July 19, 2005

tag-only blogware etc. etc.

zzzmkghilkj07.jpg
Sig’s got a new plaything for all you geeks out there:

Tags, not Trees
Take my new tree-structure-free gizmo out for a test drive:
What is it?
Wha­te­ver you want it to be: Navigation-free web­site. Tags-only blog. Complicated-to-simple data­base. Active resource pic­ker. Know­ledge and lear­ning base. File sys­tem. Wha­te­ver. An expe­ri­ment for the heck of it.
Basi­cally a dif­fe­rent approach to orga­nise data, fin­ding data, and trans­fe­rring know­ledge.
An exam­ple of no-tree-structure-at-all. Ana­ta­xo­nomy in practice…

NB: This gizmo has no com­mer­cial appli­ca­tion, or at least, it was built without a busi­ness model in mind. Like Sig says, he just built it for the heck of it.
What sayest thou?
[UPDATE:] Den­nis in Sig’s com­ment sec­tion refe­rred to it as “Blog + Wiki= Colla­bo­ra­tive Soft­ware v2.0″
[UPDATE:] Really good com­men­tary from Doc Searls: “Poli­ti­cally, tags are The People’s Direc­tory.”
[Disc­lo­sure: I work with Sig and his soft­ware com­pany, Thin­gamy.]

21 Responses to “tag-only blogware etc. etc.”

  1. jim wilde says:

    Com­mon guys, is that the best you can do? We’ve been doing that stuff as well as suc­king in rele­vent tags from del.icio.us and flickr for over a year. Did i miss something?

  2. Nick W says:

    where is it?

  3. sig says:

    Jim, sure, in del.icio.us you may use the “find” and add tag1 + tag2 and so forth, even directly to the URL.
    “Tag­work” is a dif­fe­rent inter­face — bet­ter or not is not up to me — we’re trying too make the flip­ping around easier as a star­ter.
    Then — it’s done directly in the “web site, blog, data repo­si­tory” and thus seeks to replace the navi­ga­tion as per tree struc­ture. del.icio.us still have navi­ga­tion bars ;)
    Actually, the objects in the expe­ri­ment are not orga­ni­sed by anything else but “impre­cise” tags — thus requi­ring a rather fast and easy-to-use inter­face to make it work. That’s the expe­ri­ment all about — see if it’s prac­ti­cally fea­si­ble to replace tree struc­ture orga­ni­sing… so I sus­pect more will follow this one.
    Don’t give up on us yet even if we may seem to brush against “what’s been done before” every now and then :)

  4. sig says:

    Nick, link and some hints how to use it (a bit enig­ma­tic without) at http://thingamy.typepad.com/sigs_blog/2005/07/handson_practic.html

  5. I may be behind, but not as much as these guys.

    Man. I’m three days behind on rea­ding, so I’m just pos­ting on this story now. I’ve been kinda busy watching Hurri­cane Emily, to see just how far up our coast she’s coming. And right now, I’d really rather be surfing.

  6. Jim Wilde says:

    Hey Sig,
    I would never give up on you guys — too much to learn from ya!
    Cool! “Then — it’s done directly in the “web site, blog, data repo­si­tory” and thus seeks to replace the navi­ga­tion as per tree struc­ture. del.icio.us still have navi­ga­tion bars ;)
    Our goals are the same: replace tree struc­tu­res with a beau­ti­ful mess:-)
    We use del.icio.us as an exter­nal book­mar­king sys. We use the REST api in Ideas­cape to suck in tags/content from everywhere (diversity/independence), inc­lu­ding the users, on a rele­vant tag + tag basis. We use AJAX a lot to let the user create their own struc­ture, which makes for a richer user expe­rience, one that com­pli­ments and enrichs the expe­rience of fin­ding and dis­co­ve­ring ideas via navi­ga­tion. Of course, tagc­louds with a little AJAX work will for nav also.
    What I am wor­king on right now is refi­ning a fil­te­ring tech­ni­que to be able to iden­tify an impli­cit com­mu­nity of inte­rest and tap into its emer­gent group mind on del.icio.us and 3rd party ser­vi­ces with accu­racy that makes finding/discovering infor­ma­tion on the long tail pos­si­ble.
    Don’t ever stop with the experiments.

  7. MAKE: Blog says:

    Tag-only blog­ware

    Htbc I think there’s something inte­res­ting here…Tags, not Trees Take my new tree-structure-free gizmo out for a test d…

  8. frosty says:

    Funny, it seems to be in the air. I’m wor­king on something very simi­lar to what Sig just pos­ted.
    Oh yeah, and vaguely simi­lar to what Jim has up. Nice.
    If this is a con­cep­tual pre­view of Thin­gamy, and Jim’s Advan­cin­gIn­sights is already out there, and my thing is in the planning/prototyping stage, there’s bound to be a bunch of other peo­ple wor­king on these kinds of things simul­ta­neously.
    There’s obviously something about tags in the Zeitgeist.

  9. MarkN says:

    Yeah, frosty, you’re all 100% buzz­word compliant.

  10. frosty says:

    Whoa, I’ve been slap­ped by Mr. For­ward Mar­kets! Pot, kettle.
    Seriously though, one of the things that’s attrac­ted me to pla­ces like Gaping­Void and Thin­gamy is the open­ness and civi­lity of (most of) the com­ment threads. Except for the occa­sio­nal Hugh-hater, the exchange of ideas here is usually very cons­truc­tive.
    Lest I seem too far off-topic here: it’s got me thin­king about whether tags should be aug­men­ted by some kind of ratings. Or maybe some kind of anti-tags.
    Ideally (or not, but it’s my direc­tion) rea­ders can tag things just like authors can. And ideally those tags get into the mix and are use­ful for ever­yone (deli­cious). But what hap­pens when something has a tag (eg “buzz­word”) that for you is not only mea­nin­gless but poten­tially con­flic­ting.
    Say I acti­vely use “buzz­word” as a tag, but MarkN has tag­ged something “buzz­word” that doesn’t fit my sense of that. Maybe I should be able to exc­lude that tag from the object, and then it doesn’t show up under “buzz­word” for me any­more.
    So far so sim­ple. But how do I define the value to others of my having nega­ted that tag for that object? Is that a use­ful fac­tor, and if so how?
    (thin­king out loud…)

  11. jim wilde says:

    hey hugh,
    lmao you’re so cool. thanks for being the per­fect host and kee­ping the joint open all night.
    jim

  12. frosty says:

    nice one hugh :-)

  13. sig says:

    Hey, I wanna join too!
    (must been slee­ping or wha­te­ver we do in offi­ces…)
    And Frosty, think we’ll have something for you in ver­sion 3 (notice no hum­ble 0.0.0.3 here) — not exactly what you sug­gest, but let me hint towards adding value to tags…
    Say you’ve been tag­ged as “couch potato” by an ex-girlfriend — for us others to know that it was her doing that, and more about her would be cool. And add a lot of value to the tags :)
    Kind of “source analy­sis” in History?

  14. frosty says:

    Hmm, source analy­sis is intri­guing.
    Something like a but­ton to press for “tag details” — and then you get an area with that kind of thing (who’s tag­ged something how, who’s acti­vely agreed/disagreed with the tag) — and that’s pro­bably where you’d want to make your adjust­ments as well.
    Depen­ding on how broad the user base is, it might even be nice to “ignore all tags by frosty’s ex-girlfriend.”

  15. Hey, Sig.
    Still open to third party deve­lo­pers? My work is finally coming to a close, and I’ll be kic­king around for other appli­ca­tions.
    What direc­tions are you taking in pro­mo­ting the con­cepts here?

  16. que says:

    what the fuck

  17. MarkN says:

    One way to look at tag­ging is that it is simply the best that the likes of tech­no­rati and blo­gli­nes could come up with to faci­li­tate con­tent inde­xing and search within their space in a timely man­ner.
    Howe­ver, rela­tive to the rich­ness and robust­ness of Google’s natu­ral lan­guage pro­ces­sing, algo­rith­mics and auto­ma­tion, manual tag­ging is an absurdly weak idea. The only rub with res­pect to Goo­gle is the lag bet­ween pos­ting and inde­xing, an issue they are likely well on the way to addres­sing.
    With res­pect to my inad­ver­tent pissing-contest indu­cing labe­lling of the me too’s as “buzz­word compliant”…you’ll get over it.
    The valua­ble con­ti­bu­tion Sig is making is the idea of tag­ging raw data, non-written con­tent and other uns­truc­tu­red infor­ma­tion as a way of faci­li­ta­ting its avai­la­bi­lity for con­sump­tion within an orga­ni­za­tion or bet­ween organizations.

  18. Jim Wilde says:

    sig,
    now that “Kind of “source analy­sis” in His­tory” sounds inte­res­ting — muti-faceted tags? But isn’t the “source analy­sis” inhe­rit in the object with time stamp and author? Tell me more…
    MarkN, I think you’re spot on about goo­gle catching up. The rich­ness of tags is in the “tag­ging raw data, non-written con­tent and other uns­truc­tu­red infor­ma­tion as a way of faci­li­ta­ting its avai­la­bi­lity for con­sump­tion within an orga­ni­za­tion or bet­ween orga­ni­za­tions.”
    Jim

  19. Viva la tagging

    Hey, I’m an “about­ness” tag­ger, you?
    Great cover­sa­tions about tag­ging:
    The tag­ging cul­ture war by Dave Wein­ber­ger gets jump star­ted with a thread from Tom Coa­tes — “Two cul­tu­res of fau­xo­no­mies collide..”,

  20. sig says:

    Jim,
    you’re on the track :)
    The more I know about a “tag” the bet­ter — just like in his­tory analy­sis — who wrote (tag­ged) it, when, what’s the back­ground and in par­ti­cu­lar, what’s the rela­tionship with the object/subject, any notes made when writ­ten (tag­ged)?
    That would indeed inc­rease the value of every tag and thus the “names­pace” being the tagc­loud for the object/subject…
    Next ver­sion will have a “first try” at it of course :D