[IxDA Discuss] categorising tags?

[Vishal Subramanian Iyer]

There was a discussion about this some time back . Look it up in the
archives. Organizing tags into categories falls into a mid-way approach
between taxanomy and folksonomy. Its not necessarily a bad thing in the
sense that the aim is to allow users to find information in a more efficient
& effective way. Since categories, tags etc are just means to that
end....anything that will enhance the experience will work.

Flickr uses the same concept with Clusters. For eg. users tag photos of new
york with newyork, nyc, manhattan, brooklyn etc. So the  Cluster will
include all relavent tags.Their initial implementation was cumbersome, the
present version is more lighweight. On a different note I observed that
Flickr has kinda pushed the Clusters to a less prominent place in their
website.

-Vishal


On 12/1/06, Sunandini Basu <sunandinibasu at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is it a good practice to categorise tags?
>
> as far as i know, tags are meant to be non-linear. del.icio.us has 2 ways
> to
> organize tags - alphabetically and by frequency.
> I was surprised to see MSN organizing tags by grouping them under
> categories<http://qna.live.com/BrowseTags.aspx >.
>
>
> doesn't that totally go against the whole concept of tags?
>
> Best,
> Soo
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
>