Asklemmy

43943 readers

385 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Where should I discuss "tagging" in websites? (self.asklemmy)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by actual_patience to c/[email protected]

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I want to discuss a better means of organizing tags for websites that use a generic tagging system. I propose a tag hierarchy.

Basically, if I search for #dog, I should find posts with #puppy, #pug, #baby_pugs, #cute_dogs, etc.

But, if I search for #pug, I should only get posts with #pug, or other tags like #baby_pugs, #cute_pugs, etc.

This would make adding 50+ similar tags to a post irrelevant and allow for normal people to put a single obscure tag and still gain visibility.

I want to bring this idea up to more people. Where should I discuss this? You can suggest any website, community, or Lemmy instance where I could possibly develop this further.

I'm happy to discuss this here as well.

[Edit for clarity]: I am not just talking about tags for the federation and Mastodon. I am talking about improving any and all websites with a generic tagging system. Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, etc. etc.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Structurally the idea has some merit. I think the challenge that you will encounter especially in a federated environment is gaining agreement on how to fill that structure and the hierarchy that you're implying and demonstrating. Using the pug example, you'll likely find very little argument on a good hierarchy, but using a more contentious example, let's say gender, how will you gain agreement across instances on what the hierarchy within the data should represent?

[–] actual_patience 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That is more of an argument involving the implementation of tags in general within the federation. But to answer your question:

Let's say a group of people were to make a post on Mastodon with the tag #girls_night. How will all instances agree on the tag being correct?

The simple answer is they won't. If a tag is contentious, it will be like any other drama between instances.

It's the same for implementing tag hierarchy. Let's say there is a default setup. Then if a tag or a tree of tags is contentious, each instance can include or exclude as they see fit.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Ok I got ya. Doesn't that then limit the effective use of the hierarchy to the instance you're on and the hierarchy you're familiar with? In that the further removed you are from your home instance's hierarchy the less likely things will match up. So ultimately searches loose effectiveness I think?

Anyhow like someone else said, not trying to disparage the idea - it's interesting and I'm enjoying the various input and thoughts folks are bringing.