Re: Of tags and topics
- From: Matthew Paul Thomas <mpt myrealbox com>
- To: Epiphany List <epiphany-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Of tags and topics
- Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 07:29:28 +0000
On Mar 6, 2006, at 1:35 AM, Peter Harvey wrote:
The problem I have is that no structure can be inferred from tags.
Tags can be anything at all, important or unimportant. Topics are
those particular things that are important about the object and that
the user wants to be presented with to find an object again.
It takes effort to type a keyword. Therefore keywords *are* "those
particular things that are important about the object and that [I want]
to be presented with to find [it] again".
A more detailed blurb on topics is on my page describing the
hierarchical bookmark menu. What interface would you propose instead
if we just had tags/keywords?
If by "interface" you mean "method of creating submenus", the same as
we have now.
Note that I don't like the term "keywords" to replace "tags" as they
need not be "key" at all.
If they weren't, people wouldn't use them. (There will always be people
who don't understand their purpose and enter useless keywords/tags --
see the spurious tags on 43things.com, amazon.com, and occasionally
www.metafilter.com for examples -- but that problem can be lessened by
using the more familiar and precise "keywords" term.)
In real life we use the term "tag" to refer to all sorts of labels for
objects (prices, warnings, sizes, etc). Perhaps "labels" would be a
better term? But not keen on "keywords".
In the ontological sense, "tag" is merely a Web-2.0-ese synonym for
"keyword". That's why I prefer the latter: it means the same, is more
familiar, and is more obvious about expecting words rather than phrases
(which is necessary for the interface to be simple enough for most
people to bother with, i.e. a single text field).
Matthew Paul Thomas
] [Thread Prev