Purposes when applying tags

In the interviews for this study, the participants told about their purposes of applying tags and choosing which words to use as tags. These purposes are connected to the tag and its intended future use. I observed that users also might use tags in ways that they were not necessarily purposed for. In the groups below, you find four purposes of applying tags. The groups are based on intentions or purpose and not the resulting tags, thus tags may serve purposes they were not intended for.

The categories represent new tag functions or purposes, for instance compared to what was revealed in Delicious (Golder & Huberman, 2006).

8.3.3.1 Tags as topical description

Topical tags describe the content of the article they were applied to. When the study and tags were introduced to the participants, they were explained that tags can be subject descriptions or article descriptions from a users’ perspective. Users may apply tags to help themselves and other users finding information at Cancer.dk. The tasks had a focus on finding information about different subjects. All this could lead to a subject focus when tagging. The participants seemed to put emphasis on this focus when tagging and talking about their tagging. Six of eight participants had a main focus on tags as subject descriptions, and most of their tags correspond with this view.

Among these are the participants who had the best computer skills and best understanding of the tagging feature. Examples of their subject description tags are soja (soy) and antihormon (anti-hormone), both applied to articles about these topics.

Some of the taggers stated that they wanted tags to be exclusively topic descriptive.

One stated that if tags do not relate to the subject of the article, it would decrease the credibility of Cancer.dk: “No, it should be in the article, or else […] the article will lose its credibility” (2). Thus, tags should be understandable for other users and the topical relationship between tag and article should be clear and understandable for others. Another participant was not as strict: “I really can see the feature as an

amateur’s entrance to it, where you as user kind of expect the expert, the one who made the page, and the ones who know something about this, to have written the other parts. And then you can, as a user, add something very simple to this.” (6) Here, the participant sees the tag quality from the quality and credibility of the rest of Cancer.dk.

Participants who did not apply subject descriptive tags, all agreed that such tags could be useful. The participants often connected a focus on topical desctiption to a focus on finding information. A participant said about finding words for tags: “Then one should find the right ones, […] think about what people search for” (1). Another reason to apply topically descriptive tags may be to explain something or give alternative wording. Not all the participants were able to define a good tag, but the ones who did stated that a good tag is a tag that describes the topic of the article, or at least more generally has a clear relation to the content of the article. However, to the participants, the topical tags do not have to describe the general topic of the article, it is sufficient that it describes a subsection or an aspect of its topic. Thus, topical tags do not equal subject headings. The requirements are not as strict.

8.3.3.2 Explicative tags

Explicative tags seek to explain an aspect of the content of an article, or a word in it.

Tags reflect the tagger’s perspective and thus include vocabulary that users can understand (Peters, 2009). Two of the participants took this a step further and discussed to apply tags solely to explain difficult wording or other aspects of article content to others. This was something they wanted to do. To one of them, a nurse (3),

“others” were laypersons. In her experience, some cancer patients did not quite understand their own illness or treatment. She saw a need for explainations and that tags are a way to explain.

The other one (6) observed that some information needed explanation and mentioned this when asked whether others could use her tags. Her starting point was more specific, as she said that tags could be applied as “...little alerts, maybe to somebody you knew were looking for something like this. Or more general: Oh, an explanation is missing [] there is a lot of good stuff here” (6).

Both these taggers applied topical tags that are clear and understandable. Examples are:

• alternativ morgenmad (alternative breakfast)

• Fare ved rygning (dangers in smoking)

• Forskning (research)

• Sommertomater (summer tomatoes, tag applied to a gazpacho recipe)

It is not easy to see the explainatory motive in the tags, the tags look like topical tags.

However, the willingness to apply tags that are synonyms to article words can be seen as an indication on explicative tagging. Despite the similarities between topical tags

and explicative tags, the motivation is different. Topical tags describe what is already in the article, explicative tags seek to add an explanation and thus add content to the site. None of the participants described practical challenges like how to know what part of an article a cartain tag explains. If the article concerns similar or opposite concepts, this would be a problem.

8.3.3.3 Opinion tags

Opinion tags express an opinion on the content of articles. One participant (4) used only two tags, to value the article content. The tags were:

• fremragende (excellent)

• vigtigt (important)

This participant used Cancer.dk for the first time, and she really liked it. A third opinion tag was applied by another participant (8). This tag also seems to value article content, as it was applied to an article on a decrease in the number of new cancer patients in Denmark. The tag was:

• god nyhed (good news)

This type of tags is well known from other systems like Delicious (Golder &

Huberman, 2006).

8.3.3.4 Tags that express wishes for more information

Tags applied to express wishes do not necessarily relate to the content of the article.

Instead, the tag is applied to express a wish for information. It is a message to the editors saying: “I want Cancer.dk to have more information about this.” One participant (3) stated that she had applied tags to express her wish for additional information. She explained that it was impossible to find information about her specific cancer illness, and she wanted Cancer.dk to include it. To express this, she applied tags. This purpose of tags is opposite to subject description. The article she chose to apply these tags to was one that she probably found when solving the task:

“Find an interesting news article...” The article is titled “Overraskende stor stigning i kræftoverlevelsen” (Surprisingly large increase in cancer survival) and mentioned different kinds of cancer. The applied tags describe the cancer type the participant had. She wanted Cancer.dk and the web in general to have more information about this cancer type. From the interview, it is clear that she did not only want information about survival concerning her cancer type, but information in general. Thus, it seems like she chose this specific article simply because it was there. The participant told that she previously had told the Danish Cancer Society about her information need, but that nothing had happened on the site. She saw this as another opportunity communicate her wish.

Another participant (6) formulated the contrast between topical tags and tags that express a wish and said: “To me it is negative to write about something it [the article]

is not about, this is one of my opinions” (6). She did not want these kinds of tags in the system.