Content Tagging is Here!

ATTENTION MEMBERS WHO ARE TAGGING

We're having a rash of threads being tagged simply with the forum title, example: "Fragile Earth".

This does not aid the contextual intent of user content tagging, and creates an artificially high number of thread returns for that particular tag. And as far as forum titles are concerned, it's a much more relevant user experience to simply click on a forum page from the board home.

Please do not tag threads with the name of the forum in which they are contained.

Thank you.

I was hoping for some clarity on this issue.
Please feel free to remove any tags I've added...... No worries.

I've noticed a trend that is rapidly developing where tags are being seen as an opportunity to "brand" a thread forever with a personal comment on its content.

E.g. This thread, OP/ED: Kerry Wants Bush Impeached, has been tagged with things such as "foolish john kerry", "republican bashing", "who is john kerry", "impeachment conspiracy", "political terrorism", and "political opportunism".

These are clearly personal comments reflecting the opinion of the tagger, not disinterested references to the content of the thread. I imagine this will only get worse if something is not said about it. The temptation is there, and I must admit I've done one myself, although that shall cease from now.

[edit on 2005-12-18 by wecomeinpeace]

www.abovetopsecret.com...

...seems we're getting close to 6% already. At this rate, we'll have that 25% in just a couple of weeks.

I've been offline a lot this weekend, because I've been away from home, but have logged on to check the progress of this project. One thing I've noticed is the number of threads tagged with just one word.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think if you run across a thread like that, then it would be good to give it a scan and add another relevant tag (or 5)
For instance, if the entered tag is 'bush' and the thread concerns the last election, then that further designation should be added, as well as any other key words that nail down the content.

We're also now displaying the most recent 200 tags (with links to the tagged thread) on the board home page.

Also, this morning, I've had to send out three warnings & penalties for inappropriate tags. Please take care to use unbiased tags that do not contain inflamatory rhetoric. If you feel strongly about any topic you encounter, a proper contextual tag will help others find the thread much more quickly than tags that are nothing more than snippy comments.

I hope the breast-feeding tag was ok to add.
I´m sorry if it´s not ok
it was just too tempting

Watch out for spaces in tags.

I was just looking at the tags list and was wondering why it was out of order.

Some people are placing spaces in front of the names and that results in a different tag than one without the spaces.

For example Atlantis only returns one thread while Atlantis returns 12 threads.

It may also happen like this when there is a space at the end of the tag.
I'm not certain.

[edit on 18-12-2005 by AceOfBase]

An example of an "inappropriate tag" where there is no cursing or other nastiness...

This thread:
politics.abovetopsecret.com...
Had a tag of "bush = bad bad boy"

The tag was removed and a point penalty applied to the tagging member.

We want to make sure that our tags are accurate reflections of the thread material, and not one person's political bias no matter what board contains the thread.

Now there are certainly going to be similar tags on similar threads we don't catch, as there are abusive posts we don't always catch. We have a system that enables us to review the most recent 500 tags and take any action as needed... but even then, there are cracks through which things will slide.

A better content tagging choice may have been:
bush defends spying
bush spying

Please take care to accurately tag the nature of the content, not your opinion of the content.

Please correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the tag search search for the term in any part of the tag? For example if you searched for a tag called graph then if there were a bunch of tags called paragraph, all of those tagged threads would show up I believe. At least that is what I found when searching. I don't know if the word paragraph is any tag, I was just using it as an example.

I have learned instead of using one word, it is better to use a longer description. I didn't realize the search would show that thread by searching for any word in your tag. I don't see any options to add to our tags though. I would be willing to do so for no additional points on some threads.

I was also thinking some threads contain many ideas or possible areas of discussion all related to the thread. The whole thread may be about one general area but a few other topics may have been discussed a bit. I see those threads as ones that require multiple tags. You may correct me if I'm wrong but it easier for me to find things if I can search for the area I'm concerned about and all threads that discussed it or have material about it popping up on the search.

[edit on 18-12-2005 by orionthehunter]

I believe that it matches an entire phrase (anything between each "," and not part of it). Also guys and gals, keep in mind that we should try to tag the older threads too!

The current tag search is just a preliminary rough version. Once we get more tags, I'll make something more sophisticated.

Sounds great, but this system seems to be working out quite well. In my personal experience with any type of computer/web software, it sometime is best to keep it simple. Just a thought, but this whole content tagging system is nice.

If I can suggest one thing to people who do the tagging, I think it's kind of useless to use a tag with someone's ATS username. For the sake of tag quality, it'd probably be best to not use something like that. I noticed, just in this thread, a tag that says "the overlord of skeptics" and such. While that is a very interesting () title, it doesn't help describe the thread as being about the "Content tagging system".

[edit on 12/19/2005 by JBurns]

ouch

Tag at your own will... But be forewarned, I just lost 1000 ATS points and... Well... To be honest I can't figure out why.

The guidelines for what is appropriate and what is not is completely out of your hands and completely up to the moderator.

I believe that because of the hundreds of different variables, the general rule is to "use common sense". Obviously if you tag a thread that is about some new type of secret aircraft being tested at Area 51, with the description of "nsa cyber spy" or "cheese burger" then that would be a "bad" tag...

Since their isn't any Black & White rules laid out, that would leave the interpretation to the moderator who spots it. As it's been explained on here, everything is done in a professional way here, and if you feel that strongly about it, you can file a complaint, and the ATS admins will have a look into it.

I noticed about 40 tags with 'chit chat', which goes against what SO spelled out fairly clearly at the top of this page.

That would surely cost someone points.

...no, you have to use a level of common sense.

I think that people need to be tougher on what is being tagged, look at this thread for example?

There should be no "ironic" or "amusing" tags, it should clear be what the subject is about and stick to that. In reality, it is doubtful that there would be more than "ten" tags for anyone subject.



It'll cause more problems, then it is worth andI do hope that they begin to punish those who are spamming through the threads to gain more points.

"TAG! You're it!" for example has no real point to it.
"Tagging", "Indexing", "Thread Indexing", "Content Tagging" are all goes ones, that can be used on more then one thread to do with tagging so people can search them and have them 'grouped' together, which is the idea.

Yes, I see the example of "value added". That is an essentially useless, and somewhat misguiding tag. As you were saying, common sense is the best tool to use when tagging threads here.

Maybe as an effort to filter out some of the tags, there could be a min. post limit like the chat has?

The biggest problem so far in the tagging process, imo, is that some are not taking the time to actually read the thread to see what it is about.

Fast and furious tagging, by just looking at the title and tossing something in really doesn't help in specifying what the thread is about. For instance, I read a thread which talked about saucer designs made by earthlings just like us, but the tag read UFO. It wasn't about alien craft at all, but American and Canadian designs which looked like saucers...even showing Popular Mechanics covers and Avro designs.
If you don't take the time to read through it, how do you know the thread content?

This is a great opportunity to establish a better search function here...lets not blow it by mis-tagging.

.edit for grammar


[edit on 19-12-2005 by masqua]

Good point there.

We are the foundation to a very easy to use grouping system, and I think that everyone should try to make the best of it. I personally love this system, and have been trying to add as many usefull tags as possible. I've been targeting alot of the older threads (important ones mainly, but will eventually start on the older ones), so we'll at least have some kind of tag for them on record.