Feature: Auto group Selection - 20 views

• 
  #1 Kurt Laitner on 06 Mar 10

   

  Using diigo's bookmark tool it hits me that if the system knows the tags ordinarily associated with a group are (by frequency of use even) you should be able to select a group by tag matching (so imagine the group drop down populating with the most likely choice and you just validate it, or if multiple groups match they are listed first (above the line) in alpha, with less likely starting again below the line in alpha order)

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Using diigo's bookmark tool it hits me that if the system knows the tags ordinarily associated with a group are (by frequency of use even) you should be able to select a group by tag matching (so imagine the group drop down populating with the most likely choice and you just validate it, or if multiple groups match they are listed first (above the line) in alpha, with less likely starting again below the line in alpha order)</div>

  ...

  Cancel
• 
  #3 Kurt Laitner on 06 Mar 10

   

  very nice, I especially like the reducing group list as the user selects tags that can simply be accepted if correct
  the tag to group matching needs to be somewhat 'fuzzy' fit as I wouldn't want a group to disappear from the selection just because I added a novel tag.
  
  Thank you Francois, excellent description.

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">very nice, I especially like the reducing group list as the user selects tags that can simply be accepted if correct <br /> the tag to group matching needs to be somewhat 'fuzzy' fit as I wouldn't want a group to disappear from the selection just because I added a novel tag. <br /> <br /> Thank you Francois, excellent description.</div>

  ...

  Cancel
• 
  #6 François Dongier on 07 Mar 10

   

  I agree that Zigtag does many things fairly well, and even better than that. I really feel sorry that it (and the Common Tag approach in general) hasn't succeeded yet in attracting a reasonably large community of users. How do you feel about it? Do you think it has failed or is it still breathing a little bit? Do you have a general theory of what it did wrong?
  
  About your last paragraph: yes, there are some times when I wonder whether groups are really needed. Maybe a simpler architecture based on tags alone would be sufficient for most purposes.

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">I agree that Zigtag does many things fairly well, and even better than that. I really feel sorry that it (and the Common Tag approach in general) hasn't succeeded yet in attracting a reasonably large community of users. How do you feel about it? Do you think it has failed or is it still breathing a little bit? Do you have a general theory of what it did wrong? <br /> <br /> About your last paragraph: yes, there are some times when I wonder whether groups are really needed. Maybe a simpler architecture based on tags alone would be sufficient for most purposes.</div>

  ...

  Cancel
• 
  #7 Kurt Laitner on 07 Mar 10

   

  I didn't follow the Common Tag saga, though from the outside it seems a standards effort by small players without the support of the major ones (delicious for example) which is pretty much doomed from the get go. I was impressed way back when when the founder of zigtag disclosed his cheap and dirty approach to semantics on tags with a wikipedia integration, a brilliant insight at the time, since much copied.
  
  Zigtag suffers from a loss of its founder, it has not done anything of value since the funding parties pushed him out. It has also since lost its lead developer, because there is nothing interesting to do. The company has more or less disintegrated and the site continues on auto pilot. I had way too many issues with the tool not saving or sending and gave up as no one is at the wheel.
  
  Ultimately I think re tag/group a group is just a tag with a few additional relations (member of, for one) and should actually be defined at run time rather than design time. Group is only one of the interesting combinations of relations that would be possible. Even what is referred to as 'tags' is not one thing. we have simple text, multi word text, defined text, tag hierarchies or rhizomes (meta tags if you will) and semantic structures all the way up to ontologies. So tag is not a simple thing even by itself. The simple named grouping function that is a basic text tag has many younger siblings.

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">I didn't follow the Common Tag saga, though from the outside it seems a standards effort by small players without the support of the major ones (delicious for example) which is pretty much doomed from the get go. I was impressed way back when when the founder of zigtag disclosed his cheap and dirty approach to semantics on tags with a wikipedia integration, a brilliant insight at the time, since much copied. <br /> <br /> Zigtag suffers from a loss of its founder, it has not done anything of value since the funding parties pushed him out. It has also since lost its lead developer, because there is nothing interesting to do. The company has more or less disintegrated and the site continues on auto pilot. I had way too many issues with the tool not saving or sending and gave up as no one is at the wheel. <br /> <br /> Ultimately I think re tag/group a group is just a tag with a few additional relations (member of, for one) and should actually be defined at run time rather than design time. Group is only one of the interesting combinations of relations that would be possible. Even what is referred to as 'tags' is not one thing. we have simple text, multi word text, defined text, tag hierarchies or rhizomes (meta tags if you will) and semantic structures all the way up to ontologies. So tag is not a simple thing even by itself. The simple named grouping function that is a basic text tag has many younger siblings.</div>

  ...

  Cancel

To Top