How do you decide which tags to include? December 6, 2013 5:34 AM Subscribe
When constructing FPPs for the blue, how do you determine which tags to use? Nouns, proper nouns, verbs, adjectives, things that appear in your post, things that don't appear in your post, number of tags? I'm rarely ... no, never ... happy with the tags I assign to a post and wonder if they are rubbish, and future readers interested in the subject will never find it because of insufficient tagging, or readers not interested in the post will come across it because of vague or overdone tagging. Reminded of this issue when looking at, and admiring, the (IMHO) beautifully contextual and comprehensive tagging that has gone into that post.
(Context: I get myself tied in knots over the tags and they often take longer than the post body itself and it's mentally exhausting. Possibly because maybe am odd but tend to over-think things like this, possibly as am from an Information Science background and used to high, critical standards, possibly as working without the safety/crutch/confines of a controlled vocabulary feels strange, possibly the fear of a callout that my tags are rubbish and I'm a fraudulent information summariser.)
(Context: I get myself tied in knots over the tags and they often take longer than the post body itself and it's mentally exhausting. Possibly because maybe am odd but tend to over-think things like this, possibly as am from an Information Science background and used to high, critical standards, possibly as working without the safety/crutch/confines of a controlled vocabulary feels strange, possibly the fear of a callout that my tags are rubbish and I'm a fraudulent information summariser.)
I usually use every proper noun that seems related, add a few tags related to subject and format (e.g., 'music,' 'essays'), then make sure I've tagged the the author and source ('jamesfallows,' 'theatlantic'). Works okay, I guess.
posted by box at 5:48 AM on December 6, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by box at 5:48 AM on December 6, 2013 [2 favorites]
I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of users don't have any interaction with tags beyond idly tossing a handful into the box on the infrequent occasions that they make a post. Certainly nothing to agonise over.
posted by pipeski at 5:58 AM on December 6, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by pipeski at 5:58 AM on December 6, 2013 [1 favorite]
Agree with pipeski. I wouldn't worry too much.
Blasdelb knocked it out of the park with those tags today.
posted by 0 answers at 6:02 AM on December 6, 2013 [1 favorite]
Blasdelb knocked it out of the park with those tags today.
posted by 0 answers at 6:02 AM on December 6, 2013 [1 favorite]
I think about the filters someone might use to find stuff like what I'm posting. So beyond the specifics of the post - the proper names Blasdelb mentioned, and which make up the bulk of the tag set you linked to - I use generic category names like "media," "history," "digital," "gender," etc. I also use multiple forms of certain words, and synonyms (as in the example above: film, featurefilm, movie, motionpicture) But I do it fast, less than three minutes is plenty of time investment for a decent tag set in most cases.
I get myself tied in knots over the tags and they often take longer than the post body itself and it's mentally exhausting.
You're overthinking, for sure. Focus on utility and the 80% of user activity, not the 20%. I love tags on MeFi but I thnk they're a bit of a blunt instrument, just a first sort - they can't really be pinpoint-level identifiers. People will need to filter results for any tag search. Finally, other people can tag your post, so if your tagging is lacking some major element someone may add tags for you. I've done that on occasion.
posted by Miko at 6:02 AM on December 6, 2013
I get myself tied in knots over the tags and they often take longer than the post body itself and it's mentally exhausting.
You're overthinking, for sure. Focus on utility and the 80% of user activity, not the 20%. I love tags on MeFi but I thnk they're a bit of a blunt instrument, just a first sort - they can't really be pinpoint-level identifiers. People will need to filter results for any tag search. Finally, other people can tag your post, so if your tagging is lacking some major element someone may add tags for you. I've done that on occasion.
posted by Miko at 6:02 AM on December 6, 2013
Tag with the basics (proper nouns, a couple of obvious subject tags), then post. You can add tags after it's live, and sometimes people will suggest other good ones. If they notice the tags. Which they may not, especially if they're reading via mefi mobile.
posted by rtha at 6:11 AM on December 6, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by rtha at 6:11 AM on December 6, 2013 [1 favorite]
Whatever (relevant) tags people use in December, they should totally check whether the use of such tags are mentioned in the various prize categories of the 2013 MeFi Choice Awards!
posted by the quidnunc kid at 6:19 AM on December 6, 2013
posted by the quidnunc kid at 6:19 AM on December 6, 2013
Unless I am using tags for humorous purposes, I use general categorical terms: "videogames," "animals," "comics," and so on. If there is a relevant proper noun, that goes in as well.
posted by griphus at 6:22 AM on December 6, 2013
posted by griphus at 6:22 AM on December 6, 2013
Looking over your last couple of posts the only thing that leaps out is maybe using "civilwar" instead of (or in addition to) using "civil" and "war" individually; the combined tag is more focused and pulls up more directly relevant results.
I always hesitate about including tags like both "movie" and "movies," which shouldn't be separate tags but are for some reason I forget right now.
posted by mediareport at 6:42 AM on December 6, 2013
I always hesitate about including tags like both "movie" and "movies," which shouldn't be separate tags but are for some reason I forget right now.
posted by mediareport at 6:42 AM on December 6, 2013
I always add the names of the people the post is about.
posted by ocherdraco at 6:42 AM on December 6, 2013
posted by ocherdraco at 6:42 AM on December 6, 2013
You can be thoughtful, but don't stress about it; you can always add tags later. Often I'll see something in a comment that would make a good tag and I add it, but when I'm blanking out I just add a few obvious ones and revisit it once it's posted.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:49 AM on December 6, 2013
posted by Room 641-A at 6:49 AM on December 6, 2013
I use keywords from the article(s) in the post, maybe fret about it for a minute and then move on.
Metafilter is messy or at least not orderly. The site relies more on people than bots or algorithms and that's just a thing, sometimes good, sometimes annoying.
It would be lovely to have each post perfectly linked and tagged, so future generations can find that awesome post you made. But then you have to define what perfectly linked and tagged means and that sounds like real work.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:57 AM on December 6, 2013 [1 favorite]
Metafilter is messy or at least not orderly. The site relies more on people than bots or algorithms and that's just a thing, sometimes good, sometimes annoying.
It would be lovely to have each post perfectly linked and tagged, so future generations can find that awesome post you made. But then you have to define what perfectly linked and tagged means and that sounds like real work.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:57 AM on December 6, 2013 [1 favorite]
I go for general categorical stuff and try and capture the general "this is a post about x, y, z" so that if someone's searching for a given general or specific subject without knowing e.g. proper names or titles or which specific bits of vocab frippery I happened to want to put into the post text itself they'll still have a reasonable chance.
On the flip side, I also try to throw in first and last name of primary authors/subjects in case they go searching on that side without knowing aught else about what might've been in a post, e.g. "I should check what other posts about Laurie Anderson have been made." A fair number of accidental doubles I see are arty posts where it's two different links to two different showcases of substantially the same work by the same artist but the artist name appeared in neither the body nor the tags of the original.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:28 AM on December 6, 2013 [2 favorites]
On the flip side, I also try to throw in first and last name of primary authors/subjects in case they go searching on that side without knowing aught else about what might've been in a post, e.g. "I should check what other posts about Laurie Anderson have been made." A fair number of accidental doubles I see are arty posts where it's two different links to two different showcases of substantially the same work by the same artist but the artist name appeared in neither the body nor the tags of the original.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:28 AM on December 6, 2013 [2 favorites]
I get myself tied in knots over the tags and they often take longer than the post body itself and it's mentally exhausting.
This is an AskMe question in and of itself. Unless you are posting about something that you think is a likely double post, the tags are really just to help people find similar stuff they might like which is a really low stakes thing on MetaFilter. The only tags I've ever called out are ones that are sneering in their editorialness and often those are here in MetaTalk.
I do think it's worth understanding the house style here
- combine double words into phrases (civilwar is a good example, above). Some people do civil_war which is not really how we do things here and likely to not be as useful as the previous style
- add plural/singular which can be helpful
- proper nouns are helpful, include last name on its own (nelsonmandela, mandela)
- broad categories are helpful (music, art, SLYT)
- any really specific words are helpful (nanotechnology, phrygiancap)
- cutesy tags are used at your own discretion but they annoy some people
- adding useful tags to older posts (which you can do to your own posts or to the posts of someone you are a co-contact with) is AOK, you can even ask us to add tags to an older posts if you can't do it, we have a few people who email us about this sort of thing
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:30 AM on December 6, 2013 [7 favorites]
This is an AskMe question in and of itself. Unless you are posting about something that you think is a likely double post, the tags are really just to help people find similar stuff they might like which is a really low stakes thing on MetaFilter. The only tags I've ever called out are ones that are sneering in their editorialness and often those are here in MetaTalk.
I do think it's worth understanding the house style here
- combine double words into phrases (civilwar is a good example, above). Some people do civil_war which is not really how we do things here and likely to not be as useful as the previous style
- add plural/singular which can be helpful
- proper nouns are helpful, include last name on its own (nelsonmandela, mandela)
- broad categories are helpful (music, art, SLYT)
- any really specific words are helpful (nanotechnology, phrygiancap)
- cutesy tags are used at your own discretion but they annoy some people
- adding useful tags to older posts (which you can do to your own posts or to the posts of someone you are a co-contact with) is AOK, you can even ask us to add tags to an older posts if you can't do it, we have a few people who email us about this sort of thing
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:30 AM on December 6, 2013 [7 favorites]
Just tag with the words that people would use to search for the post. If you want to get cute, do it after adding all the worthwhile tags. I think the site has gotten better about tags, but it has been one of my longstanding frustrations that a post, say, about a NYT interview with David Sedaris will end up tagged "Article funny ohmygodI'mcrying sogood" and not "Davidsedaris newyorktimes nyt interview."
I also don't think the tags should be the poster's metacommentary on the post. Wordshore, I don't have any standing beef with your tagging--looking back at your posts, I think you do a good job--but on this post about the ineffableswede reveal, you tagged it "anticlimax," which strikes me as superfluous. I don't need you to tell me it was an anticlimax; that wasn't how you framed the post itself, and it seems unlikely to me that someone would say to themselves in a few months "What was that post about an anticlimax I read a while back?" Meanwhile, you didn't tag it "ineffableswede" or "veronikalarsson" which were kind of the key words from the story.
Again, looking back at your posts, I think you generally do an above-average job tagging things, so don't fret about tags. But if people as a whole would just concentrate on the key nouns, names, places, media outlets, etc., it would make tags so much more useful.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 7:33 AM on December 6, 2013 [2 favorites]
I also don't think the tags should be the poster's metacommentary on the post. Wordshore, I don't have any standing beef with your tagging--looking back at your posts, I think you do a good job--but on this post about the ineffableswede reveal, you tagged it "anticlimax," which strikes me as superfluous. I don't need you to tell me it was an anticlimax; that wasn't how you framed the post itself, and it seems unlikely to me that someone would say to themselves in a few months "What was that post about an anticlimax I read a while back?" Meanwhile, you didn't tag it "ineffableswede" or "veronikalarsson" which were kind of the key words from the story.
Again, looking back at your posts, I think you generally do an above-average job tagging things, so don't fret about tags. But if people as a whole would just concentrate on the key nouns, names, places, media outlets, etc., it would make tags so much more useful.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 7:33 AM on December 6, 2013 [2 favorites]
Wordshore: "When constructing FPPs for the blue, how do you determine which tags to use? "
Don't overthink it.
I over-tag on purpose, using nouns directly related to the topic, and a few general terms iike "history" or "science" so the post falls into general category searches. This occasional leads to snarky comments in threads, but I simply flag those and move on. Or ignore 'em completely.
I tag a lot for two reasons: I want people not to wind up having a double deleted because they couldn't find it in the archive. Having doubles deleted sucks. And I want the post to be findable by people researching / searching for a particular topic.
Tag overkill leads to something I kind of think is a bit problematic, though. On a post like this one, of the five "Related Posts" listed, four of them were previously posted by me, and only one by another person (in this case a great post by Rhaomi.) The Related Posts section uses tags for its search, so if you usually use a particular set of tags in your posts, that's what will show up.
This isn't exactly a problem. It's a minor thing but I think it's not so great to see so many posts from a single user in that section. I know I'd rather see a posts by a bunch of different people instead. Some diversity would be better, I think.
posted by zarq at 7:49 AM on December 6, 2013
Don't overthink it.
I over-tag on purpose, using nouns directly related to the topic, and a few general terms iike "history" or "science" so the post falls into general category searches. This occasional leads to snarky comments in threads, but I simply flag those and move on. Or ignore 'em completely.
I tag a lot for two reasons: I want people not to wind up having a double deleted because they couldn't find it in the archive. Having doubles deleted sucks. And I want the post to be findable by people researching / searching for a particular topic.
Tag overkill leads to something I kind of think is a bit problematic, though. On a post like this one, of the five "Related Posts" listed, four of them were previously posted by me, and only one by another person (in this case a great post by Rhaomi.) The Related Posts section uses tags for its search, so if you usually use a particular set of tags in your posts, that's what will show up.
This isn't exactly a problem. It's a minor thing but I think it's not so great to see so many posts from a single user in that section. I know I'd rather see a posts by a bunch of different people instead. Some diversity would be better, I think.
posted by zarq at 7:49 AM on December 6, 2013
- combine double words into phrases (civilwar is a good example,
One thing I do after I post something is double check the tags. It's easy to accidentally keep spaces, especially if you've got a lot of tags or first names.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:50 AM on December 6, 2013
One thing I do after I post something is double check the tags. It's easy to accidentally keep spaces, especially if you've got a lot of tags or first names.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:50 AM on December 6, 2013
I like to search for posts and questions using tags, so what I like to do is sit and think "if I wanted to find this or something like this/related to this in the future, what keywords would I use to bring it up?" And then I throw in a less obvious one or two just because I can.
posted by phunniemee at 7:50 AM on December 6, 2013
posted by phunniemee at 7:50 AM on December 6, 2013
phunniemee: " And then I throw in a less obvious one or two just because I can."
Heh.
posted by zarq at 7:52 AM on December 6, 2013
Heh.
posted by zarq at 7:52 AM on December 6, 2013
0 answers: Blasdelb knocked it out of the park with those tags today.
But he outdid himself with the Coronet Instructional Films post.
While 444 tags* seems like overkill, most of those tags make sense because they refer to both the broad topics and more interesting specifics, and are linked in short tags that are likely to be used elsewhere. Because the post was about a company that made instructional videos on a variety of topics, a mere handful wouldn't have really covered the post.
I try to capture the generic themes, and include both singular and plural (as long as the post is about multiple items), as well as the artist/ author of the work(s), both by FirstnameLastname and Lastname (unless the last name is so generic it is useless, like Smith).
After all that, I look at any previous posts for what was used there, and sometimes include additional tags based on those posts. I have also gone back and added tags to my posts when I come across a post of the same topic/theme but I notice there are no connecting tags.
As for when I add tags: I have taken to submitting my posts with a few good tags, then adding more once I review my post. I do this so I can let go of the post and stop reviewing the phrasing and the links I chose to use. Sometimes I'll find more related posts by checking the tags, and if so, I'll specifically call them out in a comment.
* Hurray for copying tags and pasting them in Excel to get a total number of tags. I wouldn't have believed there were that many if I had not seen the total myself.
posted by filthy light thief at 8:27 AM on December 6, 2013 [3 favorites]
But he outdid himself with the Coronet Instructional Films post.
While 444 tags* seems like overkill, most of those tags make sense because they refer to both the broad topics and more interesting specifics, and are linked in short tags that are likely to be used elsewhere. Because the post was about a company that made instructional videos on a variety of topics, a mere handful wouldn't have really covered the post.
I try to capture the generic themes, and include both singular and plural (as long as the post is about multiple items), as well as the artist/ author of the work(s), both by FirstnameLastname and Lastname (unless the last name is so generic it is useless, like Smith).
After all that, I look at any previous posts for what was used there, and sometimes include additional tags based on those posts. I have also gone back and added tags to my posts when I come across a post of the same topic/theme but I notice there are no connecting tags.
As for when I add tags: I have taken to submitting my posts with a few good tags, then adding more once I review my post. I do this so I can let go of the post and stop reviewing the phrasing and the links I chose to use. Sometimes I'll find more related posts by checking the tags, and if so, I'll specifically call them out in a comment.
* Hurray for copying tags and pasting them in Excel to get a total number of tags. I wouldn't have believed there were that many if I had not seen the total myself.
posted by filthy light thief at 8:27 AM on December 6, 2013 [3 favorites]
I personally think from trying to use tags to find old posts that overtagging beats undertagging.
posted by BrotherCaine at 8:45 AM on December 6, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by BrotherCaine at 8:45 AM on December 6, 2013 [1 favorite]
I use the same tags almost every time because my posts tend to be somewhat similar.
posted by elizardbits at 9:34 AM on December 6, 2013
posted by elizardbits at 9:34 AM on December 6, 2013
All appropriate proper nouns. Broad subject area(s), narrower subject areas if appropriate, geographical area if appropriate, comedy tag if appropriate.
posted by Artw at 9:50 AM on December 6, 2013
posted by Artw at 9:50 AM on December 6, 2013
This is an AskMe question in and of itself.
Well, yes, you may perhaps have a point. Less than 10 minutes to write this MetaTalk post (one draft only) in TextEdit. Then an hour sitting, fretting, on a park bench, wondering what tags to come up with (plus existential and historical angst about the difference between a tag and a keyword), and, well, the results are there.
posted by Wordshore at 9:58 AM on December 6, 2013 [1 favorite]
Well, yes, you may perhaps have a point. Less than 10 minutes to write this MetaTalk post (one draft only) in TextEdit. Then an hour sitting, fretting, on a park bench, wondering what tags to come up with (plus existential and historical angst about the difference between a tag and a keyword), and, well, the results are there.
posted by Wordshore at 9:58 AM on December 6, 2013 [1 favorite]
I'm guided by tags that others have used for similar posts. If a tag isn't useful as an aggregator, it's just decorative. Prior use, not my own creativity, is the best guide. Looking at your tags for this post, the only ones that seem useful in a practical way are "tag" and "tagging" and maybe "vocabulary." I'd add "tags" too. You used "ironic" as a tag. If I were seriously searching for posts about irony and used "ironic" as a search term, I wouldn't expect to see your post returned. But I wouldn't care, because the tags here are just not that useful. It would be great if there were an established tradition of using "postconstruction" or something like that to aggregate posts similar to your question, but there isn't, and adding such a tag won't start one. I'm drawn to tagging any proper names that may occur because of my LIS background, but in truth, in the absence of a standardized format, it probably doesn't really add value. Like others here, I also sometimes use tags as metacommentary. If I took the tagging more seriously here, I wouldn't do that. If you want to up your tagging game, think about how you might want to search for your post and add those terms (and those terms only).
posted by Wordwoman at 10:07 AM on December 6, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Wordwoman at 10:07 AM on December 6, 2013 [1 favorite]
Tags are one of those things that I am very ambivalent about because no one seems to read them anyway. See my last FPP as an example where I put "satire" in the tags to indicate, "Hey, RTA with that in mind" and people still fell for it. So, tags, yeah, they are required, I'll phone 'em in next time. (has a post ever been deleted for crappy tagging?)
posted by Annika Cicada at 10:17 AM on December 6, 2013
posted by Annika Cicada at 10:17 AM on December 6, 2013
I'm not very good at it. I put in a couple of obvious general items, and maybe a joke. Like, if I were to have a post about platypuses, I'd probably put: australia, platypus, monotreme, knifeyspoony.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:25 AM on December 6, 2013
posted by Chrysostom at 10:25 AM on December 6, 2013
The mobile stylesheet doesn't even show tags. So if you're putting them in to send a message to people about the content of the post, keep in mind that some users don't see 'em.
posted by zarq at 10:25 AM on December 6, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by zarq at 10:25 AM on December 6, 2013 [1 favorite]
you are right, zarq, I did not think about that, which was oblivious of me seeing as how I mostly read metafilter from a mobile device.
posted by Annika Cicada at 10:32 AM on December 6, 2013
posted by Annika Cicada at 10:32 AM on December 6, 2013
(has a post ever been deleted for crappy tagging?)
This would seem to be a good query for the Infodumpster. It seems like there are cases where tagging is mentioned as part of the problematic framing of a post, or where critical information is conveyed in the tags but nowhere else, but it doesn't seem like otherwise good posts get deleted for their tags alone? Which wouldn't make sense, given that it's easy to modify the tags after the fact...
posted by beryllium at 10:35 AM on December 6, 2013
This would seem to be a good query for the Infodumpster. It seems like there are cases where tagging is mentioned as part of the problematic framing of a post, or where critical information is conveyed in the tags but nowhere else, but it doesn't seem like otherwise good posts get deleted for their tags alone? Which wouldn't make sense, given that it's easy to modify the tags after the fact...
posted by beryllium at 10:35 AM on December 6, 2013
Yeah, in the really unlikely case of an otherwise-excellent post with catastrophically, nuclear-grade bad tags we'd probably just nix the problem tags and send the poster a grumpy note for the future. I can't think of any case of that specifically having happened, usually tags are a cherry-on-top issue with an already problematic post when it's even an issue.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:41 AM on December 6, 2013
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:41 AM on December 6, 2013
Annika Cicada: "you are right, zarq, I did not think about that, which was oblivious of me seeing as how I mostly read metafilter from a mobile device."
I literally didn't notice they were missing on the mobile stylesheet for years. Then someone left a "Needs an ____ tag" comment on one of my posts. Tried to add one in while on my phone and... oh. :)
posted by zarq at 11:01 AM on December 6, 2013
I literally didn't notice they were missing on the mobile stylesheet for years. Then someone left a "Needs an ____ tag" comment on one of my posts. Tried to add one in while on my phone and... oh. :)
posted by zarq at 11:01 AM on December 6, 2013
I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of users don't have any interaction with tags beyond idly tossing a handful into the box on the infrequent occasions that they make a post.
this is me in a nutshell. In fact, the tagging part is my least favorite part of making a post, an extra step that doesn't feel relevant to me. I just don't think that way (and I know I don't search that way).
I'd be quite happy to skip the tagging and allow those who care to fill in the blanks for me.
posted by philip-random at 11:16 AM on December 6, 2013 [3 favorites]
this is me in a nutshell. In fact, the tagging part is my least favorite part of making a post, an extra step that doesn't feel relevant to me. I just don't think that way (and I know I don't search that way).
I'd be quite happy to skip the tagging and allow those who care to fill in the blanks for me.
posted by philip-random at 11:16 AM on December 6, 2013 [3 favorites]
I had a CHI short paper in which I presented some findings from asking web users what they knew of and thought about tags, without restricting them to people who had experience tagging content (there's a whole lot of studies asking people why and how they tag).
From the tag user perspective, tags are categories (a way to group related material together), keywords (to quote a study participant, "crucial words that describe a page"), and query suggestions or related terms ("related terms that you might wish to check out as well"). Some subjects thought of tags as links that would lead you to other content, relevant or not.
In pilot studies I found that subjects didn't like seeing a whole mess of tags and really long tags, including the "civilwar" style of combined tags. Combined with a finding of my dissertation study on the use of tags, that people use tags as a way to get a quick snapshot of the content, a really long exhaustive list of tags is probably not a good idea. So think of tags as being the "elevator pitch" for your post, not an exhaustive description.
posted by research monkey at 11:17 AM on December 6, 2013 [1 favorite]
From the tag user perspective, tags are categories (a way to group related material together), keywords (to quote a study participant, "crucial words that describe a page"), and query suggestions or related terms ("related terms that you might wish to check out as well"). Some subjects thought of tags as links that would lead you to other content, relevant or not.
In pilot studies I found that subjects didn't like seeing a whole mess of tags and really long tags, including the "civilwar" style of combined tags. Combined with a finding of my dissertation study on the use of tags, that people use tags as a way to get a quick snapshot of the content, a really long exhaustive list of tags is probably not a good idea. So think of tags as being the "elevator pitch" for your post, not an exhaustive description.
posted by research monkey at 11:17 AM on December 6, 2013 [1 favorite]
Metadata is important, people!
posted by Artw at 11:49 AM on December 6, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 11:49 AM on December 6, 2013 [1 favorite]
Yep, as a librarian, tags pain me in a 'failure of the folksonomy' kind of way (remember that? All our users were going to tag things for us, they would be better at tagging things for other users than we were, and cataloging would go the way of the dodo. Ah, tagging). It's a remnant of an earlier time in internet history, so of course MetaFilter still has them.
As a user, though, I instantly tune out a wall of tags and find them of dubious use when searching (in fact, the only time I use tags when searching is when doing my research before posting an AskMe question, as for some reason the green tends to be better tagged than posts on the blue). So my advice would be to tag only the obvious stuff (for this post, I would not have tagged LIS and librarianship, for example, as they are too tangential) and if tags are suggested by other users, add them later. It's not like posting removes the chance to add tags, after all--in the rare event you forget something, just add it when you get a moment.
I am an anxious person (I don't want to discuss how long it took me to put together my first post for the blue) so I understand your stressing, but tagging? The least permanent part of the post, and therefore the most fixable. No need to be anxious!
posted by librarylis at 11:52 AM on December 6, 2013 [2 favorites]
As a user, though, I instantly tune out a wall of tags and find them of dubious use when searching (in fact, the only time I use tags when searching is when doing my research before posting an AskMe question, as for some reason the green tends to be better tagged than posts on the blue). So my advice would be to tag only the obvious stuff (for this post, I would not have tagged LIS and librarianship, for example, as they are too tangential) and if tags are suggested by other users, add them later. It's not like posting removes the chance to add tags, after all--in the rare event you forget something, just add it when you get a moment.
I am an anxious person (I don't want to discuss how long it took me to put together my first post for the blue) so I understand your stressing, but tagging? The least permanent part of the post, and therefore the most fixable. No need to be anxious!
posted by librarylis at 11:52 AM on December 6, 2013 [2 favorites]
So... here's how I'd do it... this is ChrisSims discussing HarleyQuinn, so those are a given, and it's Comics and specifically DCComics and a spin off from Batman, more specifically the Joker, and she's a Villian. BatmanTheAnimatedSeries gets a mention which is commonly abbreviated to BTAS around here, and she's played by ArleenSorkin who I have a good interview link for. And, because it's comics there's a possible Controversy relating to Sexism (and Suicide). What else? Errr... Love, Obsession, Nu52, okay done.
posted by Artw at 12:19 PM on December 6, 2013
posted by Artw at 12:19 PM on December 6, 2013
And then a big later I'll realize I left out "Animation" and add it.
posted by Artw at 12:20 PM on December 6, 2013
posted by Artw at 12:20 PM on December 6, 2013
philip-random: " I'd be quite happy to skip the tagging and allow those who care to fill in the blanks for me."
People you have marked as contacts on the site can fill in tags for you on anything you post.
posted by zarq at 1:00 PM on December 6, 2013
People you have marked as contacts on the site can fill in tags for you on anything you post.
posted by zarq at 1:00 PM on December 6, 2013
People you have marked as contacts on the site can fill in tags for you on anything you post.
Except I still can't post until I've done at least some tagging
posted by philip-random at 1:03 PM on December 6, 2013
If you would like your tags to be useful as well as entertaining, here is a list of the FPP tags by usage count.
Presumably people would search using the more common ones.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 1:41 PM on December 6, 2013
Presumably people would search using the more common ones.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 1:41 PM on December 6, 2013
I have this sudden mental image of a mod scowling at a screen over my last comment.
posted by zarq at 1:57 PM on December 6, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by zarq at 1:57 PM on December 6, 2013 [2 favorites]
Tell Me No Lies: "here is a list of the FPP tags by usage count. "
posted by zarq at 1:59 PM on December 6, 2013
100WaysToLoveACat....
posted by zarq at 1:59 PM on December 6, 2013
Only 16 tags for patrickstewart? We are failing our mission.
posted by Annika Cicada at 2:18 PM on December 6, 2013
posted by Annika Cicada at 2:18 PM on December 6, 2013
and yet five for vampiresquid. We're doing fine.
posted by philip-random at 3:45 PM on December 6, 2013
posted by philip-random at 3:45 PM on December 6, 2013
I take a look through previous, similar posts to find tags that have already been used which I haven't thought of. I also add tags with the intent of trying to shape the "related tags" list that appears when you're browsing through a tag.
posted by XMLicious at 9:23 PM on December 6, 2013
posted by XMLicious at 9:23 PM on December 6, 2013
I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of users don't have any interaction with tags beyond idly tossing a handful into the box on the infrequent occasions that they make a post.
I’ve go to wonder how many people actually use the tags. I’ve never noticed or used tags at all, and never thought about them at all except when someone mentions them in a MetaTalk post. Can’t you just search by words? The hit or miss nature of them seems like they wouldn’t really be that useful.
posted by bongo_x at 9:37 PM on December 6, 2013
I’ve go to wonder how many people actually use the tags. I’ve never noticed or used tags at all, and never thought about them at all except when someone mentions them in a MetaTalk post. Can’t you just search by words? The hit or miss nature of them seems like they wouldn’t really be that useful.
posted by bongo_x at 9:37 PM on December 6, 2013
I seem to recall that paid members are a very small portion of the user base. I wouldn't count on our usage patterns being normal.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:03 PM on December 6, 2013
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:03 PM on December 6, 2013
And come to think of it the next time I have some hours to kill I'm going to check out every post with the batshitinsane tag.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:05 PM on December 6, 2013
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:05 PM on December 6, 2013
I'm not very good at it. I put in a couple of obvious general items, and maybe a joke. Like, if I were to have a post about platypuses, I'd probably put: australia, platypus, monotreme, knifeyspoony.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:25 AM on December 6 [+] [!]
This is me too. So my Dredd puppet post was tagged with DREDD, PUPPETS and THISWASSUCHAGOODMOVIE.
Because Dredd really was a great movie.
posted by Sebmojo at 12:50 AM on December 7, 2013
posted by Chrysostom at 7:25 AM on December 6 [+] [!]
This is me too. So my Dredd puppet post was tagged with DREDD, PUPPETS and THISWASSUCHAGOODMOVIE.
Because Dredd really was a great movie.
posted by Sebmojo at 12:50 AM on December 7, 2013
METAFILTER: I wouldn't count on our usage patterns being normal.
posted by philip-random at 1:21 AM on December 7, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by philip-random at 1:21 AM on December 7, 2013 [1 favorite]
When the Librarian Revolution comes Metafilter will be forced to use controlled vocabulary.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:37 AM on December 7, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:37 AM on December 7, 2013 [2 favorites]
FOR OUR OWN GOOD, COMRADES
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:37 AM on December 7, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:37 AM on December 7, 2013 [1 favorite]
In times past, loyalty to the cause of the userbase was to be found everywhere. The will of the Cabal was the will of everyone.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 3:48 AM on December 7, 2013
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 3:48 AM on December 7, 2013
I don't find the tags to be especially useful so I just put in whatever pops into my head in order to fulfill that requirement.
posted by dfriedman at 7:22 AM on December 7, 2013
posted by dfriedman at 7:22 AM on December 7, 2013
I really like the tags on AskMeFi but apart from that they are just kind of an added step, really.
posted by chainsofreedom at 1:00 PM on December 7, 2013
posted by chainsofreedom at 1:00 PM on December 7, 2013
Even though I took a class that was all about categorization, faceted searches and tagging, I have only used tags for searching enough to discover that they are a sure path to frustration. Full text search with Google narrowed down to the metafilter site finds what I'm looking for most of the time.
posted by double block and bleed at 1:27 PM on December 7, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by double block and bleed at 1:27 PM on December 7, 2013 [1 favorite]
If I can't figure out how to tag something, I'll look at the source code. Then I can just use (and expand on) tags and keywords someone else already thought up.
posted by aniola at 11:00 AM on December 8, 2013
posted by aniola at 11:00 AM on December 8, 2013
I never use tags, and I'm terrible at tagging. It's one of those things that our tech overlords have determined is good and necessary, but which I simply cannot get on-board with.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:52 PM on December 9, 2013
posted by Thorzdad at 12:52 PM on December 9, 2013
I love tags, and try to be conscientious when I create them. I also regularly send pals emails like "Hey, check the 'maps' tag at Metafilter; there's been some good stuff in your field posted in the last few weeks."
Tags are this: an acknowledgement that what we do here may actually have some value to someone else in the future, instead of just being a momentary session of electronic diddling while waiting for the grim reaper to swing a scythe in our direction. Using tags signals acceptance of the idea that the community just might actually outlive, and be worth more than, any single one of us.
Taking a few seconds to make your tags useful by using general categories like 'science' or 'illustration' or 'hollywood' or 'dolphins' or by making sure you're keeping together words that belong together like 'ironman' or 'davechappelle' or 'globalwarming' or 'endersgame' is nothing more than a simple acknowledgement that you give a shit about what's being created here on a daily basis and enjoy sharing that creation with other people.
posted by mediareport at 2:44 PM on December 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
Tags are this: an acknowledgement that what we do here may actually have some value to someone else in the future, instead of just being a momentary session of electronic diddling while waiting for the grim reaper to swing a scythe in our direction. Using tags signals acceptance of the idea that the community just might actually outlive, and be worth more than, any single one of us.
Taking a few seconds to make your tags useful by using general categories like 'science' or 'illustration' or 'hollywood' or 'dolphins' or by making sure you're keeping together words that belong together like 'ironman' or 'davechappelle' or 'globalwarming' or 'endersgame' is nothing more than a simple acknowledgement that you give a shit about what's being created here on a daily basis and enjoy sharing that creation with other people.
posted by mediareport at 2:44 PM on December 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
double block and bleed: "Full text search with Google narrowed down to the metafilter site finds what I'm looking for most of the time."
But is a lot less reliable when you're checking for possible doubles prior to posting.
posted by zarq at 2:46 PM on December 9, 2013
But is a lot less reliable when you're checking for possible doubles prior to posting.
posted by zarq at 2:46 PM on December 9, 2013
Tagging is super useful for that, also quick access to posts on a similar subject, and also I believe drives "related links" and "My Ask" - the better tagged things are the better those things work.
Also not a particularly significant or hard task.
posted by Artw at 3:02 PM on December 9, 2013 [2 favorites]
Also not a particularly significant or hard task.
posted by Artw at 3:02 PM on December 9, 2013 [2 favorites]
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by Blasdelb at 5:48 AM on December 6, 2013 [1 favorite]