You are hereBlogs / amy's blog / Tagging
Tagging
I signed up for a del.icio.us account at my last co-op position, so I'm familiar with the social bookmarking and tagging phenomenom but it's been interesting to see the uses in other libraries. The one thing that was completely new to me was the bookmarklet, which to be honest I'm still not completely clear about! I took the walking tour of keene and it was pretty neato. I can see this technology being useful in libraries for mini instruction and training videos. I also downloaded Zotero onto my laptop and used it to make notes for this class. I would recommend it, it's useful because you can make notes about and tag websites (including online journal articles) so it's great for personal research. There are also in the development stages of creating a version that allows you to share your research with others and collaborate online. I can see the utility of this for students in university and college.
To speak about tagging in general, I've always been a little bit wary about the whole concept. I think the major issue for me is that it's really inconsistent in the fact that people use plurals and non-plurals, can mispell tags and use different words to convey the same meanings. Ironically I think that the last point is claimed to be the major benefit of tagging: not everyone uses the same language to signify an idea, so creating personal classification schemas is more useful for personal information retrieval. I think it's important to keep in mind that the "social" or sharing aspect of tagging is a secondary function- the first is a personal classification system, (see Lee Rainie).
Another issue that comes up when considering tagging is the idea that it is a more democratic way of organizing information. Instead of a select group of individuals (ex. librarians) deciding on a classification system (ex. dui), everyone can contribute equally. But I don't think this is necessarily true- I think that the early adopters can often set standards that others have to follow if they want their content to be relevant to others. For example, if a particular tag is the most popular one used to signify an idea then other tags for the same idea can be marginalized and not added to the greater "pool" of knowledge. Nevertheless, I would definitely have to agree that tagging is way more of a democratic system of classification than Dewey!
- amy's blog
- Login to post comments

I agree wholeheartedly with your comment about how people mis-spell words and use improper tenses when creating tags. I find when I am racking my brain to come-up with tags for my blog postings, I sometimes wonder which tense of a word I should use and sometimes end up using multiple variations of a word to ensure that it is tagged in a way that most people will find it if it is relevant to them. They should teach a course on proper tagging style!
I think you raise a really good point about popular tags. It's true that in a way it is similar to a certain group of individuals choosing particular words and then others following the terms that are most popular. I guess tagging is a little more democratic in that if a group of people don't like that particular popular tag, they can move towards the use of a different one. Of course this still would result in scattered tagging...which is a problem I think will always be difficult to get around in this kind of system!
Great points about tagging, Amy. I didn't even think about the way that tagging is a more democratic form of classification! :)
"Everything I say is a lie...
... in fact, I'm lying to you right now..."
Amy, I like how you mentioned the fact that this form of classification is equally contributed by vitually anyone. While lots of us, especially as librarians, might not like this, I think you raise a strong point in that even if tagging can be done by anyone, there are standards and thus people follow in the leaders footsteps anyway. In this sense, if those who are experienced and understand tagging do it often, then people (most I hope) will quicly pick up on the language and consistency.