Folksonomies: Tags Strengths, Weaknesses And How To Make Them...
Popularity Report
 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rank
URL Tag Cloud
Bookmark History
Saved by 25 people (-3 private), first by anonymouse user on 2006-03-02
- Smile-browser on 2009-10-20 - Tags folksonomy , tags , tagging , folksonomies , article
- Acwagner on 2009-10-19 - Tags folksonomy , tagging
- Gkaefer on 2009-03-28 - Tags tagging , TW20 , folksonomy , socialnetworks
- Intelligentinfo on 2008-11-28 - Tags folksonomien , web2.0 , klassifikation
- Africangirl on 2008-11-28 - Tags folksonomien , web2.0 , klassifikation , delicious
Public Sticky notes
Educating users
Currently most users don't give much thought to the way they tag resources, and bad or "sloppy" tags are ten-a-penny in folksonomies. The main casualties are usually enumerated as follows:
- Misspelt tags (e.g., libary, libray)
- Badly encoded tags, such as unlikely compound word groupings (e.g.,TimBernersLee)
- Tags that do not follow convention in issues such as case and number; singular versus plural form (e.g., apple, apples)
- Personal tags that are without meaning to the wider community (e.g., mydog)
- Single-use tags that appear only once in the database. (e.g., billybobsdog)
Highlighted by ycc2106
Highlighted by agahran
Stephen Pinker in his text The Language Instinct discusses pidgin (a combination of words from other languages absent of any stable grammatical structure) and creole (a combination of words from other languages with a unique grammar imposed) languages. He argues that creole will come from pidgin if people are given the chance to speak to others. It could be argued that similarly social tagging services create the kinds of environments in which we can evolve metadata vocabularies in a natural way.
The evolution mentioned here refers to the production of a single, fairly stable, shared ontology, and this statement is fair in that Pinker's example is limited to a single community. Within a given setting, culture or social grouping, the process progresses as the system reflects currently preferred choices in language, supporting each participant in his or her own contributions to the group.
Highlighted by smile-browser
Public Comment
on 2006-07-26 by jeddco