Questions for 4-5

Golder, Huberman

Rating: 3

1) The largest category of tags from the study was those that identified what or who the URL in question was about. Rather than represent a need for extensive tagging could this represent a need for better title metadata? Even if this isn’t the case, how can we limit recording redundant information as we tag?

2) Golder talks about some of the strengths and weaknesses of tagging versus taxonomies. Has anyone ever tried to combine these systems? Could we eliminate having to search in as many areas of taxonomies if we could retrieve results from multiple areas of the taxonomy were tagged similarly? Would this simply result in the same problems we already experience?

3) Golder tells us that users are extremely varied in their tagging behavior. Looking at those who use many tags compared to those who use only a few are there trends in the types of tags used? Do those who only use a few tags use more personalized tags as opposed to descriptive tags? Or is there no correlation at all?

Marshall, Cathy

Rating: 4

1) Just to play devil’s advocate for a moment – why do we even care about the metadata for all these photos, most of which are intended for personal use? We recognize that we can’t possibly archive everything so who cares about the tags or description associated with the photo of Mr. John Tourist standing on bull testicles?

2) How would knowing the tendency for different kinds of metadata (place, artifact, story) to appear in different metadata types (title, tags, captions) help programmers working with image retrieval? Would it make their algorithms more efficient? What other related fields, like IR, would find this study relevant to their work?

3) Marshall mentions the problem associated with some user’s reluctance to refer to the bull’s testicles.  When relying on the masses to provide metadata how can we account for tendencies such as this where people edit their input based on personal beliefs, biases, opinions, etc.?

Kling

Rating: 2

1) Kling talks about the productivity paradox, explaining that the introduction of computers did not increase productivity as promised. What technologies today are new and promising, and making claims of revolutionizing our lives? Is there anything to separate these claims from those made in the 60s-80s about computing? Or will technology today leave us unsatisfied as well? Is technology destined to fall short of expectations? If not, how does it avoid that pitfall?

2) What was it about The Electronic Journal of Cognitive and Brain Sciences (EJCBS) that caused it to have poorer results than Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence (ETAI)? Are the differences between these journals social or technological? In these journals, and in other settings as well, does social interaction influence technology or is it the other way around?

3) In section 6 “Why Social Informatics Matters” Kling begins by stating, “Social informatics research pertains to information technology use and social change in any sort of social setting, not just organizations.” How would Kling explain the benefits of social informatics to a religious leader? A university professor? A political candidate?