Re: what tag should we use?

Posted by Patrick Dinnen on Jan 08, 2006; 8:12pm
URL: http://civicaccess.416.s1.nabble.com/what-tag-should-we-use-tp136p146.html

I don't think that multiple tagging is neccesariyl naive, in fact if
people are already using multiple tags for the same meaning then it
makes sense, as it helps people searching using the different tags.

There isn't any formal central list of what tags whould be used for a
topic that I know of, would run rather against the informal grain of
tagging I suspect. I think Michael's point in the original post was that
if we come up with a semi-official (or at least agreed upon) tag for the
group right at the start then we hopefully avoid that splintering, so
you don't have to tag using multiple variations on the same thing.

I know it's common for events and conferences now to announce 'this is
the tag'. Although there are multiple variations that make just as much
sense, the power of tagging diminishes as the terms used splinter.

Or, in a less round about way, there isn't much (if any benefit) to
using different tags for the same thing, so if we can settle on one
that's a good thing.

I see that the tag COACID already has one hit on del.icio.us, so how
about going with early movers advantage and make that the tag?

Patrick

Tracey P. Lauriault wrote:

> very nice!
> ok!
> i was on the same page, i sometimes naively double/triple tag digital
> objects to enable finding them in multiple ways. Would that be helpful
> here?  I'm thinking of triangulation, when trying to precicely define a
> point using gps or to validate a story on indymedia.  Could that be
> applied in this context? Or are there other concepts i am missing, such
> as - are TAGs registered in a list somewhere with additional metadata
> that stakes a name claim etc.?
>
> Patrick Dinnen wrote:
>
>
>>Well, I'm no folksonomist but... I guess the benefit of having a
>>standard tag for stuff related to the group is that it makes that stuff
>>much easier to find.
>>
>>At its simplest a tag is a single word that is manually attached to data
>>on various platforms that support tagging (blogs, flickr, del.icio.us
>>etc) to indicate that the information relates to a specific topic (in
>>this case COACID). The benefit of settling on a single tag to use for
>>the group is that it allows people to easily find all the material that
>>was tagged with the intention of including it in that group (stuff
>>relevant to COACID). If different people use different tags to mean the
>>same thing then a lot of the benefits of simplicity and findability are
>>lost.
>>
>>Not sure if I'm explaining this well, but perhaps that helps.
>>
>>Patrick
>>
>>Tracey P. Lauriault wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>OK!
>>>
>>>Just so I understand, and because i'm a little green on all this, can
>>>you explain the significance (not how to!) of tagging, and why is the
>>>choice of only one important?
>>>
>>>
>>>Patrick Dinnen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>>>My preference is for civicacc as Stephane suggests, slightly more
>>>>memorable. Mostly though it's important that we settle on one, and only
>>>>one, tag. What exactly the tag is isn't so important.
>>>>
>>>>Patrick
>>>>
>>>>Tracey P. Lauriault wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>both?
>>>>>
>>>>>Stephane Guidoin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>      
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I would have said that civicacc or civacc was correct (at least not
>>>>>>used for the moment in del.icio.us for example), but we can take
>>>>>>coacid also.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Stef
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Tracey P. Lauriault wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>coacid
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Michael Lenczner wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>for delicious / flickr / etc?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>coacid is a bit hard to remember and it's in english, but it is very unique.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>civacc is easier, but less unique and so a larger chance that garbage
>>>>>>>>could make it's way in.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Unless anyone thinks otherwise i'm going to suggest that we go with "coacid".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>[hidden email]
>>>>>>>>http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>[hidden email]
>>>>>>>http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>[hidden email]
>>>>>>http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>>>>>[hidden email]
>>>>>http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>      
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>>>>[hidden email]
>>>>http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>>>[hidden email]
>>>http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>>[hidden email]
>>http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca
>