Comments on: How to combine tags with facets http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/archives/2005/06/03/2708/combine-tags-with-facets Peter Van Dijck's weblog Sun, 06 Jul 2008 12:14:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Pesi http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/archives/2005/06/03/2708/combine-tags-with-facets#comment-51999 Pesi Wed, 15 Feb 2006 22:46:35 +0000 /?p=2708#comment-51999 cjvhlsuhsbjklbhxzckguiyfdjlzxckl;ckhjcb;hkj;xckljhvh cjvhlsuhsbjklbhxzckguiyfdjlzxckl;ckhjcb;hkj;xckljhvh

]]> By: Marcel http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/archives/2005/06/03/2708/combine-tags-with-facets#comment-21083 Marcel Fri, 01 Jul 2005 12:39:01 +0000 /?p=2708#comment-21083 Copy from SIG-IA on how to make del.icio.us somewhat faceted: I recently created a tag browser for del.icio.us that takes a hybrid-hierarchical approach to the flat structure of tags: http://johnvey.com/features/deliciousdirector/ You can just view the demo if you don't have a del.icio.us account: http://johnvey.com/features/deliciousdirector/demo.html (Only IE and Firefox work) For those who aren't familiar, http://del.icio.us is a social bookmark manager that uses tags to identify and then aggregate bookmark information from its community of users. The basic idea is an ad-hoc hierarchy of tags based on the way that a particular user has defined their relationships. What are you thoughts on this approach? Is it genuinely useful, or is it more of a novelty? - Johnvey Copy from SIG-IA on how to make del.icio.us somewhat faceted:
I recently created a tag browser for del.icio.us that takes a hybrid-hierarchical approach to the flat structure of tags: http://johnvey.com/features/deliciousdirector/

You can just view the demo if you don’t have a del.icio.us account: http://johnvey.com/features/deliciousdirector/demo.html (Only IE and Firefox
work)

For those who aren’t familiar, http://del.icio.us is a social bookmark manager that uses tags to identify and then aggregate bookmark information from its community of users.

The basic idea is an ad-hoc hierarchy of tags based on the way that a particular user has defined their relationships. What are you thoughts on this approach? Is it genuinely useful, or is it more of a novelty?

- Johnvey

]]> By: manucharov http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/archives/2005/06/03/2708/combine-tags-with-facets#comment-20752 manucharov Tue, 28 Jun 2005 07:24:02 +0000 /?p=2708#comment-20752 Won't we end up with the biggest cloud being good old "don't-know-don't-care-which-facet-it-is-too-lazy-leave-me-alone" tags? Will it really improve browsability to have part (say, optimistically, <em>half</em>) of tags faceted nicely and another part just sitting there at the top (bottom?) of page in a big pile? (And nobody can even be sure that the faceted part will be faceted <em>nicely</em>!) Is alphabetically sorted (which is, er, <em>un</em>sorted), after all, better than poorly faceted? Won’t we end up with the biggest cloud being good old “don’t-know-don’t-care-which-facet-it-is-too-lazy-leave-me-alone” tags? Will it really improve browsability to have part (say, optimistically, half) of tags faceted nicely and another part just sitting there at the top (bottom?) of page in a big pile?

(And nobody can even be sure that the faceted part will be faceted nicely!)

Is alphabetically sorted (which is, er, unsorted), after all, better than poorly faceted?

]]> By: vanderwal http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/archives/2005/06/03/2708/combine-tags-with-facets#comment-16832 vanderwal Tue, 07 Jun 2005 12:20:13 +0000 /?p=2708#comment-16832 I have been playing with facets for a while in conjunction with tags, but the relationship needs to be set at the time of tag creation. The result is a compound tag with the facet tied to the tag. This alleviates the problem of mis-understanding "Ruby" as stated above. The result of the compound tag for a person would be: person.ruby. The facet can be done through free-tagging, from a list of facets the person using the system has created, or (the ghastly) controlled vocabulary. I have been playing with facets for a while in conjunction with tags, but the relationship needs to be set at the time of tag creation. The result is a compound tag with the facet tied to the tag. This alleviates the problem of mis-understanding “Ruby” as stated above.

The result of the compound tag for a person would be: person.ruby. The facet can be done through free-tagging, from a list of facets the person using the system has created, or (the ghastly) controlled vocabulary.

]]> By: Arthur http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/archives/2005/06/03/2708/combine-tags-with-facets#comment-16716 Arthur Mon, 06 Jun 2005 15:41:04 +0000 /?p=2708#comment-16716 Josh, I think the idea is to have fixed facets, and to let users assign their personal tags to one of the facets. So user 1 may decide to assign "Ruby" to Technology, and user 2 to Person. Josh, I think the idea is to have fixed facets, and to let users assign their personal tags to one of the facets. So user 1 may decide to assign “Ruby” to Technology, and user 2 to Person.

]]> By: Arthur http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/archives/2005/06/03/2708/combine-tags-with-facets#comment-16712 Arthur Mon, 06 Jun 2005 15:37:23 +0000 /?p=2708#comment-16712 Josh, I think the idea is to have fixed facets, and to let each user assign his own particular tag to one of the facets. To take your example, user 1 can assign Ruby to Technology, and user 2 to Person. To decide which facets should be used may be a difficult task, as the facets may be too broad. Josh, I think the idea is to have fixed facets, and to let each user assign his own particular tag to one of the facets. To take your example, user 1 can assign Ruby to Technology, and user 2 to Person.

To decide which facets should be used may be a difficult task, as the facets may be too broad.

]]> By: Josh http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/archives/2005/06/03/2708/combine-tags-with-facets#comment-16685 Josh Mon, 06 Jun 2005 12:02:39 +0000 /?p=2708#comment-16685 The problem here is that assumption that each tag can only belong in one facet. This ignores what's great about tags -- they're not mutually exclusive. They can overlap and mean different things to different people. Why should the facets be fixed? For instance, "Ruby" is a popular tag on Delicious. It is a programmming language. It may also be a person's name, or perhaps it could be used to tag information about a precious stone. Sure, on delicious, its most likely to be about the programming language, but you don't really know for sure (and its an example I just pulled of the top of my head...). In this case, it may make more sense to use what Delicous already does with user created tag bundles -- so users can group their tags in ways that make sense to them. Then bundles can become an axis for browsing tags. (although I think bundles have the same problem described here -- they're mutually exclusive -- a tag can only be in one bundle. But, at least they're user created, giving users more control of how they wish to group things). The problem here is that assumption that each tag can only belong in one facet. This ignores what’s great about tags — they’re not mutually exclusive. They can overlap and mean different things to different people. Why should the facets be fixed?
For instance, “Ruby” is a popular tag on Delicious. It is a programmming language. It may also be a person’s name, or perhaps it could be used to tag information about a precious stone. Sure, on delicious, its most likely to be about the programming language, but you don’t really know for sure (and its an example I just pulled of the top of my head…). In this case, it may make more sense to use what Delicous already does with user created tag bundles — so users can group their tags in ways that make sense to them. Then bundles can become an axis for browsing tags. (although I think bundles have the same problem described here — they’re mutually exclusive — a tag can only be in one bundle. But, at least they’re user created, giving users more control of how they wish to group things).

]]> By: Jeroen http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/archives/2005/06/03/2708/combine-tags-with-facets#comment-16684 Jeroen Mon, 06 Jun 2005 07:37:19 +0000 /?p=2708#comment-16684 If 'None of the above' is chosen, would it be a good idea to give an opportunity to specify what the facet should be? That way, users can give feedback and comments on the facets made by the editors, and can expand it with their own facets. Maybe a little less well considered, but it might lead to new insights about how to index the tagged information. Interesting idea, nonetheless! If ‘None of the above’ is chosen, would it be a good idea to give an opportunity to specify what the facet should be? That way, users can give feedback and comments on the facets made by the editors, and can expand it with their own facets. Maybe a little less well considered, but it might lead to new insights about how to index the tagged information.

Interesting idea, nonetheless!

]]>