Group items tagged

Typiquement, un serveur web offre à l’utilisateur une interface accessible via un fureteur et protégée par un mot de passe qui lui permet de rédiger des billets. Lorsqu’un billet est prêt, il suffit d’appuyer sur un bouton « publier » pour que le billet soit ajouté en tête de file sur la page d’accueil du blogue, le plus souvent accompagné de son titre, de l’identité de son auteur, et de la date de publication. Chaque billet est également placé dans une archive et se voit attribuer un permalien (une adresse permanente).

Les catégories et les étiquettes Nous avons vu au module 2 l’utilité des catégories et des étiquettes pour l’organisation des contenus. Plusieurs outils de blogues permettent de tels modes de catégorisation des billets et indexent les contenus sur la base de ces métadonnées.

Plusieurs blogues permettent de faire une recherche dans la base de données.

Certains outils de blogue offrent une fonctionnalité appelée Linkback qui permet à un blogue de recevoir des signaux en provenance d’autres blogues indiquant qu’ils ont publié un lien vers lui.

il est devenu fréquent de voir des gens commenter non pas pour participer à la conversation, mais pour promouvoir un produit ou un site, souvent en plaçant des liens.

Le problème du spam n’est pas limité aux commentaires. Il existe des blogues entiers qui sont produits par des générateurs de spam. On les appelle les splogues, splogs ou spamblogs

l’élimination de la section de commentaires, le filtrage sélectif des commentaires par une liste noire (individuelle ou partagée) de commentateurs, l’enregistrement obligatoire des commentateurs, les CAPTCHAS, la directive nofollow, et la modération (publication des commentaires conditionnelle à l’approbation du blogueur).

Plusieurs systèmes de blogues sont constitués d’un noyau autour duquel peuvent se greffer des ajouts qui en rehaussent la fonctionnalité.

il faut faire confiance au code qui le fait fonctionner. La particularité des widgets est que le code en question réside sur un autre site et est hors de votre contrôle. Il peut être changé à l’autre bout sans prévenir. Une défaillance du serveur du widget se répercute sur votre page. La prudence est donc de mise.

Yahoo is saying "We understand better than you how the world is organized, because we are trained professionals. So if you mistakenly think that Books and Literature are entertainment, we'll put a little flag up so we can set you right, but to see those links, you have to 'go' to where they 'are'."

You don't have to have just a few links, you could have a whole lot of links.

A URL can only appear in three places. That's the Yahoo rule.

They missed the end of this progression, which is that, if you've got enough links, you don't need the hierarchy anymore. There is no shelf. There is no file system. The links alone are enough.

One reason Google was adopted so quickly when it came along is that Google understood there is no shelf, and that there is no file system. Google can decide what goes with what after hearing from the user, rather than trying to predict in advance what it is you need to know.

"Well, that's going to be a useful category, we should encode that in advance."

They point to the signal loss from the fact that users, although they use these three different labels, are talking about the same thing.

You can also turn that list around. You can say "Here are some characteristics where ontological classification doesn't work well": Domain Large corpus No formal categories Unstable entities Unrestricted entities No clear edges Participants Uncoordinated users Amateur users Naive catalogers No Authority

The other big problem is that predicting the future turns out to be hard, and yet any classification system meant to be stable over time puts the categorizer in the position of fortune teller.

Here is del.icio.us, Joshua Shachter's social bookmarking service. It's for people who are keeping track of their URLs for themselves, but who are willing to share globally a view of what they're doing, creating an aggregate view of all users' bookmarks, as well as a personal view for each user.

" If you find a way to make it valuable to individuals to tag their stuff, you'll generate a lot more data about any given object than if you pay a professional to tag it once and only once.

Tags are simply labels for URLs, selected to help the user in later retrieval of those URLs. Tags have the additional effect of grouping related URLs together. There is no fixed set of categories or officially approved choices. You can use words, acronyms, numbers, whatever makes sense to you, without regard for anyone else's needs, interests, or requirements.

The chart shows a great variability in tagging strategies among the various users.

But this is what organization looks like when you turn it over to the users -- many different strategies, each of which works in its own context, but which can also be merged.

We are moving away from binary categorization -- books either are or are not entertainment

But they either had no way of reflecting that debate or they decided not to expose it to the users. What instead happened was it became an all-or-nothing categorization, "This is entertainment, this is not entertainment." We're moving away from that sort of absolute declaration, and towards being able to roll up this kind of value by observing how people handle it in practice.

What you do instead is you try to find ways that the individual sense-making can roll up to something which is of value in aggregate, but you do it without an ontological goal.

you believe that we make sense of the world, if we are, from a bunch of different points of view, applying some kind of sense to the world

we're going to be able to build alternate organizational systems, systems that, like the Web itself, do a better job of letting individuals create value for one another, often without realizing it.