h a l f b a k e r y
My hatstand runneth over
idea:
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
meta:
news, help, about, links, report a problem
account:
Browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
Login
Create account.
|
|
|
Tagged HB
A minor modification to the halfbakery | |
Instead of a hierarchical tree-like structure,
which has all the pitfalls of the 'folder'
paradigm of last century's electronic filing
ethos, simply adopt a folksonomy-like
tagging system within the halfbakery's
category mechanism.
It should probably only involve the slight
tweaking of
one simple thing - the
architecture.
http://del.icio.us/
That's where the dots go. [jutta, Mar 11 2006]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomy
Folksonomy, apparently. [zen_tom, Mar 11 2006]
http://del.icio.us/...rch/?all=folksonomy
And the wheels on the bandwagon go round and round, round and round, round and round. [jutta, Mar 11 2006]
http://shirky.com/w...logy_overrated.html
And the wheels on the bandwagon go round and round
all through the town. [jutta, Mar 11 2006]
My de.lici.ou.s
http://del.icio.us/ian.tindale
exposing my private world, so now you can see what kind of a sensible chap I really am [Ian Tindale, Mar 11 2006]
[link]
|
| |
- and every user's understanding of
how the Halfbakery works |
|
| |
I could just dissolve the halfbakery. If someone wants to post something that's halfbaked, they can just use delicious (I never know where to put the dots) to tag it and add a "halfbakery" or "halfbaked" tag, and then they can leverage the folksonomy to reconstitute the site as their personal RSS feed. |
|
| |
I'm sure general reputation management systems are waiting to pick up on the whole croissant thing. |
|
| |
And, hey, it may not work and look like crap, but there's nothing to arouse people like the shudddering of the latest bandwagon's wheels going round and round beneath them. |
|
| |
But seriously, yes, the halfbakery should have tags. I'm not sure it should only have tags, but it definitely should have tags. Tags are useful. |
|
| |
<shudder> <shudder> <shudder>
I have to admit, I am quite aroused. |
|
| |
Folksonomy is a new word for me - [having looked it up later] Considering potential 'meta-drift' associated with the system, might it also be written fauxonomy? |
|
| |
It's rare when I can't find something here by querying with the functional equivalent of a tag. |
|
| |
I never use categories to find something here. |
|
| |
Can anyone explain to me the advantage of using tags to get a result set and one that is superior to what the (quite good) HB search engine returns? I doubt it's faster to use tags and I think that there is inherent inaccuracy in tag results as the tags, at least in folksonomies, are freeform. |
|
| |
I can imagine some new ways of visualizing the HB corpus through tags but question whether such views are useful in ways that are better than the search engine returns. |
|
| |
It's not so much for searching, as it is
for avoiding having to find the one
single node on the tree that a topic
belongs within. With a 'folder' type of
structure, if I've got something big and
red, which folder do I file it in? The 'big'
folder or the 'red' folder? With tags, I
tag it 'big' and 'red'. The tree
organisation
presupposes that everything within it
must have unique and exclusive
parents, and resembles the physical
world in which people would agonise
over which shelf a record should go
into, because being physical it can
generally only exist once. |
|
| |
Of course, it's all a bit theoretical - a
tag-based HB would be a fundamentally
different vegetable, with a whelmingly
different usage mode up-front. The
purpose would become different, as the
emphasis would be on adding to and
joining with sets. The set architecture
would become the dominant shape,
rather than many fading equal-priority
instances of eposidally-fresh single-
nodes being the dominant form as it is
now. |
|
| |
Dissolving the halfbakery would make
an interesting solution. What flavour
would it be? |
|
| |
Hmm. I see what you mean, Ian, and now better understand Jutta's response. I was imagining tagging as an add-on to the existing site. |
|
| |
I like the way information is presented here rather than the way it is collated. So long as the front end remains similar it should still work ok. Obviously 'recent 3' would no longer work, but the categories could be replaced the the most popular current tags (sphericon/custard type bandwagons would then experience positive feedback). 'Recent' would be just the same. Only problem I can foresee is that Multiply uses tags and I *never* tag anything there (although Multiply is only for fun, not for serious dedication like this place). |
|
| |
Bun for an interesting idea. |
|
| |
I was pondering similar thoughts a few days ago, likewise prompted by Multipl, I guess. |
|
| |
But per wagster's comments, I was wondering if the HB could somehow be made to be self-organizing, using keywords and phrases in ideas, annotations, links, even voting patterns to cluster like ideas with like. (I didn't post the idea, because it seems like a lot of work.) |
|
| |
Once the format was changed so not all ideas in the category are listed with an idea, the concept of a category lost all remaining usefulness to me as a reader. (I gave up on the Recent 3 view before custom views became available.) |
|
| |
Add tags as an additional to the current catagories, with current catagories as automatically added tags. Let them play out together and see how things go before any decision on which is better. |
|
| |
I've been thinking a bit about this, and the fact that a search references all the words in an idea and its associated annotations, we already have a tagged system as such. Which is pretty much what [bristolz] said. |
|
| |
Try it out, do a search for the word tagged - I bet this idea comes up near the top of the list. |
|
| |
Perhaps the search results could show the closeness or relevance of the match (with a row of croissants perhaps) - I'm guessing they're already ordered by how closely they match the given criteria(?) |
|
| |
Well, that sort of caters for the output
phase, but it doesn't attend to the input
phase, where the user chooses tags
rather than enduring the navigation
through a
taxonomical heirachical menu of every
concept in the world known to
halfbakers before an
idea can be posted in good manners.
Tagging represents the mental
shorthand for 'what notions an idea
belongs to' rather than the exact
content (although in many cases, the
latter fully encompasses instances from
the former). What about situations
where the user uses tags that aren't
found in the form of words within the
idea itself? What about such situations
where the tag choice forms a social
commonality such that others can guess
at some of the same tags, and find it,
without those tags even being
coincident with any of the words in the
idea content. |
|
| |
Yes, (but) the inclusion or exclusion of certain words is just as arbitrary a method of categorising an object as having a user apply certain tags at the outset. In both cases, the more people who participate (either by annotating with natural text, or by assigning various tags) the better the overall standard of categorisation due to the smoothing influence of a larger sample population. |
|
| |
Yes, some ideas might fit into keyword categories without a particular word appearing in the idea text - but the more annotations it attracts, the more likely the overall text can be semantically analysed. |
|
| |
The same problem (of something fitting into a category that's not directly pointed at) effects tag based systems too - the only difference is that the tagging becomes a concious, deliberate process, rather than an axillary, accidental one. |
|
| |
Plus there's nothing stopping someone from purposefully seeding an idea with text that might draw searches (As done here within these parentheses with words such as keyword, node, latent semantic analysis, tag, tagging, search etc) |
|
| |
I'd be interested in looking at how a search algorithm can be tweaked to be able to run more semantically (using techniques such as LSA) That seems a more exciting (and natural) way to interface with a big mass of data, which is all the categories and tags are there to do. |
|
| |
Having said all that, the status quo requires someone plugs an idea into an existing category - which can admittedly be a little needle-threadingly arduous sometimes. |
|
| |
Tagging photos and graphics and other such files:great. Tagging text based ideas: unnecessary. |
|
| |
To have an effective tag system you have to rely on the users to make tags for them. You leave responsibility up to them to use lucid words, or at least accurate words that other users will also associate with the same idea. |
|
| |
The input phase of the HB is currently more strongly typed than a tag based bag of ideas and I think that's a good thing. If I am looking for an idea I'll search the text of the idea - I can't say that I browse for specific ideas at all. |
|
| |
You point out the characteristic of a tree structure and without the ability to replicate or logically copy idea that is a fair point. But I would suggest that it doesn't matter which one you choose. If someone wants to find the idea they can search for it. |
|
| |
You could quite simply place text at the bottom of your idea with the letters tag prepended to each word. There are your tags right there. Admittedly there isn't a pretty UI to collect them together in pastel shaded round-edged rectangles but that isn't too much of a problem. |
|
| |
(I'm involved in a project that is looking at ontologies & OWL: the computer science guys are loving it, the electronic engineers are thinking 'what's the fuss') |
|
| |
So they couldn't give two hoots about
OWL? |
|
| |