The Need For A Tagging Standard

John Carmichael writes "Tags are everywhere now. Not just blogs, but famous news sites, corporate press bulletins, forums, and even Slashdot. That's why it's such a shame that they're rendered almost entirely useless by the lack of a tagging standard with which tags from various sites and tag aggregators like Technorati and Del.icio.us can compare and relate tags to one another. Depending on where you go and who you ask, tags are implemented differently, and even defined in their own unique way. Even more importantly, tags were meant to be universal and compatible: a medium of sharing and conveying info across the blogosphere — the very embodiment of a semantic web. Unfortunately, they're not. Far from it, tags create more discord and confusion than they do minimize it. I have to say, it would be nice to just learn one way of tagging content and using it everywhere.""

Comments

Don't agree

[pubjames]

Isn't the power of tags that you can tag stuff however you want? To me a standard for tagging would be a negative thing.

I don't thing the problem is a standard for tagging, the problem is having a standard for sharing tags between applications. But that's another problem and it doesn't need to be solved to implement tagging itself.

Re:Don't agree

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, guys?

Tags are keywords.

There's a keyword line up in the header that isn't being used for much these days.

If you want to tag your document in a machine-readable way, put the tags in the keyword field. Problem solved.

Re:Don't agree

[lousehr]

Your analysis of "the problem" is exactly the point of TFA. The stated concern is not that the content of the tags has no standard, but that the format of the tags has no standard. If a single tag contains multiple words, should the words be separated by spaces or underscores, or should we use StudlyCaps?

Re:Don't agree

[ArsonSmith]

You forgot to close them all

</yes>
</no>
</maybe>
</haha>
</evil>
</spam>
</cow boyneal>
</firstpost>

Re:Don't agree

[radtea]

The stated concern is not that the content of the tags has no standard, but that the format of the tags has no standard.

The medium, as Marshall Maclluhan said, is the message. As soon as you standardize the format of the tags you will restrict the kind of information people can convey with them. That may be an acceptable limitation to you, but not to others, and they will find workarounds that effectively break the standard.

For example, if tags were standardized on underscores to separate words you would have to forbid spaces and caps to enforce that standard. And then we would have no way of distinguishing between Polish and polish, which would be bad if you were looking for things to do with Eastern European culture or furniture care products. People would then start doing things like expressing capitalization by some other syntactical hack which would be inconsistently applied and a greater mess would ensue.

Alternatively, tags could be represented as more complex markup:
<tag>
<word order="1">really</word>
<word order="2">stupid</word>
</tag>

But because words and concepts have no general one-to-one correspondence (many words do not convey a unique concept or a concept at all, and many concepts cannot be conveyed in one word) this would be inadequate, and in any case even if the content model of the "word" tag forbade spaces, caps and underscores, people would still create tags that looked like:

<tag><word>reallystupid</word></tag>

The basic idea of "semantic markup" is wrong. From the summary:

the very embodiment of a semantic web. Unfortunately, they're not. Far from it, tags create more discord and confusion than they do minimize it. I have to say, it would be nice to just learn one way of tagging content and using it everywhere.

Actually, tags as they stand are the very embodiment of the semantic web. The only function of the semantic web is to create confusion and discord, because confusion and discord is the essence of the human epistemological condition. And the call for "one way of doing X" has a nice religious ring to it, history shows that attempts to standardize things relating to human thought are very much misguided.

Re:Don't agree

[ravenlock]

You closed them in the wrong order, so I guess the rest of the conversation is no longer valid. :)

Automatic tagging

[drcoppersmith]

I'm inclined to disagree that 'tags' are the answer here. I wrote my masters thesis on a method automatically generating semantic webs from plaintext. It's a huge problem with about a dozen different stages, but I had backing in all of my research from the psycholinguistics and computer-science field.

Herein lies the rub: You're never going to get everyone to agree on a set of appropriate tags. Even if you do, you'll never have them uniformly applied (well I find that humorous but you have it tagged as inappropriate).

There are other solutions here, such as automatic semantic generation. Hey, I never said it was an easy solution, but it's one that I'm certain can be accomplished. Flame away ;-)

Re:Automatic tagging

[mangu]

I wrote my masters thesis on a method automatically generating semantic webs from plaintext.

In the end, this could be said to be one of the central problems in AI. Basically, this is dimensionality reduction. People have been trying to do this manually for a long time. The Encyclopaedia Britannica's Propaedica is an example of a tentative semantic web for all human knowledge, but it's so inefficient that it's of very little use by a human, not to mention by automatic mechanisms.

You're never going to get everyone to agree on a set of appropriate tags ... There are other solutions here, such as automatic semantic generation

I believe it could be done if it were an automatically generated tag set. If it could be proven mathematically optimal in a certain context, it would be hard for anyone to disagree.

Re:Automatic tagging

[remmelt]

Tags are probably very community based, so they would only make sense within that community. (!itsatrap wouldn't work so well on iloveponies.co.ae). That said, why make tags which are meaningless to other communities or have vastly different meanings to other people available as a sorting or searching option? Sure, you could make some pretty mean stats proving any point you'd like (bad grammar in tags up 14.8% from last year! tag "yes" used in 87% of all blogs, world population feeling positive!) but I don't see the point.

Also, anyone trying to make a serious argument containing the word "blogosphere" should really try and get out more. Come on people, it's not world hunger we're solving here. Viz: http://coolestshop.com/headline-blog.html

Re:Automatic tagging

[maxume]

The article is mostly talking about standardizing the envelope, not the message, which is to say, how do you share/create a two word tag, and how to you specify exactly what is supposed to be described by that tag, and how do you share that in a useful way.

The fact that someone thinks something is funny and someone else thinks it is inappropriate is useful information to gather, if you get 5000 funny and 5 inappropriate, you have a lot more information than if you have nothing at all, but even in you get 10 and 10 you still have more information, which is probably a good thing.

Re:Automatic tagging

[drcoppersmith]

There are a lot of instances of manual tagging, and I agree with you that they're just too cumbersome (as does almost an entire field of psycholinguists [if you think you can get all of them to agree on anything you're sorely mistaken. They'll disagree just because they can]).

The automatically generated tags are exactly what I was talking about. I didn't get terribly explicit with my ideas, but you seem to be going in the same direction I was. Getting the software to both tag incoming documents and categorize the semantic webs generated by each is the key to some 'universal' tagging sytem. This way we have maximally efficient tags along with a standardized definition for each and (perhaps most importantly) an automatic way of tagging all the documents to be processed. No room for the "13 year old cheerleader tags" as someone so eloquently put before.

We still have the problem of naming the 'generic' tag categories generated by the software... The solution for that one is a lot hazier, though important. I don't think anyone will go looking for 'category 12233242' to find 'academic humor'.

The other option

[T-Ranger]

Is not to tag everything like 13 year old cheerleaders.

Re:The other option

[archen]

omg.ponies

Re:The other option

[jZnat]

!itsatrap

That's existed since tags started, so problem solved!

One Key Point

[Azarael]

How do you standardize something that has not been widely implemented before? It's great to say that it would be good idea to have one standard practice for tagging, but which one? There's no reason to make a huge fuss about this until it a least one clear contender for standardization emerges (which will probably happen on its own).

Re:One Key Point

[Qzukk]

Obviously we have to find the lowest common denominator between all the different tagging systems.

I propose that we standardize the following tags:
thissux
omgthisrox
That should cover 100% of the content in a manner that everyone can relate to.

Didn't they have this problem in Babel?

[zappepcs]

How to share and categorize information is an ages old problem. One man's trash is another man's treasure, likewise, one man's bread is another man's dietary problem.

I'm not sure, but haven't we already figured out that tagging would require more tags than the actual information being tagged to accomplish what the original poster was asking for?

People actually pay that much attention to tags?

[east coast]

I don't feel that tags have enough significance behind them to merit a standard. I'd be more concerned with truth in journalism first, for my part.

Hopeless

[bigmouth_strikes]

Trying to standardize tags in the context of standardizing what they are, is hopeless. It'll be like the Unicode standard; too complex to use in its entirety.

But to standardize the format of tags and to standardize how to exchange tags between systems, is a great idea.

I Completely Agree...

[setirw]

Which is why I tagged this article with "njkewjdkewd."

Re:I Completely Agree...

[KincaidKMF]

How random... I was looking through tagged articles for more information about the "New Journal for Keeping Every Word a Just and Defined Kooky Emphasis While Describing" and popped over here. And all this time I thought tags were working.

I'm fired, aren't I?

[elzahir]

He said "blogosphere." Instantly, I don't care.

Only thing worse would be something like, I dunno, "tags should be a Web 2.0 standard" or somesuch.

Excuse me, but "proactive" and "paradigm"? Aren't these just buzzwords that dumb people use to sound important?

Re:I'm fired, aren't I?

[Frnknstn]

"buzzword" is a term used by cynical people trying to sound important.

tagging

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

and here I thought the standard for tagging was for the first person to agree or disagree with the headline, then the next has to immediately disagree with the first person. 5 minutes down the line if no one has added another tag, the third must disgree with BOTH the first and the second poster. Finally, a serious slashdotter will show up to add a relevant tag, followed by the oh so frequent itsatrap and slownewsday tags.

there is a standard

[Yonder Way]

There is a standard but nobody uses it these days. Even the search engines disavow it anymore.

<META name="keywords" content="foo, bar, baz"/>

Re:Hyphens.

[Chryana]

I would add to this that slashdot tags tend to be not very useful.

Most of the time, the tags have little to do with the actual article (eg. yes, no, maybe, fud, notfud, flamebait). I thought the purpose of tags was to be able to find an article easily later on when it has been archived, and the usefulness of the tags I just mentioned for this purpose is dubious at best. I do not pretend to have a solution to this problem, but I think the situation would be improved if the editors or maybe the /.ers who wrote the top rated comment where the only people allowed to set the tags.