Library Thing Social Tags versus Library of Congress Subject Headings: a Literature Review

Document Type : مقالات مروری


Chamran University of Ahvaz


INTRUDUCTION: This study aimed to compare the nature, advantages and disadvantages of folksonomies with those of controlled vocabularies and to review the literature related to Library Thing social tags and Library of Congress Subject Headings.

METHODOLOGY: This study was a library research and a comparative study.

FINDINGS:Folksonomies has some advantages, including being up-to-date, user oriented, money-saving and non-training, but with some disadvantages, including inconsistency, lack of context, and lack of both precision and recall that can be provided by controlled vocabularies. Thus, it is proposed that these are complementary rather than replacement for each other.

CONCLUSIONS: Literature review of Library Thing social tags and Library of Congress Subject Headings showed that studies in this field have been conducted by different research methods and sampling approaches and in various and special areas. There is some match (approximately 50%) between Library Thing social tags and Library of Congress Subject Headings that is inappropriate for replacement. It can be concluded that these two information organization systems can be complementary to each other.


Adler. M. (2009).Transcending Library Catalogs: A Comparative Study of Controlled Terms in Library of Congress Subject Headings and User-Generated Tags in Library Thing for Transgender Books. Journal of Web Librarianship, 3(4), 309-331.
Alemu, G., Stevens, B. and Ross, P. (2012). Towards a conceptual framework for user-driven semantic metadata interoperability in digital libraries: A social constructivist approach. New Library World, 113(1/2), 38-54.
Bartley, P. (2009). Book Tagging on Library Thing: How, Why, and What are in the Tags? Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 46(1), 1-22.
Blyberg, J. (2007) “ Goes Social” post to Retrieved 14 October 2015 from:
Broughton, V. (2004).Essential Classification. Facet Publishing, London.
Chamis, A. Y. (1991). Vocabulary Control and Search Strategies in Online Searching. Greenwood Press, Connecticut.
Chen, Y. (2008). Analysis of Social Tagging and Book Cataloging: A Case Study. HKLA 50th Anniversary
Conference Hong Kong, 5 November 2008. Retrieved 05 November 2015 from:
Davis, I. (2005). Why Tagging is Expensive. Silkworm Blog.Retrieved 20 February 2015 from:
Frazier, A. (2012). Playing Tag: an exploration of folksonomy in comparison to LCSH.Retrieved 07 November 2015 from:‎
Furner, J. (2007). User tagging of library resources: Towards framework for system evaluation. Paper presented at World Library and Information Congress: 73rd IFLA General Conference and Council, Durban, South Africa, August 19-23, 2007. Retrieved 11 October 2015 from:
Furner, J. (2009). Folksonomies.In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, Third Edition. Taylor and Francis: New York, Retrieved 11 October 2015 from:
Furner, J. (2010). Empowering Users Through Social Tagging. Retrieved 25 December 2014 from:
Garshol, L, M. (2004).Metadata?Thesauri?Taxonomies? Topic Maps! Making sense of it all.Journal of Information Science, 30(4), 378-391.
Golder, S. A., and Huberman, B. A. (2006). Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems. Journal of Information Science, 32(2), 198-208.
Gruber, T. (2007). Ontology of folksonomy: a mashup of apples and oranges. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems, 3(2), 1-11.
Guy, M. and Tonkin, E. (2006). Folksonomies: Tidying up tags? D-Lib Mag., 12(1). Retrieved 12 October 2015 from: 06/guy/01guy.html
Hansson, O. (2014). The state of research on folksonomies in the field of Library and Information Science: A Systematic Literature Review.Retrieved 10 October 2015 from:
Heymann, P. and Garcia-Molina, H. (2009). Contrasting Controlled Vocabulary and Tagging: Do Experts Choose the Right Names to Label the Wrong Things? Retrieved 11 November 2014 from:‎
Kipp, M. E. I. (2011a). Controlled vocabularies and tags: An analysis of research methods. In Smiraglia, Richard P., ed. Proceedings from North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization, Vol. 3., 23-32.
Kipp, M. E. I. (2011b). Tagging of Biomedical Articles on CiteULike: A Comparison of User, Author and Professional Indexing.Knowledge Organization, 38(3), 245-261.
Kipp, M. E. I. (2011c). Controlled vocabularies and tags: An analysis of research methods. In Smiraglia, Richard P., ed. Proceedings from North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization, Vol. 3., 23-32.
Kipp, M. E. I. and Beak, J. (2012).Examining Studies Comparing Tags and Controlled Vocabularies.Canadian Association for Information Science, Waterloo, Ontario, May 31-June 2, 2012. Retrieved 24 October 2015 from:
Lancaster, F. W. (2003). Indexing and Abstracting in Theory and Practice (3rd ed.). Thomson-Shore Inc., Michigan, USA.
Lasić-Lazić, J.,Špiranec, S. and Ivanjko, T. (2014). Tag-Resource-User: A Review of Approaches in Studying Folksonomies, Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries (QQML) 3:683 –692.
Lawson, K. G. (2009). Mining Social Tagging Data for Enhanced Subject Access for Readers and Researchers.Retrieved 17 October 2015 from:
Lu, C., Park, J. and Hu, X. (2010). User tags versus expert-assigned subject terms: A comparison of LibraryThing
tags and Library of Congress Subject Headings. Journal of Information Science 36(6): 763-779.
Macgregor, G. andMacCulloch, E. (2006).Collaborative tagging as a knowledge organisation and resource discovery tool, Library Review, 55(5), 291-300.
Mai, J. (2011). Folksonomies and the New Order: Authority in the Digital Disorder. Knowledge Organization, 38(2), 114-122.
Mathes, A. (2004). Folksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication through Shared Metadata.Retrieved 6 August 2015 from:
Merholz, P. (2005). Clay Shirky’s Viewpoints are Overrated. links, thoughts, and essays from Peter Merholz. Retrieved 20 February 2015 from:
Moulaison, H. (2008). Social Tagging in the Web 2.0 Environment: Author vs. User Tagging. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(2), 101-111.
Munk, T. B. and Mork, K. (2007).Folksonomy, the power law & the significance of the least effort.Knowledge Organization, 34(1), 16-33.
Nicholson, D., Neill, S., Currier, S., Will, L. Gilchrist, A., Russell, R. and Day, M. (2001). HILT: High Level Thesaurus Project – Final Report to RSLP & JISC, Centre for Digital Library Research, Glasgow, UK. Retrieved 20 February 2015 from:
Noruzi, A. (2007). Editorial.Webology 2.Retrieved 02 December 2015 from: v4n2/editorial12.html
Peters, I. (2009). Folksonomies: indexing and retrieval in Web 2.0. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Peterson, E. (2006). Beneath the metadata: Some philosophical problems with folksonomy. D-Lib Magazine, 12(11).Retrieved 4 August 2015 from:
Peterson, E. (2008). Parallel systems: The coexistence of subject cataloging and folksonomy. Library Philosophy & Practice,10(1), 1–5.
Porter, J. (2011). Folksonomies in the library: their impact on user experience, and their implications for the work of librarians, The Australian Library Journal, 60(3), 248-255.
Quintarelli, E. (2005). Folksonomies: power to the people. Proceedings of the 1st International Society for Knowledge Organization (Italy) (ISKOI), UniMIB Meeting, June 24, Milan, Italy, ISKOI, Italy Retrieved 20 February 2015 from:
Rahman, A.I.M. J. (2012). Social tagging versus Expert created subject headings. Master Thesis, Oslo
andAkershus University College of Applied Sciences, Oslo, Norway.
Ranganathan, S. R. (1967). Prolegomena to Library Classification (3rd ed.). Asia Publishing House, London.
Rolla, P. J. (2009), “User Tags versus Subject Headings: Can User-Supplied Data Improve Subject Access to
Library Collections?”,Library Resources & Technical Services, 53(3),174-184.
Shirky, C. (2005a). Ontology is Overrated: Categories, Links, and Tags. Clay Shirky's writings about the internet.Retrieved 05 December 2015 from:
Shirky, C. (2005b). Folksonomies are a forced move: a response to Liz. Many2Many: A group Weblog of social software. Retrieved 22 February 2015 from:
Shirky, C. (2005c). Semi-Structured Meta-data has a Posse: A response to Gene Smith. You’re It! A Blog on Tagging.Retrieved 20 February 2015 from:
Smith, T. (2007).Cataloging and you: Measuring the efficacy of a folksonomy for subject analysis. In Lussky, Joan, Eds. Proceedings of the 18th Workshop of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Special Interest Group in Classification Research, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Retrieved 02 December 2015 from:
Spiteri, L. F. (2007). The structure and form of folksonomy tags: The road to the public library catalog. Information Technology & Libraries,26(3), 13–25.
Sterling, B. (2005). Order Out of Chaos. Wired Magazine, 13(4).Retrieved 20 February 2015 from:
Thomas, M., Caudle, D. M., and Schmitz, C. M. (2009).To tag or not to tag? Library Hi Tech, 27(3), 411-434.
Trant, J. (2008). Studying Social Tagging and Folksonomy: A Review and Framework, Journal of Digital Information 10(1).Retrieved 22 January 2015 from:
Vaidya, P. and Harinarayana, N. S. (2016).The Comparativeand Analytical Study of LibraryThing Tags with
Library ofCongress Subject Headings.Knowledge Organization,43(1), 35-43.
Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA.
Weber, J. (2006). Folksonomy and controlled vocabulary in LibraryThing.Unpublished Final Project, University of Pittsburgh.Retrieved 10 October 2015 from:‎
Weinberger, D. (2005). Tagging and why it matters. Retrieved 05 August 2015 from:
Wu, D., He, D., Qiu, J., Lin, R. and Liu, Y. (2013).Comparing social tags with subject headings on annotating books: A study comparing the information science domain in English and Chinese.Journal of Information Science, 39, 169-187.