Consumidores de información y descripción de documentos: las etiquetas de los usuarios en los catálogos de bibliotecas

Fernández-Ramos, Andrés . Consumidores de información y descripción de documentos: las etiquetas de los usuarios en los catálogos de bibliotecas., 2017 In: Tendencias multidisciplinarias del uso de los metadatos. UNAM, pp. 117-128. [Book chapter]

tendencias_metadatos2017.pdf - Published version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (138kB) | Preview

English abstract

In this review paper, the scientific literatura about the use of users' tags in library catalogs is analysed. The main advantages and disadvantages of this kind of documents descriptions are described, and the principal trends of the use of tags in library catalogs are commented.

Spanish abstract

Se hace una revisión sobre la literatura científica sobre el uso de las etiquetas o tags que utilizan los usuarios para describir el contenido de los documentos en los catálogos de bibliotecas. Se describen las ventajas e inconvenientes del uso de estas etiquetas y se analiza el uso que se hace de ellas.

Item type: Book chapter
Keywords: tags, catalogs
Subjects: H. Information sources, supports, channels. > HM. OPACs.
H. Information sources, supports, channels. > HT. Web 2.0, Social networks
Depositing user: Dr. Andrés Fernández-Ramos
Date deposited: 24 Mar 2018 13:38
Last modified: 24 Mar 2018 13:38


Adler, M. (2009). Transcending Library Catalogs: A Comparative Study of Controlled Terms in Library of Congress Subject Headings and User-Generated Tags in LibraryThing for Transgender Books. Journal of Web Librarianship, 3(4), 309–331.

Alonso Arévalo, J., Cordón García, J. A., Gómez Díaz, R., & García-Delgado Giménez, B. (2014). Uso y aplicación de herramientas 2.0 en los servicios, producción, organización y difusión de la información en la biblioteca universitaria. Investigación Bibliotecológica, 28(64), 51–74. Retrieved from

Antell, K., & Huang, J. (2008). Subject searching success: Transaction logs, patron perceptions, and implications for library instruction. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 48(1), 68–76. Retrieved from

Bianco, C. E. (2009). Medical librarians’ uses and perceptions of social tagging. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 97(2), 136–139.

Casey, M. E., & Savastinuk, L. C. (2006). Library 2.0: Service for the Next-Generation Library. Library Journal, 131(14), 40–42. Retrieved from\n

Clements, L., & Liew, C. L. (2016). Talking about tags: An exploratory study of librarians’ perception and use of social tagging in a public library. The Electronic Library, 34(2), 289–301.

Fast, K. V., & Campbell, D. G. (2005). “I still like Google”: University student perceptions of searching OPACs and the web. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 138–146.

Gerolimos, M. (2013). Tagging for Libraries: A Review of the Effectiveness of Tagging Systems for Library Catalogs. Journal of Library Metadata, 13(1), 36–58. Retrieved from

Hassan-Montero, Y., & Herrero-Solana, V. (2006). Improving Tag-Clouds as Visual Information Retrieval Interfaces. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Multidisciplinary Information Science and Technologies (pp. 25–28).

Holmberg, K., Huvila, I., Kronqvist-Berg, M., & Widén-Wulff, G. (2009). What is Library 2.0? Journal of Documentation, 65(4), 668–681.

Kim, H.-L., Decker, S., & Breslin, J. G. (2010). Representing and sharing folksonomies with semantics. Journal of Information Science, 36(1), 57–72.

Lee, Y. Y., & Yang, S. Q. (2012). Folksonomies as Subject Access - A Survey of Tagging in Library Online Catalogs and Discovery Layers. In IFLA Annual Conference (pp. 1–12).

Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control. (2008). On the Record: Report of the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control. Retrieved from

Lu, K., & Kipp, M. E. I. (2014). Understanding the retrieval effectiveness of collaborative tags and author keywords in different retrieval environments: An experimental study on medical collections. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(3), 483–500.

Lund, W., & Washburn, A. (2009). Patrons Cataloging? The Role and Quality of Patron Tagging in Item Description. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries (pp. 263–271). Retrieved from

Macgregor, G., & McCulloch, E. (2006). Collaborative tagging as a knowledge organisation and resource discovery tool. Library Review, 55(5), 291–300.

Macías González, J., & Pérez Casas, P. (2008). No es oro todo lo que reluce: una aproximación al nuevo concepto de catálogo social. Mi biblioteca, (13), 88–98. Retrieved from

Margaix-Arnal, D. (2008). El Opac 2.0: Puerta De Acceso a Los Contenidos De La Biblioteca. In IV Congreso Nacional de Bibliotecas Públicas. Retrieved from

Mendes, L. H., Quinonez-Skinner, J., & Skaggs, D. (2009). Subjecting the catalog to tagging. Library Hi Tech, 27(1), 30–41.

Noorhidawati, A., Hanum, N. F., & Zohoorian-Fooladi, N. (2013). Social Tagging in a Scholarly Digital Library Environment: Users’ Perspectives. Information Research, 18(3), C43. Retrieved from

Noruzi, A. (2006). Folksonomies: (Un)Controlled Vocabulary? Knowledge Organization, 33(4), 199 – 203.

Pecoskie, J., Spiteri, L. F., & Tarulli, L. (2014). OPACs, Users, and Readers’ Advisory: Exploring the Implications of User-Generated Content for Readers’ Advisory in Canadian Public Libraries. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 52(4), 1–23.

Porter, J. (2013). 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. Retrieved from

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.

Spiteri, L. F. (2006). The Use of Folksonomies in Public Library Catalogues. The Serials Librarian, 51(2), 75–89.

Spiteri, L. F., & Tarulli, L. (2012). Social Discovery Systems in Public Libraries: If We Build Them, Will They Come? Library Trends, 61(1), 132–147.

Steele, T. (2009). The new cooperative cataloging. Library Hi Tech, 27(1), 68–77.

Voorbij, H. (2012). The value of LibraryThing tags for academic libraries. Online Information Review, 36, 196–217.

Westcott, J., Chappell, A., & Lebel, C. (2009). LibraryThing for libraries at Claremont. Library Hi Tech, 27(1), 78–81.


Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item