Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Content Tagging is Here!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   
omg, this is too cool.

I think I found my new favorite feature. Tagging should help members find relevant topics since our members tend to get creative with thread titles and not always make it clear what a thread is about.




posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   
It looks like it will fucntion something like how "Keywords" in a scientific journal paper function, to highlight the important topics and make ease of reference. Seems good!


edit to add
Standardization would be key to this functioning well. People should be reasonable when taging threads. Take this thread, for instance. Most of the tags there are repetitive and silly. Thats not going to help (I noticed because I instantly went to add a silly tag too!
)

[edit on 14-12-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   
is this a bit like a web ontology by the sounds of it it is....

eg like owl lite, dl, full.
rdf etc.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Amuk, what the HELL did he just say?


I aint sure but I am glad he expalained it




Originally posted by minority2000uk
eg like owl lite, dl, full.
rdf etc.


Did you get that TC....

[edit on 14-12-2005 by Amuk]



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Amuk,

Does that mean i am correct...

I imagine it wont be owl as that a drastic use of catagorising it is it not?

All i can say is thank god it not me doing the owl stuff i just done owl dl for my uni coursework lol and it is a living hell.

ok read the whole thread a bit closer.

sounds like xml and rdf at a push i am guessing.

my honour project based on xml to do a feature selection / nearest neighbour search so it something similar lol..Stupid knowledgebases..

[edit on 14-12-2005 by minority2000uk]



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   
"Add a new tag for this thread (any word or phrase up to 30 characters) and recieve 5 points:"

Shouldn't that be "receive"

...and for pointing this out, I'm likely to lose 5 gazillion points...
< hides behind ThomasCrowne >

[edit on 14/12/05 by Count]



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Standardization would be key to this functioning well. People should be reasonable when taging threads. Take this thread, for instance. Most of the tags there are repetitive and silly. Thats not going to help (I noticed because I instantly went to add a silly tag too!
)


I agree. I see that someone has already put in a "TAG! You're it!". Soon we shall have the problem of Tag Spam, and maybe even Tag Trolls, lol. Might want to leave the tagging rights with mods, councilors and FSMEs only, or if not then maybe give the same people the ability to edit the tag content.



[edit on 2005-12-14 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Frivolous tags will only show up when you search for that exact tag I believe. The problem I see that can crop up is tagging a thread with a description that doesn't bare any relevance to the thread in question.

Like say tagging a thread about the Moon that doesn't have anything to do with a Hoax a hoax etc. Like say a thread about He3 tagged He3 Hoax or Moon Hoax or somethign like that

[edit on 14-12-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by minority2000uk
Amuk,

Does that mean i am correct...



It means I dont understand a word of it.......LOL




I imagine it wont be owl as that a drastic use of catagorising it is it not?

All i can say is thank god it not me doing the owl stuff i just done owl dl for my uni coursework lol and it is a living hell.

ok read the whole thread a bit closer.

sounds like xml and rdf at a push i am guessing.

my honour project based on xml to do a feature selection / nearest neighbour search so it something similar lol..Stupid knowledgebases..

[edit on 14-12-2005 by minority2000uk]



Uhhh.....OK


We need a Tech to hillbilly Translater so some of us (me and TC) can understand what the rest of you are talking about.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 02:41 PM
link   
You know how Google works? It searches for an match for the keywords you entered into the search box. With this all you would be search is the tags not the actual content in the threads. The basic idea is that it will make searching for stuff much easier.

Say you're search for stuff on the "moon hoax" yet the best threads don't even have that exact phase in the thread so it will come up with teh "closest match". With tags this would not be a problem as there are many tags that are related to the thread in question so when you search for say "moon hoax" you will see a page with all the pages with the tag "moon hoax" regardless of wether or not that exact search phrase appears in the thread in question.

[edit on 14-12-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   
*huff*
*huff*
*huff*

I just finished tagging all the threads on the Comic forum.




posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Eh google doesnt truely use word matching that is only a small part of it.

it uses the concept of page ranking as this gives far better results for general searching although it cost them alot more to operate as it memory intensive.

Am i going to get asked to explain page ranking lol.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Yeah I know I didn't want to get to complex though



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   
why not makes us look brighter than we really are we prob got everyone on this thread now scratching their heads wondering what the hell we are going on about



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Yay! I'm glad this new feature has arrived! The boolean search never worked for me. It just came up with a random link...



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 03:28 PM
link   
So let me see if I understand this? I shall illustrate with an example of how I *think* this is going to work.

I read a thread on ATS/BTS/PTS, say for example, Valhall's experience with Katrina relief. After reading it, I might tag it with something like 'Katrina Natural Disaster' or 'Hurricane United States 2005' or something else at least vaguely relevant. Have I got that right? I don't want to tag anything until I understand it, or else I'm going to be a few milliion points in the hole.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Try to be as precise as possible.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   
ok, for amuk:

since i'm from georgia, i'll give it a try...although i do understand that sometimes georgian doesnt translate very well into arkansinian.

this here critter is goin to make yer life more betterer when yall try searchin stuff here abouts. jes figger on what ya think one of them posts is sayin, and then find one of them words that describes it purty well, and type it into that there taggin thingamaboo on the south end of the page.

hope that helps


now question for SkepticOverlord....how did you manage to have two different avatars on at the same time? looks pretty cool when you have two posts on the same page.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
For those who might feel inclined to add inappropriate tags or use the tags to comment on members, you will receive a 1000 point penalty for each tag needs to be removed. If we need to remove three or more of your tags, your account will be terminated.


I've already seen some tendencies toward such tagging, so I thought I'd quote this.

When tagging a thread...if it was about the 'Illuminati', for instance, should tag it with just that?
However, if it was a thread which was 'Pro-Illuminati' by the initial poster, would you prefer it to be catagorized as such?

I'm wondering if it makes any difference to be too specific and that the search engine would just lump both together.
.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   
just thought of another question:

is the tagging case sensitive? i've noticed alot of people capitalizing their entries.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join