. Retrieved March 25, 2011 from http://www.compete.com/about/ Compete (2010). Connotea.org. Retrieved August 10, 2010 from http://siteanalytics.compete.com/connotea.org/ Dye, J. (2006). Folksonomy: A game of high-tech (and high-stakes) tag. E-Content, 29(3), 38-43. Farooq, U., Kannampallil, T.G., Song, Y., Ganoe, C.H., Carroll, J.M., & Giles, L. (2007). Evaluating tagging behavior in social bookmarking systems: Metrics and design heuristics. In Proceedings of the 2007 International ACM Conference on Supporting Group Work (pp. 351-360). New York, NY: ACM. Garland, R. (1991). The mid-point on a Likert rating scale: Is it desirable? Marketing Bulletin Australia: Australian Department of Education, Science and Training, 2, 66-70. Godwin-Jones, R. (2006). Tag clouds in the blogosphere: Electronic literacy and social networking. Language Learning & Technology, 10(2), 8-15. Goh, D.H.-L., Chua, A., Lee, C.S., & Razikin, K. (2009). Resource discovery through social tagging: A classification and content analytic approach. Online Information Review, 33(3), 568-583. Golder, S.A., & Huberman, B.A. (2006). Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems. Journal of Information Science, 32(2), 198-208. Gordon-Murnane, L. (2006). Social bookmarking, folksonomies, and web 2.0 tools. Searcher Mad Database Prof, 14(6), 26-38. Grudin, J. (2006). Enterprise knowledge management and emerging technologies. In Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International conference on System Sciences, 3 (pp. 57a). IEEE Xplore Digital Library. Hammond, T., Hannay, T., Lund, B., & Scott, J. (2005). Social bookmarking tools (I) - A general review. D-Lib Magazine 11(4). Retrieved from www.dlib.org/dlib/april05/hammond/04hammond.html Hotho, A., Jäschke, R., Schmitz, C., & Stumme, G. (2006). Trend detection in folksonomies. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4303, 56-70. Huang, A.W.C., & Chuang, T.R. (2009). Social tagging, online communication, and Peircean semiotics: A conceptual framework. Journal of Information Science, 35(3), 340-357. Kipp, M.E.I. (2006). Exploring the context of user, creator and intermediary tagging. In Proceedings of the 7th Information Architecture Summit (Vancouver, Canada). Retrieved from http://iasummit.org/2006/files/109_Presentation_Desc.pdf. Kittur, A., Chi, E.H., Pendleton, B.A., Suh, B., & Mytkowicz, T. (2007). Power of the few vs. wisdom of the crowd: Wikipedia and the rise of the bourgeoisie. In the Proceedings of SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. San Jose, CA. Lin, C.C., & Tsai, C.C. (2011). Applying social bookmarking to collective information searching (CIS): An analysis of behavioral pattern and peer interaction for co-exploring quality online resources. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1249-1257. Lund, B., Hammond, T., Flack, M., & Hannay, T. (2005). Social bookmarking tools (II): A case study, Connotea. D-Lib Magazine 11(4). Marchionini, G. (2006). Exploratory search: From finding to understanding. Communications of the ACM, 49(4), 41-46. Markus, M.L. (1987). Toward a ''critical mass'' theory of interactive media. Communication Research, 14(5), 491-511. Mejias, U. (2005, April). Tag literacy. Retrieved from http://blog.ulisesmejias.com/2005/04/26/tag-literacy/ Millen, D., Feinberg, J., & Kerr, B. (2005). Social bookmarking in the enterprise. ACM Queue, 3(9), 28-35. Millen, D., Yang, M., Whittaker, S., & Feinberg, J. (2007). Social bookmarking and exploratory search. In L. Bannon et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of 10th European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 21-40). Limerick, Ireland: Springer. Niu, X., & Hemminger, B.M. (2011). A study of factors that affect the information-seeking behavior of academic scientists. Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(2), 336-353. Panke, S., & Gaiser, B. (2009). “With my head up in the clouds”: Using social tagging to organize knowledge. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 23(3), 318-349. Rader, E., & Wash, R. (2008). Influences on tag choices in del.icio.us. In Proceedings of the ACM conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 239-248). New York, NY: ACM. Razikin, K., Goh, D.H.L., Chua, A.Y.K., & Lee, C.S. (2008). Can social tags help you find what you want? Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries, 5173, 50-61. Redden, C.S. (2010). Social bookmarking in academic libraries: Trends and applications. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36, 219-227. Rethlefsen, M.L. (2008). Electronic resources review. Connotea. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 96(2), 175-178. Riddle, P. (2005). Tags: What are they good for? Retrieved from http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~i385q/archive/riddle_p/riddle-2005-tags.pdf Seki, K., Qin, H., & Uehara, K. (2010). Impact and prospect of social bookmarks for bibliographic information retrieval. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (pp. 357-360). New York, NY: ACM. Sen, S., Lam, S.K., Rashid, A.M., Cosley, D., Frankowski, D., Osterhouse, J., Harper, F.M., & Riedl, J. (2006). Tagging, communities, vocabulary, evolution. In Proceedings of the 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 181-190). New York, NY: ACM. Storey, M.A., Cheng, L.T. Bull, I., & Rigby, P. (2006). Shared waypoints and social tagging to support collaboration in software development. In Proceedings of the 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 195-198). New York, NY: ACM. Sun, A., Suryanto, M.A., & Liu, Y. (2007). Blog classification using tags: An empirical study. Asian digital libraries. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4822, 307-316. Yanbe, Y., Jatowt, A., Nakamura, S., & Tanaka, K. (2007). Can social bookmarking enhance search in the web? In Proceedings of the 7th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (pp. 107-116). New York, NY: ACM. Table 1. Research on SB, 2006-2010
Table 2. Academic background of the participants (N=119)
Table 3. Bookmarking behaviors
Notes: * statistically significant at p < .05. an = 38, bn = 37, cn = 36, dn = 48, en = 47, fn = 32. Participants gave ratings based on a scale where 1 = Never, 2 = Once a month or less, 3 = Once every 2 weeks, 4 = 1-2 times a week, 5 = 3-6 times a week, 6 = Once every day or more. Table 4. Users' perceptions of the usefulness of bookmarks and tags
Notes: * p < .05. an = 17, bn = 13, cn = 18, dn = 15, en = 21, fn = 27, gn = 47, hn = 46, in = 37, jn = 40, kn = 30, ln = 24, m n= 25. Participants gave ratings based on a 4 - point Likert scale where 1 = “Strongly disagree”, and 4 = “Strongly agree”. Percentage of “don’t know” answers is represented in gray; the darker the shade the larger the percentage (see Fig. 2). Table 5. Users' perception on automatic collection of bibliographic information
Notes: an = 24, bn = 25, cn = 30, dn = 23, en = 17. Participants gave ratings based on a 4 - point Likert scale where 1 = “Strongly disagree”, and 4 = “Strongly agree”. Percentage of “don’t know” answers is represented in gray; the darker the shade the larger the percentage (see Fig. 2). Table 6. Users' perception on the usefulness of different search functions
Note: * statistically significant at p < .05. an = 22, bn = 26, cn = 25, dn = 21, en = 23, fn = 24, gn = 35, hn = 42, in = 38, jn = 39, kn = 32, ln = 41, mn = 36, nn = 19. Participants gave ratings based on a scale where 1 – Not useful, 2 – A bit useful, 3 – Useful, 4 – Very useful. Percentage of “don’t know” answers is represented in gray; the darker the shade the larger the percentage (see Fig. 2). Table 7. Users' perceptions on the use of SB for information management
Notes: an = 26, bn = 27, cn = 24, dn = 20, en = 47, fn = 41, gn = 38, hn = 28, in = 23, jn = 21. Participants gave ratings based on a scale where 1 – Not useful, 2 – A bit useful, 3 – Useful, 4 – Very useful. Percentage of “don’t know” answers is represented in gray; the darker the shade the larger the percentage (see Fig. 2). Table 8. Percentage of users who found various SB features to be useful.
Notes: †Based on participants who responded to this question. Users could select all those features that they found useful; the percentage shown here is the number of users who have picked this feature over the total number of respondents. Percentage of “don’t know” answers is represented in gray; the darker the shade the larger the percentage (see Fig. 2). Table 9. Users' perception on SB and traditional way of saving bookmarks
Notes: * p < .05. an = 23, bn = 26, cn = 44, dn = 45, en = 25. Participants gave ratings based on a 4 - point Likert scale where 1 = “Strongly disagree”, and 4 = “Strongly agree”. Percentage of “don’t know” answers is represented in gray; the darker the shade the larger the percentage (see Fig. 2). Table 10. Percentage of users who use the methods of managing useful websites
Notes: † Based on participants who responded to this question. Percentage of “don’t know” answers is represented in gray; the darker the shade the larger the percentage (see Fig. 2). Download 252.32 Kb. Share with your friends:
|