[Purpose/significance] Social tagging is used widely used in organizing user generated web contents. However, relatively less is known about the new motivations behind social tagging of user generated video contents. This paper analyzes Bilibili.com’s video tags to explore the new entertainment trend in video tagging. [Method/process] It used a mixed-method approach by content analysis and interviews to understand the use of video tags to study the tag content, motivations and functions of the entertaining tags. [Result/conclusion] ①The most common types of video tags used by users are "content theme" and "people". ②Entertainment tags are an important part of the content of B-station tags. ③ The motivation of users to use entertainment tags is mostly for social communication and interaction. ④Entertainment tags have special functions in addition to traditional tags, such as "improving video viewing experience". This study provides some preliminary results on the tagging of ACG videos and insights to further understand the new trends of video indexing and social tagging.
Yang Yuyu
,
Zhang Pengyi
. Social Tagging of ACG Video Contents and the Entertainment Tagging Trend: A Case Study of Bilibili.com[J]. Library and Information Service, 2020
, 64(8)
: 125
-133
.
DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2020.08.014
[1] 翟爽, 宋文. 社会标签进展研究概述[J]. 图书情报工作, 2010,54(20):41-44,143.
[2] ŠPIRANEC S, IVANJKO T. Experts vs. novices tagging behavior:an exploratory analysis[J]. Procedia-social and behavioral sciences, 2013, 73:456-459.
[3] ROLLA P J. User tags versus subject headings[J]. Library resources & technical services, 2011, 53(3):174-184.
[4] LU C, PARK J, HU X. User tags versus expert-assigned subject terms:a comparison of LibraryThing tags and Library of Congress subject headings[J]. Journal of information science, 2010, 36(6):763-779.
[5] RORISSA A. A comparative study of Flickr tags and index terms in a general image collection[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2010, 61(11):2230-2242.
[6] RANSOM N, RAFFERTY P. Facets of user-assigned tags and their effectiveness in image retrieval[J]. Journal of documentation, 2011, 67(6):1038-1066.
[7] DARVISH S, CHIN A. Dealing with the video tidal wave:the relevance of expertise for video tagging[C]//Proceedings of the 21st ACM conference on hypertext and hypermedia. New York:ACM, 2010:289-290.
[8] POSTMAN N. Amusing ourselves to death:public discourse in the age of show business[M]. New York:Penguin, 2006.
[9] BEAUDOIN J. Folksonomies:Flickr image tagging:patterns made visible[J]. Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2007, 34(1):26-29.
[10] 李艳华. 日本二次元文化在中国的传播与影响[J]. 新闻战线, 2016(12):127-128.
[11] SØBAK V, PHARO N. Decentralized subject indexing of television programs:the effects of using a semicontrolled indexing language[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2017, 68(3):739-749.
[12] GREISDORF H, O'CONNOR B. Modelling what users see when they look at images:a cognitive viewpoint[J]. Journal of documentation, 2002, 58(1):6-29.
[13] THOMPSON A E. Playing tag:an analysis of vocabulary patterns and relationships within a popular music folksonomy[D]. America:University of North Carolina, 2008.
[14] OOMEN J, GLIGOROV R, HILDEBRAND M. Waisda?:making videos findable through crowdsourced annotations[M]//Crowdsourcing our cultural heritage. London:Ashgate, 2014:161-184.
[15] GLIGOROV R, HILDEBRAND M, VAN OSSENBRUGGEN J, et al. On the role of user-generated metadata in audio visual collections[C]//Proceedings of the sixth international conference on knowledge capture. New York:ACM, 2011:145-152.
[16] ESTRADA L M, HILDEBRAND M, DE BOER V, et al. Time-based tags for fiction movies:comparing experts to novices using a video labeling game[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2017, 68(2):348-364.
[17] DOWMAN M, TABLAN V, CUNNINGHAM H, et al. Web-assisted annotation, semantic indexing and search of television and radio news[C]//Proceedings of the 14th international conference on World Wide Web. New York:ACM, 2005:225-234.
[18] PANOFSKY E, DRECHSEL B. Meaning in the visual arts[M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1955.
[19] SHATFORD S. Analyzing the subject of a picture:a theoretical approach[J]. Cataloging & classification quarterly, 1986, 6(3):39-62.
[20] JÖRGENSEN C. Attributes of images in describing tasks[J]. Information processing & management, 1998, 34(2/3):161-174.
[21] COATES T. Two cultures of fauxonomies collide[EB/OL].[2019-11-17]. http://plasticbag.org/archives/2005/06/two_cultures_of_fauxonomies_collide.
[22] HECKNER M, HEILEMANN M, WOLFF C. Personal information management vs. resource sharing:towards a model of information behavior in social tagging systems[C]//Third international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media. San Jose:AAAI, 2009:42-49.
[23] AMES M, NAAMAN M. Why we tag:motivations for annotation in mobile and online media[C]//Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. New York:ACM, 2007:971-980.
[24] SEN S, LAM S K, RASHID A M, et al. Tagging, communities, vocabulary, evolution[C]//Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on computer supported cooperative work. New York:ACM, 2006:181-190.
[25] SEN S, RIEDL J. Folksonomy formation[J]. Computer, 2011, 44(5):97-101.
[26] BINKOWSKI P J. The effect of social proof on tag selection in social bookmarking applications[D]. Chapel Hill:University of North Caroline at Chapel Hill, 2006:41.
[27] YEW J, GIBSON F P, TEASLEY S. Learning by tagging:the role of social tagging in group knowledge formation[J]. Journal of online learning & teaching, 2006, 2(4):275-285.
