Mirroring the emergence of other Web 2.0 concepts, 2004-2006 witnessed a great deal of hyperbole about collaborative tagging (or 'folksonomies' as they are sometimes known). It is now 2009 and most of us know what collaborative tagging is so I'll avoid contributing to the pile of definitions already available. The hype subsided after 2006 (how active is
Tagsonomy now?), but the implementation of tagging within services of all types didn't; tagging became
and is ubiquitous.
The strange thing about collaborative tagging is that when it emerged the purveyors of its hype (e.g.
Clay Shirky in particular, but there were many others) drowned out the comments made by many in the information, computer and library sciences. The essence of these comments was that collaborative tagging broke so many of the well established rules of information retrieval that it would never really work in general resource discovery contexts. In fact, collaborative tagging was so flawed on a theoretical level that further exploration of its alleged benefits was considered futile. Indeed, to this day, research has been limited for this reason, and I recall
attending a conference in Bangalore in which lengthy discussions ensued about tagging being ineffective and entirely unscalable. For the tagging evangelists though, these comments simply provided proof that these communities were 'stuck-in-their-way' and harboured an unwillingness to break with theoretical norms. One of the most irritating aspects of the position adopted by the evangelists was that they relied on the power of persuasion and were never able to point to evidence. Moreover, even their powers of persuasion were lacking because most of them were generally 'technology evangelists' with no real understanding of the theories of information retrieval or knowledge organisation; they were simply being carried along by the hype.
The difficulties surrounding collaborative tagging for general resource discovery are multifarious and have been
summarised elsewhere; but one of the intractable problems relates to the lack of vocabulary control or collocation and the effect this has on retrieval recall and precision. The
Common Tags website summarises the root problem in three sentences (we'll come back to Common Tags in a moment…):
"People use tags to organize, share and discover content on the Web. However, in the absence of a common tagging format, the benefits of tagging have been limited. Individual things like New York City are often represented by multiple tags (like 'nyc', 'new_york_city', and 'newyork'), making it difficult to organize related content; and it isn’t always clear what a particular tag represents—does the tag 'jaguar' represent the animal, the car company, or the operating system?"
These problems have been recognised since the beginning and were anticipated in the theoretical arguments posited by those in our communities of practice. Research has therefore focused on how searching or browsing tags can be made more reliable for users, either by structuring them,
mapping them to existing knowledge structures, or
using them in conjunction with other retrieval tools (e.g. supplementing tools based on automatic indexing). In short, tags in themselves are of limited use and the trend is now towards taming them using tried and tested methods. For advocates of Web 2.0 and the social ethos it often promotes, this is really a reversal of the tagging philosophy - but it appears to be necessary.
The root difficulty relates to use of collaborative tagging in Personal Information Management (PIM). Make no bones about it, tagging originally emerged as PIM tool and it is here that it has been most successful. I, for example, make good use of
BibSonomy to organise my bookmarks and publications. BibSonomy might be like
delicious on steroids, but one of its key features is the use of tags. In late 2005 I submitted a paper to the
WWW2006 Collaborative Tagging Workshop with a colleague. Submitted at the height of tagging hyperbole, it was a theoretical paper exploring some of the difficulties with tagging as general resource discovery tool. In particular, we aimed to explore the difficulties in expecting a tool optimised for PIM to yield benefits when used for general resource discovery and we noted how 'PIM noise' was being introduced into users' results. How could tags that were created to organise a personal collection be expected to provide a reasonable level of recall, let alone precision? Unfortunately it wasn't accepted; but since it scored well in peer review I like to think that the organising committee were overwhelmed by submissions!! (It is also noteworthy that no other collaborative tagging workshops have been held since.)
Nevertheless, the basic thesis remains valid. It is precisely this tension (i.e. PIM vs. general resource discovery) which has compromised the effectiveness of collaborative tagging for anything other than PIM. Whilst patterns can be observed in collaborative tagging behaviour, we generally find that the problems summarised in the Common Tags quote above are insurmountable – and this simply because tags are used for PIM first and foremost, and often tell us nothing about the intellectual content of the resource ('toPrint' anyone? 'toRead', 'howto', etc.). True – users of tagging systems can occasionally discover similar items tagged by other users. But how useful is this and how often do you do it? And how often do you search tags? I never do any of these things because the results are generally feeble and I'm not particularly interested in what other people have been tagging. Is anyone? So whilst tags have taken off in PIM, their utility in facilitating wider forms of information retrieval has been quite limited.
Common TagsLast Friday the
Common Tags initiative was officially launched. Common Tags is a collaboration between some established Web companies and university research centres, including
DERI at the
National University of Ireland and
Yahoo!. It is an attempt to address the multifarious problems above and to widen the use of tags. Says the Common Tags website:
"The Common Tag format was developed to address the current shortcomings of tagging and help everyone—including end users, publishers, and developers—get more out of Web content. With Common Tag, content is tagged with unique, well-defined concepts – everything about New York City is tagged with one concept for New York City and everything about jaguar the animal is tagged with one concept for jaguar the animal. Common Tag also provides access to useful metadata that defines each concept and describes how the concepts relate to one another. For example, metadata for the Barack Obama Common Tag indicates that he's the President of the United States and that he’s married to Michelle Obama."
Great! But how is Common Tags achieving this? Answer:
RDFa. What else? Common Tags enables each tag to be defined using a concept URI taken from
Freebase or
DBPedia (much like more formal methods, e.g.
SKOS/RDF) thus permitting the unique identification of concepts and ameliorating some of our resource discovery problems (see Common Tags
workflow diagram below). A variety of participating social bookmarking websites will also enable users to bookmark using Common Tags (e.g.
ZigTag,
Faviki, etc.). In short, Common Tags attempts to Semantic Web-ify tags using RDFa/XHTML compliant web pages and in so doing makes tags more useful in general resource discovery contexts. Faviki even describes them as Semantic Tags and employs the logo strap line, 'tags that make sense'. Common Tags won't solve everything but at least to will see some improvement recall and increase the precision in certain circumstances, as well as offering the benefits of Semantic Web integration.
So, in summary, collaborative tagging hasn't died, but at least now - at long last - it might become useful for something other than PIM. There is irony in the fact that formal description methods have to be used to improve tag utility, but will the evangelists see it? Probably not.
