Do we really need tag editorializing?

May 25, 2005 9:03 PM

Do we really need tag editorializing?
posted by null terminated to Etiquette/Policy at 9:03 PM (35 comments total)

Nope. We really don't.

Next question.
posted by soyjoy at 9:06 PM on May 25, 2005

Not only that, he spelled the tag wrong. It should have been spelled: summonbevets.
posted by casu marzu at 9:09 PM on May 25, 2005

Welcome to the wonderful magical world of the taggable folksonomic blogosphere, where you can always trust open user-generated content to show the very best society has to offer!
posted by brownpau at 9:26 PM on May 25, 2005

no. also,


posted by puke & cry at 9:26 PM on May 25, 2005

Do we need it? No. Should it be banned? No.
posted by davy at 10:11 PM on May 25, 2005

I thought it was a subtle & innovative way for the poster to express the total superiority of his worldview.
posted by scarabic at 11:47 PM on May 25, 2005

What harm? What good? meh.
posted by peacay at 12:11 AM on May 26, 2005

No, only generic inoffensive tags should be allowed. And no four-lettered tags, just for good measure.
posted by BoringPostcards at 2:06 AM on May 26, 2005

I think it's annoying.
posted by Marquis at 4:32 AM on May 26, 2005

If I agree with the editorializing I see nothing wrong with it. But if I disagree with them I think it's wrong and should be stopped at once.
posted by Slack-a-gogo at 5:20 AM on May 26, 2005

NT, with the sheer number of "good", generic, inoffensive tags drowning out "bad", specific, offensive tags in the tag search page, why should you really care? This tag is too specific and will be drowned out by useful tags. Let it go and move on.
posted by AlexReynolds at 5:46 AM on May 26, 2005

art (534) music (432)

politics (311)flash (285) history (245) AlexReynoldsFucksChickens(1)
posted by Kwantsar at 6:09 AM on May 26, 2005

Did you come yet, Kwantsar, or do you need to jerk off to your own magnificence some more?
posted by AlexReynolds at 6:18 AM on May 26, 2005

I deny that categorically. [/henrykissinger]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:22 AM on May 26, 2005

Do we really need tag babysitters?
posted by If I Had An Anus at 6:39 AM on May 26, 2005

I just wanted to say that the repel Bevets card is really fucking funny. I didn't see it in the April 9th thread. Are there other cards in the set? Orthog, etc.
posted by about_time at 6:46 AM on May 26, 2005

The tag editorializing is lame. I've been seeing it more and more especially in MeFi [less so in AskMe]. It makes the whole tagging system less useful, though honestly only by a really small amount. In this case, the poster actually used other relevant tags in addition to the jokester tags so the post would still be findable through all the normal tag channels which I think is their main purpose anyhow. I see it like the jokey titles people use in AskMe [instead of just "hey sum up your question"]: it's a little annoying, the system mostly works, if more people started playing around with it, the site would decrease in functionality, but they don't, so it's okay. See also: IMG HTML tag.
posted by jessamyn at 7:34 AM on May 26, 2005

about_time, I think the card's originally from Fark, where Bevets had been an established clown for years before he showed up here a couple of months ago.
posted by mediareport at 7:53 AM on May 26, 2005

And where they're better at Photoshop than we are.

/ducks
posted by blag at 8:08 AM on May 26, 2005

i thought the whole point of tagging was that it was "robustly democratic". if a few people do stupid stuff, it's irrelevant. if a lot of people use the same stupid tag then it's no longer stupid - it's what the community wants. either way, it's not a problem. so i don't see why anyone cares in the slightest. not even at the level of jessamyn's "little annoying". it just works.
posted by andrew cooke at 8:32 AM on May 26, 2005

andrew's right. democracy rules in these situations.
posted by blag at 9:03 AM on May 26, 2005

unless the tag happens to be your username.
posted by quonsar at 9:15 AM on May 26, 2005

A little annoying, a little funny. I would rather see that kind of editorializing in the tag than in the FPP.
I never use the tag page. Do others go there a lot?
posted by OmieWise at 9:16 AM on May 26, 2005

Keep it. It will show we are a better community than fark or the other fuckers.
posted by thomcatspike at 9:29 AM on May 26, 2005

OmieWise I don't (go to the tag pages much) because there's no access from the front pages or the search pages(?). It's usually toooo much trouble to get to it to via del.icio.us but I suppose it (they) are also in Etc. As a minor pony request I think it would be more useful if the tag sets were available on the search pages of the blue and green (or a link to them anyway).
*lights Matt signal* *rests, waiting for Fiona's laudanum to kick in*
I'm sure someone will come along to explain to me how they are more easily accessible than I'm remembering.
posted by peacay at 11:20 AM on May 26, 2005

good point andrew cooke, I agree. Sorry to call this out.
posted by null terminated at 11:42 AM on May 26, 2005

quonsar: no, that was unliateral action. The "free quonsar" tags were democracy.
posted by blag at 11:52 AM on May 26, 2005

A-list bloggers: bringing us things that aren't very useful as they are.
posted by quonsar at 2:30 PM on May 26, 2005

andrew cooke said "i thought the whole point of tagging was that it was 'robustly democratic'. if a few people do stupid stuff, it's irrelevant. if a lot of people use the same stupid tag then it's no longer stupid - it's what the community wants."

While I agree with M. Cooke, I have to note that if only the idiots use tags, then idiocy will appear to be what the whole community wants. Just like our electoral process.
posted by mmahaffie at 6:43 PM on May 26, 2005

I don't search much with tags, but I do try to take them seriously when posting. With that in mind, I'd find it convenient if there was a link to the "top tags" and/or "all tags" pages just after "(separate with a space)" on the posting page.
posted by mediareport at 7:42 PM on May 26, 2005

Why not just ban ALL tags then?

By the way, are Kwantsar and quonsar different people?
posted by davy at 10:11 PM on May 26, 2005

Uh... yeah, pretty different.
posted by soyjoy at 6:33 AM on May 27, 2005

One has a birthmark.
posted by Mid at 7:05 AM on May 27, 2005

oh, good point, mmhaffie. i thought it seemed too good be true.
still, adding tags appears to be less onerous than voting.
posted by andrew cooke at 7:22 AM on May 27, 2005

andrew cooke said "oh, good point, mmhaffie. i thought it seemed too good be true.
"still, adding tags appears to be less onerous than voting."

I think you are right, Mr. Cooke. What would really be good would be to be able to tag the politicians as we vote!
posted by mmahaffie at 2:01 PM on May 27, 2005