Take a look at the source of most any webpage on the internet. Chances are, buried in the <head> tag is something like:
<meta name="keywords" content"jr conlin,jrconlin,blog,humor,geek,writing,sock monkey,who uses keywords?,tagging is the new keyword">
Oh, sure, maybe it's changed a little from when it was first introduced, (see section 5.2.5 of Mr. Berners-Lee's document) , but fundementally, it's the the same technology that was introduced with great wonder and excitement…
…that lasted about as long as it took for some other idiot to figure out that you can stuff darn near anything you like in it and have Alta Vista index your page whenever someone typed in a query for "Beaver".
Tags are merely the latest version of that.
As much ballyhooed as they are everywhere, i really don't get them. Well, not in their current state at least. i mean, sure, i might use a common word or phrase with a picture then again, i might use a phrase to remind myself of what makes a nice lunch but honestly, of what use is that to you? If you were doing a search for that because you needed an image of meat like lunch foods for a dying orphan, would you find that picture useful? What if i were to use a tag like "fleshy fun bags" to describe another page?
i mean, sure, some of you may know me and trust my judgement in regards to "hot pussy licking action", but what's stopping someone less reputable from abusing it? Say, by basically uploading an ad that uses the most popular keywords in a weird attempt to garner eyeballs.
Yeah, there are ways to deal with this, but honestly, it's tall the same problems we've seen before. i'm just not convinced that somehow we're going to magically solve them all now.
But damn if some pretty smart folks don't get all wrapped up in it anyway.
-
Jim Menard2005-04-13 08:29:27The philosophy of the creator of del.icio.us seems to be "your tags mean what they mean to you. It doesn't matter if they mean the same thing to anybody else. If they do, that's nice." This makes sense to me. For one common use of del.icio.us tags---keeping my own bookmarks organized---I won't see tagvertising (TM, R, (c), I get all royalties whenever anybody uses "tagvertising" from now on, forever). The only time it comes into play is when I subscribe to an RSS feed for a tag, and then there is usually so much high-quality information that the occasional pathetic ad attempt slips by or gets ignored.
-
jrconlin2005-04-13 08:41:58That's fine, but then why is there so much attention being paid toward 'tagging'? I agree that tagging, from a personal level, may make a great deal of sense, but as i've mentioned before, my organization is absolutely not the same as anyone else's. So other than idle curiousity regarding the general lack of creativity people have when it comes to applying tags to their pictures, (Seriously, according to flickr, the top five tags are "Cameraphone", "Party", "family", "Japan", "nyc", and "friends". I'm guessing they dropped "2004","2003","2005"...) what's the big attraction? Why, time and time again, are tags being cited as being a huge innovation and part of the growing "Web 2.0" architecture? They're a freaking data point. They're NOT interesting, they're easy to spoof (folks just haven't tried yet), and they have little relevance outside of the individuals who created them. Crimany, folks, is it so hard to create Social networks that focus on, oh, i don't know PEOPLE!?
-
Jim Menard2005-04-14 08:29:41There are a few reasons that tags are getting attention. First, they're a good way to trip over new sites you may not have seen before. It's better than the old "take me to a random page" links because you can focus your attention a bit better. It's less random randomness. I've also seen a few examples of "serendipitous art" (or at least "serendipitous pop culture"). For example, once or twice on Boing Boing there's been a post that directs your attention to a particular Flikr tag, noting that the results are visually pleasing or just plain interesting. P.S. Isn't anybody gonna use "tagvertising"? Please?
