Questions are content: A taxonomy of questions in a microblogging environment

Proceedings of the ASIST Annual Meeting

Volumn 47, Issue , 2010, Pages

  Efron, Miles ^a   Winget, Megan ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

Information seeking; Microblogging; Social networks; Taxonomy; Twitter

Indexed keywords

EID: 84861446349     PISSN: None     EISSN: 15508390     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/meet.14504701208     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (24)

1. Borgatti, S. P., & Cross, R. (2003). A Relational View of Information Seeking and Learning in Social Networks. Manage. Sci., 49(4), 432-445.
2. Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal Of Computer Mediated Communication-Electronic Edition, 13(1), 210.
3. Broder, A. (2002). A taxonomy of web search. SIGIR Forum, 36(2), 3-10.
4. Cross, R., Parker, A., Prusak, L., & Borgatti, S. P. (2001). Knowing what we know: Supporting knowledge creation and sharing in social networks. Organizational Dynamics, 30(2), 100-120.
5. Cross, R., Rice, R. E., & Parker, A. (2001). Information seeking in social context: Structural influences and receipt of information benefits. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C, 31(4), 438-448.
6. Cross, R., & Sproull, L. (2004). More than an answer: Information relationships for actionable knowledge. Organization Science, 446-462.
7. Efron, Miles (2010). Hashtag retrieval in a microblogging environment. Proceedings of ACM SIGIR 2010, Geneva, Switzerland, 787-788.
8. Evans, B. M., & Chi, E. H. (2008). Towards a model of understanding social search. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 485-494). San Diego, CA, USA: ACM.
9. Evans, B. M., Kairam, S., & Pirolli, P. (2009). Exploring the cognitive consequences of social search. In Proceedings of the 27th international conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 3377-3382). Boston, MA, USA: ACM.
10. Fleiss, J.L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 378-382.
11. Hearst, M. A., Hurst, M., and Dumais, S. T. 2008. What should blog search look like?. In Proceeding of the 2008 ACM Workshop on Search in Social Media (Napa Valley, California, USA, October 30-30, 2008). SSM '08. ACM, New York, NY, 95-98.
12. Honeycutt, C., & Herring, S. C. (2009). Beyond Microblogging: Conversation and Collaboration via Twitter. In Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1-10). IEEE Computer Society.
13. Jansen, B. J., Zhang, M., Sobel, K. and Chowdhury, A. Twitter power:Tweets as electronic word of mouth. Journal of American Society for Information Science, 60(11) (2009), 2169-2188.
14. Java, A., Song, X., Finin, T., & Tseng, B. (2007). Why we Twitter: understanding microblogging usage and communities. In Proceedings of the 9th WebKDD and 1st SNA-KDD 2007 workshop on Web mining and social network analysis (pp. 56-65). San Jose, California: ACM.
15. Karttunen, L. (1977). Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1(1), 3-44.
16. Lenhart, A., & Fox, A. (2009). Twitter and status updating. Pew Internet Project Data Memo. http://www.pewinternet.org (last check 2010-05-25).
17. Morris, M. R., Teevan, J., & Panovich, K. (2010). A Comparison of Information Seeking Using Search Engines and Social Networks. In Proceedings of the Fourth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. Presented at the Fourth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, AAAI Press.
18. Morris, M. R., Teevan, J., & Panovich, K. (2010). What do people ask their social networks, and why?: a survey study of status message q&a behavior. In Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 1739-1748). Atlanta, Georgia, USA: ACM.
19. Naaman, M., Boase, J., & Lai, C. (2010). Is it really about me?: message content in social awareness streams. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 189-192). Savannah, Georgia, USA: ACM.
20. Takeshi Sakaki, Makoto Okazaki, Yutaka Matsuo (2010) Earthquake shakes Twitter users: real-time event detection by social sensors. International World Wide Web Conference. Raleigh, North Carolina, USA 2010, 851-860
21. Twidale, M. B., Nichols, D. M., & Paice, C. D. (1997). Browsing is a collaborative process. Information Processing & Management, 33(6), 761-783.
22. Wagner, C., Strohmaier, M. (2010). The Wisdom in Tweetonomies: Acquiring Latent Conceptual Structures from Social Awareness Streams, Semantic Search 2010 Workshop (SemSearch2010), in conjunction with The 19th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW2010), Raleigh, NC, USA, April 26-30, ACM, 2010.
23. Watters, A. (2010 4). Just the Facts: Statistics from Twitter Chirp. Read Write Web. Retrieved May 20, 2010, from http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/ just-the-facts-st atistics-from-Twitter-chirp.php
24. Zhao, D., & Rosson, M. B. (2009). How and why people Twitter: the role that micro-blogging plays in informal communication at work. In Proceedings of the ACM 2009 international conference on Supporting group work (pp. 243-252). Sanibel Island, Florida, USA: ACM.