All Folked Up

This week’s readings and case studies complimented the last lecture well, illustrating how folksonomies are practiced and interpreted.  Ellysa Kroski’s reading was excellent: it was straightforward, balanced and descriptive.  Kroski notes the advantages of folksonomies: inclusiveness, currency, democratic, non-binary and can often lead to discovery.  Of the advantages Kroski mentioned, offering insight into user behaviour I thought was fascinating.   Through programs such as del.icio.us and others, librarians and other information professionals can observe how people classify and organize information.  I think that this is a very valuable resource of user behaviour.  Librarians can help patrons in finding information through tag clouds, find material associated with their field (but might not have considered), browse popular material and make suggestions;  by learning the language and vocabulary that the public is using, librarians perhaps will better understand or interpret a user’s needs.  The article notes that a ‘stable’ tagging pattern occurs after the first 100 bookmarks are held.  This is very revealing because it shows that, while folksonomy can be argued as counter-productive in the organization of information, it is in fact producing natural trends. 

I think one thing to note is that folksonomy classifications shouldn’t replace the traditional systems (probably pretty obvious).  There is a huge difference between search strategies and order or information.  Because tagging using folksonomies is personal and individual, it is fit for our own unique information experience.  However, a library is a community space shared by all different types of members.  No one library is fit for an individual.   There still needs to be authority in organizing our libraries.  With traditional forms of classification, using a tool such as LibraryThing is one way libraries can increase access points while limiting chaos.  I really enjoyed the Blais catalogue because you could type in Harry Potter and tags will appear.  One disadvantage is that the tags are at the bottom of the record, so it took me a few scrolls to find what I was look for.  As a test, I clicked on fantasy, which brought up more tags and then proceeded to J.R. Tolkien.  Getting back to my original search just brought me to an expired page.  I preferred the Ann Arbor case study because they had popular tags, most recent and are visible.  I think tags used on OPAC’s are great for children because they might not necessarily know the exact book they are looking for and can browse and “discover” related material.  Children are also more likely to pay attention to descriptive subjects such as “Voldemort” and “ghost.” This is a great way to influence searching and thus increase activity because you are lead to all different items rather than initiating a new search every time.   Also, if children are exposed to tags they will naturally adapt to this type of taxonomy, bridging the gap between the old and the new. 

Overall, I come to the conclusion that folksonomies are excellent ways to reduce patron pressure, increase access points and increase the universality of subjects (since everyone has the chance to contribute).  I think using tags on OPAC’s accompanying original metadata will create a balanced search experience.  We have to remember that even though this new phenomenon has ever so many advantages, some people are just plain old fashioned and like it!