Web Page Categorization: Part 4

Secondary Categorization

Based on the nature of the research question, a secondary categorization scheme could be applied to refine the inquiry by differentiating among variables within the selected model.  For example, when a Web page is evaluated as fitting into the consumption model, it could be further defined according to which stage in the process it represents.   In the consumption model, a user begins the search process on one Web page and ends at another.  Certain types of pages such as portals and search engines primarily would be categorized as fulfilling the first step in the process by serving as guides; whereas a page with information would be categorized as fulfilling the second step. 

If the Web page fits into the informational category, a third level of analysis can be applied that examines the type of information that is being distributed.  There are various models for information classification.  Merrill (1997) provides one classification scheme that divides information into information about facts, concepts, procedures, process, and principles.  Other classification schemes look at the level of source and classify between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources.  The model used should be tailored to suit the contours and goals of the research inquiry.

Within the community model, a second level of analysis could be applied to categorize the type of relationship the page enables.  For example, a page within a blog that facilitates user feedback and discussion might be categorized under the community model, but the relationship between the blog author and the other users is normally hierarchical.  Conversely, a page within an unmoderated bulletin board could be considered to fit into a more egalitarian community.

Final Remarks

Feenberg and Bakardjieva’s community and consumption models of the Internet offer a framework for thinking about the social implications behind the use and design of new media technologies, specifically the Internet.  The model seeks to understand the delineation between consumption and community; production and consumption (potentially); and the shifting role of individuals, from audience members to users. In order to fully appreciate the significance of the framework, a more thorough interpretation is required that considers its application in the context of social theories such as Feenberg’s theory of critical constructivism, in which the framework’s significance is construed as a means for analyzingsis of the political economics behind the design of new media technologies.  In this essay, the model has been envisioned and appropriated for use in a far less social context.  Its role in a content analysis method can be linked to questions about interactions within the relative interactivity of a given Web environment. 

Furthermore, the consumption vs. community framework has been developed as a theoretical construct, to serve as a model for thought,; not necessarily as a coding frame for empirical content analysis.  As mentioned previously, some Web pages may fall neatly into one of these two broad categories but there will be numerous cases in which a Web page could potentially be categorized as either consumption or community-oriented.  The development of compleimentary secondary categories would assist in the development of this model as an applicable coding frame.

References

Attardi, G & Gulli, A & Sebastiani, F (1999), ‘Automatic Web Page Categorization by Link and Context Analysis’, in C Hutchison and G Lanzarone (eds.) Proceedings of THAI-99, European Symposium on Telematics, Hypermedia and Artificial Intelligence, Varese, Italy.

Bakardjieva, M & Feenberg, A (2002), ‘Community Technology and Democratic Rationalization’, The Information Society, vol.18, no.3, pp. 181-192.

Merrill (1997), ‘Instructional Strategies that Teach’, in CBT Solutions, November/December, 1-11.

BrightPlanet, Deep Web FAQ, BrightPlanet, viewed 4 February, 2006, <http://www.brightplanet.com/deepcontent/deep_web_faq.asp>

Feenberg, A (1989), ‘The written world: on the theory and practice of computer conferencing’, in R Mason and A Kaye (eds.), Mindweave: Communication, computers and distance education, Pergamon Press, Oxford.

Glover, E & Tsioutskiouliklis, K & Lawrence, S & Pennock, D & Gary, W (2002).  ‘Using Web Structure for Classifiying and Describing Web Pages’, in Proceedings International WWW Conference, Honololu, Hawaii.

Gulli, A & Signorini, A (2005), The Indexable Web is more than 11.5 billion pages, University of Iowa, Iowa, viewed 4 February, 2006, <http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~asignori/web-size/>

Parker, R (2000), Relationship Marketing on the Internet, Adams Media Corporation, Holbrok, MA.

Drake Memorial Library, Types of Web pages, SUNY Brockport, viewed 6 February, 2005, <http://www.brockport.edu/~library5/guide/webtypes.htm>.