The forum in this post has some sort of tagging extension.
http://lussumo.com/community/discussion/4031/nicely-modified-vanilla/
It looks as if it is a Vanilla extension, but I cannot be certain.
Toivo, to your first comments =against tags=
1) they are not intended to make hierarchy,
they are hints to content, not relevancy rating
2) ponder the phrase 'tag cloud'
Which reminds me, dont forget the tag cloud (per discussion, page foot, and perhaps entire forum, seperate tab ?).
I did mention doing this extension but had holiday, got sick (still am) :-/
I find that non-tech folk sometimes feel they don't know which 'category' to choose and/or do choose the wrong category, washing out the explicit benefit of having them in the first place; hence, an admin feature for moving threads (discussions) to re-org the forum.
There is low cost-of-entry in adding tags. Granted, they aren't always rationally entered either ...
I especially love the idea of selecting between community/my tags for this add-on.
In fairness to Toivo, I would say the jury is still out on the future of taxonomy for Web - more 'what' than 'whether'. If nothing else, this add-on will yield useful 'data' for its usage (or not) in Vanilla. It's not like tags are ... trackback ;-).
Two ideas/requests:
1. Can there be a way to enable/disable tagging for users based on their roles? Like how you can enable and disable whispers with the checkboxes on the roles and permissions page.
2. Can there be an additional role that lets admins (or others based on their role) edit the tags on each discussion (or category)? It would helpful to be able to go back and adjust typos and mistakes. Also, it would be pretty bad if people abused the tags by adding inapropriate content and we were never able to edit the tags after the fact.
what if the content is inappropriate? then inappropriate tags will be appropriate :)
no one stopping vanilla to be used as a porno forum :)
just messing with ya. I know what u mean. editing tags will be nice.
Seriously tags would just mess the whole search thing up.
First of all, if you search for say Mac and Apple, then it is just to type Mac and Apple in the search box and if the topic contains Apple and Mac (as it should do if you discuss them) then why mess it up with tags? No need for that.
An optional add-on would work though.
As much as I personally hate tag clouds(*), I'd really like to vote FOR a tags extension because we can all use it to establish a cute little SUBCATEGORY mechanism.
Might I also point your attention (especially Jazzman's ;D)) to this add-on idea (split categories) that could be implemented as a search (filter) on particular tags, attached to a separate tab: http://lussumo.com/community/discussion/4348/
(*) @ Toivo in general re: tags // Classification is a b*tch.
Research shows that depite a consisten taxonomy no two indexers (even professionals) will classify a fixed set of objects the same way (books, toys, etc.)
Since an administrator can rarely pre-empt all 'useful categories' required to organize the forums, the additional info provided by tags allows valuable insight into community- perceived clusters.
@Jazz & Schiz Schiz proposes a 'live search' mechanism which will reduce the variation in tags and will add simplicity/user friendliness. I think that's a great idea.
Notwithstanding what I said to Toivo above, my IDEAL version of a tag-system would allow me to LIMIT the user to a set of tags pre-defined in a config file, forcing them pick from 'the most appropriate' tag from a small set of consistent tags (e.g. 3 dropdowns), and perhaps leave ONE, short, empty field for them to enter 'missing' tags.
A limited set would make the database design a lot easier too I suspect (in my example extend the comments table with three shortint fields each referring to the same "fixed tag set" table, and one longint pointing to a table with the 'missing tag' set).
Over time the forum owner could consolidate oft-entered missing tags into the list of 'acceptable tags'.
Tom: While I can see the need to limit the users in such a way, I think it would be counterproductive. It forces users (although slightly) to abide by the classification already present. It also forced admins to periodically review tags for appropriateness.
There already is a specified way to give more popular tags favor on a topic:
If members posting agree on a tag, then that tag appear in bright color and larger font, meaning 9 out 10 people used the same tag. If they do not agree, meaning 1 out of 10 people used a particular tag, then that tag appears smaller and fainted.
Maybe what you really need is to only show a tag if more than one user tagged a particular discussion with that tag?
I think I agree with most points made on this topic. On one hand, Vanilla is free-flowing enough that you don't need tags (that's what search is for).
On the other hand, I think tagging is — to some degree — less about organization and more about suggesting similar topics to users.
Take for example Techrepublic (which I mentioned earlier). Here's what you get when you click on the "off-topic" tag:
http://techrepublic.com.com/5260-1-0.html?query=off-topic
As you browse down the list of "off-topic" discussions (I know, it made me cringe too), you're seeing the discussions in a whole new way. As you browse the list of "off-topic" discussions, you see other tags that branch you off into other areas you may not have thought about. The tags are basically "suggesting" other ways to search for related content. Click on "Iraq" and you get a bunch of topics about Iraq. Then you see tags about "elections," and "war" and "spying" and so on. It's easy to keep clicking around and discovering topics you never thought about searching for.
Here, they offer a page of the "Popular Tags":
http://techrepublic.com.com/5221-6230-0.html
I think just having tags as suggested searches, is basically what they have there. And, I think in "some" instances, it can make the browsing experience more interesting for users.
To me, tagging is probably less about organization and more about giving the user a new way to browse for topics. It's a way to keep the user interested and keep them clicking around the site.
Having said all that, tags can be overwhelming and necessary at times. There are definitely pros and cons to using tags. To me, using them sparingly is best. To some degree, tagging might work best if only a few people have the "permissions" to place and edit tags — and they only place them when necessary. Otherwise it just becomes taggitis.
@Wall: I like your suggestion of showing only tags used more than once.
Alternatively, one could add a mechanism that any tag entered into the "free" tag field would be automatically entered into the list of "approved" tags if they received more than 10 hits (or whatever arbitrary number) to reduce admin oversight, but...
Perhaps tagging should be limited to the TOPIC STARTER? (saves storage and DB joins for Jazz)
In general I suspect tat *forcing* posters to pick none (note: NONE) or more tags from the set will truly improve the quality/usefulness of the tags (they have to actually think about them).
After a couple of posts they will get USED to the limited 'approved' set and pick tags that truly apply (or add tags that should really be added).
IMHO the "taggitis" Dan references is usually the result of inexperienced taggers or 'noob' posters who have not yet adopted the community's 'established vocabulary'. I'm not 'hating' on the new users, but I definitely detect a 'common vocabulary' amongst posters on these forums and I know it takes a while to adapt...
In short: YES on the limited tags, YES on an open field, YES on limitations to new posters. and if all of this is too complicated, just implement the thing I asked for Jazz (hehe)
It's not even a hack ... Okey, one way to tag things would be to add keywords on the discussion topic field as text. users would find these by search. for example ...
Tagging mockups (keywords: tags, wishes, jazzman, long due)
tomtester. like i said in my first post. it won't matter if noobs use wrong tags. the members have to agree on it to be of any importance. even if a noob uses totally wrong tags and no one agrees to it then it will apear as non important (not discarded. cause that wil lpiss people off that their tags are not being added and think its a bug).
jazzman is very busy now a days with his new dating site. once that is done he will be back.
Your sketch is the simplest interface and simple should always be preferred over complex... After all... if things don't work the simple way, we can always change it.
Related question: Are you sure you prefer 'comma-separated' over 'space-separated/double-quotes'man, cow, kinky, united states vs man cow kinky "united states" IMHO - Single-word tags are most popular - Omitted comma's group tags (much less useful, e.g. [kinky united states] ) - Omitted quotes split tags (slightly less useful, e.g. [kinky] [united] [states] )
Comments
There is low cost-of-entry in adding tags. Granted, they aren't always rationally entered either ...
I especially love the idea of selecting between community/my tags for this add-on.
In fairness to Toivo, I would say the jury is still out on the future of taxonomy for Web - more 'what' than 'whether'. If nothing else, this add-on will yield useful 'data' for its usage (or not) in Vanilla. It's not like tags are ... trackback ;-).
because we can all use it to establish a cute little SUBCATEGORY mechanism.
Might I also point your attention (especially Jazzman's ;D)) to this add-on idea (split
categories) that could be implemented as a search (filter) on particular tags, attached to
a separate tab: http://lussumo.com/community/discussion/4348/
(*) @ Toivo in general re: tags // Classification is a b*tch.
Research shows that depite a consisten taxonomy no two indexers (even professionals)
will classify a fixed set of objects the same way (books, toys, etc.)
Since an administrator can rarely pre-empt all 'useful categories' required to organize
the forums, the additional info provided by tags allows valuable insight into community-
perceived clusters.
@Jazz & Schiz
Schiz proposes a 'live search' mechanism which will reduce the variation in tags and
will add simplicity/user friendliness. I think that's a great idea.
Notwithstanding what I said to Toivo above, my IDEAL version of a tag-system would
allow me to LIMIT the user to a set of tags pre-defined in a config file, forcing them pick
from 'the most appropriate' tag from a small set of consistent tags (e.g. 3 dropdowns),
and perhaps leave ONE, short, empty field for them to enter 'missing' tags.
A limited set would make the database design a lot easier too I suspect (in my example
extend the comments table with three shortint fields each referring to the same "fixed
tag set" table, and one longint pointing to a table with the 'missing tag' set).
Over time the forum owner could consolidate oft-entered missing tags into the list of
'acceptable tags'.
While I can see the need to limit the users in such a way, I think it would be counterproductive. It forces users (although slightly) to abide by the classification already present. It also forced admins to periodically review tags for appropriateness.
There already is a specified way to give more popular tags favor on a topic: Maybe what you really need is to only show a tag if more than one user tagged a particular discussion with that tag?
Alternatively, one could add a mechanism that any tag entered into the "free" tag field would
be automatically entered into the list of "approved" tags if they received more than 10 hits (or
whatever arbitrary number) to reduce admin oversight, but...
Perhaps tagging should be limited to the TOPIC STARTER? (saves storage and DB joins for
Jazz)
In general I suspect tat *forcing* posters to pick none (note: NONE) or more tags from the
set will truly improve the quality/usefulness of the tags (they have to actually think about them).
After a couple of posts they will get USED to the limited 'approved' set and pick tags that truly
apply (or add tags that should really be added).
IMHO the "taggitis" Dan references is usually the result of inexperienced taggers or 'noob'
posters who have not yet adopted the community's 'established vocabulary'. I'm not 'hating'
on the new users, but I definitely detect a 'common vocabulary' amongst posters on these
forums and I know it takes a while to adapt...
In short: YES on the limited tags, YES on an open field, YES on limitations to new posters.
and if all of this is too complicated, just implement the thing I asked for Jazz (hehe)
All the hard work is already done, just have to integrate it.
Your sketch is the simplest interface and simple should always be preferred over complex... After all... if things don't work the simple way, we can always change it.
Related question: Are you sure you prefer 'comma-separated' over 'space-separated/double-quotes'
man, cow, kinky, united statesvsman cow kinky "united states"IMHO
- Single-word tags are most popular
- Omitted comma's group tags (much less useful, e.g. [kinky united states] )
- Omitted quotes split tags (slightly less useful, e.g. [kinky] [united] [states] )
@Wallphone: I intregrated that in this plugin :P Well.. I used Lussumo's coding style, but it will work the same