Which of the book recommendation sections is the most similar to the user selections in LibraryThing?

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to determine the most similar set of recommendation books to the user selections in LibraryThing.

Design/methodology/approach

For this purpose, 30,000 tags related to History on the LibraryThing have been selected. Their tags and the tags of the related recommended books were extracted from three different recommendations sections on LibraryThing. Then, four similarity criteria of Jaccard coefficient, Cosine similarity, Dice coefficient and Pearson correlation coefficient were used to calculate the similarity between the tags. To determine the most similar recommended section, the best similarity criterion had to be determined first. So, a researcher-made questionnaire was provided to History experts.

Findings

The results showed that the Jaccard coefficient, with a frequency of 32.81, is the best similarity criterion from the point of view of History experts. Besides, the degree of similarity in LibraryThing recommendations section according to this criterion is equal to 0.256, in the section of books with similar library subjects and classifications is 0.163 and in the Member recommendations section is 0.152. Based on the findings of this study, the LibraryThing recommendations section has succeeded in introducing the most similar books to the selected book compared to the other two sections.

Originality/value

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, itis for the first time, three sections of LibraryThing recommendations are compared by four different similarity criteria to show which sections would be more beneficial for the user browsing. The results showed that machine recommendations work better than humans.

Citation

Momeni, A., Pashootanizadeh, M. and Kaedi, M. (2023), "Which of the book recommendation sections is the most similar to the user selections in LibraryThing?", Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-06-2022-0137