All Annotations of A social analysis of tagging[Preview]

saved by38 people, first bySérgio Carvalho on 2006-03-20, last byithinking on 2008-08-14

• Tagging enables social coordination that is simultaneously more direct and abstract than collaborative filtering. More abstract since we are exchanging conceptual information. More direct, since there is no algorithm mediating our connection. When we navigate by tags, we are directly connecting with others.
• A social analysis of tagging
• I strongly believe that all good social systems need to serve the individual motive. Tagging works because it strikes a balance between the individual and social. It serves the individual motive of remembering, and forms a ad-hoc social groups around it.

• A social analysis of tagging

  
  

  (or how tagging transforms the solitary browsing experience into a social one)

  • on 2008-04-21 Jkintero
    muy interesante como los Tags permiten la interacción y la transmisión conceptual

• A social analysis of tagging

  
  

  (or how tagging transforms the solitary browsing experience into a social one)

  
  
  

  In a previous essay, I wrote about the cognitive aspect of tagging - describing how people tag, and why they find it easy. There is another, equally important aspect of tagging that I did not touch upon - the "why" of tagging. Why do people tag? For many, tagging is for sharing their own information and watching others. Even if you tag mostly to remember your own stuff, it is difficult to remain untouched by the presence of others. This article will explore how tagging lets us connect with others.(1)

• 
• From solitary to social
• I can enjoy their presence, but I don't need to converse. After being on many mailing lists for many years, let me say, conversation is often overrated. Often, I like to be in the company of others, without needing to follow threads and participate. It is the same reason that I like working in a cafe - enjoying the presence of others without the burden of active interaction. Similarly, tags provide a companionable social hum that I enjoy.
• A behaviorist would say that the I get reinforcement the moment after I tag. The social experience is pleasurable. It gets me hooked
• Perhaps I will become a trendsetter - my act of tagging will enable others to follow behind, discovering my footsteps. I can always imagine...
• four conditions that can lead to "wisdom of crowds" seems relevant for tagging systems. The four principles are
  (1) diversity of opinion - each individual brings their idiosyncratic perspective to bear on the issue. (this is definitely true for tagging. There is a long tail of tags).
  (2) independence of members from one another (that people make independent decisions. This is why mass copying of others' tags is not a good idea.)
  (3) decentralization (with tagging power does not reside in a central location, but it does seem to very influenced by the first few taggers..)
  (4) a good method for aggregating opinions (Tag clouds and simple lists seem to work well for this, though better methods are needed.
• learning about others' personal lives using their me and craigslist tags. And of course, we can imitate people we watch (copy their items and tags).

• Social transmission of information

  
  To summarize my previous article - tagging captures our individual conceptual associations, but does not force us to categorize. It enables loose coordination, but does not enforce the same interpretation of a concept. We could all tag items as "art" but mean very different things. That would create chaos in a shared folder scheme, but works well in a social tagging system

• Tagging and Collaborative Filtering

  
  
  By allowing loose coordination, tagging systems allow social exchange of conceptual information. Earlier I had written how collaborative filtering can be likened to a social process (pdf) whereby like minded individuals share recommendations of books, movies etc. I watch a movie, I tell a friend that I liked it. In turn, she recommends a movie to me. Tagging facilitates a similar but richer information exchange
• since there is no algorithm mediating our connection. When we navigate by tags, we are directly connecting with others.
• Flickr and del.icio.us both show that tagging helps in the spread of ideas, memes, trends and fashions.
• It demonstrates the power of naming something at the right time.

• A name in search of a concept

  
  Contrast that with the term Web 2.0. It was introduced by Tim O'Reilly, and first used on del.icio.us in March 2004. By October 2005, it had been used 230,000 times

• Interestingly, the daily expert definitions and the Web2.0 spoof sites (Web 2.0 validator and Web 2.0 or not) attempt to do what tagging systems do not - put boundaries around the concept in a more definitive manner.(2)

  
  
  

  This highlights both the strength and weakness of tagging. On the one hand, tagging allows social coordination never forces a decision, so you can reach a tagging frenzy even if the concept is ultimately rejected.

• Conclusion

  
  I strongly believe that all good social systems need to serve the individual motive. Tagging works because it strikes a balance between the individual and social. It serves the individual motive of remembering, and forms a ad-hoc social groups around it. If you are designing a tagging system you need to understand how it serves the individual and what sort of social formations it supports.
  
  

  Finally, writing this piece reminded me how much I admire good designers. It took me a while to gain clarity regarding how tagging works on a social level and a cognitive level. And I am simply deconstructing. What came before are the people who dreamt this up in their minds. Hats off to them (once I buy a hat that is ;->).

• on 2006-09-03 Adubber
  Understanding how tagging works part 1...