Merlin’s weekly podcast with Dan Benjamin. We talk about creativity, independence, and making things you love.
Merlin’s weekly podcast with Dan Benjamin. We talk about creativity, independence, and making things you love.
”What’s 43 Folders?”
43Folders.com is Merlin Mann’s website about finding the time and attention to do your best creative work.
Becoming a tagging kung-fu master
Ian Beck | Oct 5 2007
You’ve heard the hype about tagging. You’ve seen people flocking to sites like Flickr and del.icio.us, where they jump head-first into a pulsing mass of disjointed tags, possibly never to be heard from again. And you’ve wondered: how exactly is tagging worthwhile again? Any idiot can tag, but you want tags that are useful rather than a disorganized mess. This is not an unreasonable desire, and by completing three simple steps before you start tagging, you too can become a tagging kung-fu master. (Or, if you want more intellectual cred, explicate your personal taxonomy.) Whether you are tagging in a private, public, or collaborative system, consistency is the byword when tagging. Without a consistent pattern you won’t know what tags to assign items, what tags to search for to find items, or what items you’ll likely get while browsing your tags. The following three steps will help you create a consistent pattern to follow. Even if you’ve been tagging for a while, you may find these steps helpful to refine your knowledge of your own tagging habits and practices. (Please note, however, that these steps are focused on developing a personal tagging system; to optimize your tagging for collaborative use you would need to develop your system somewhat differently.) Step 1: Know whatAre you tagging PDFs in Yep, notes in Notae, characters in Avenir, or photos in iPhoto ‘08? Whether you’re tagging in one program or several, you need to make a list of the general types of different items that you want to tag. Tagging many different kinds of items does not make planning a tagging system much more complicated, but because you’ll tag different kinds of items differently you definitely need to think about what you’re going to tag. Step 2: Know whenPart of knowing your target is knowing what kind of metadata is already available to you (through, say, Spotlight or the Finder) and not duplicating that metadata in your tags. For instance, every file in Mac OS X has a date created and date modified attached to it. As a result, tagging your files with a date is typically a silly idea. Tagging Word documents “word” is also redundant; the system knows which documents are Word documents and finding all of them is only a saved search away. Before you proceed to the third step, you need to make sure you know what information about your target you already have available. You don’t have to write it down if you don’t want to; just be aware. Although there may be some situations in which you want to tag an item with every possible tag you can think of, most of the time you will want to keep your tags succinct and well-targeted, which means avoiding redundancy. Tags may be extremely flexible but they are the least efficient kind of metadata in some ways because they have no indication what they are marking. When you search the “date modified” field, you know exactly what you’re finding. An “05-31-2007” tag, on the other hand, could be any number of things. Step 3: Pick your attributesThis is the heart of a consistent tagging system, and can be summed up in a single question: how do you think about the item you are tagging? For instance, when you are filing or searching for a photo, what do you think of? The location of the photo? The subject or people in the photo? The event taking place when you took the photo? Something else entirely? Write out a list of the attributes that you think of when thinking of your target items. Ideally, you should make this a brainstormed list that includes every attribute you can possibly think of that you might want to tag. As you make the list for your different target items, star the attributes that spring immediately to mind. Once you have a list, go through it to weed out the attributes that are covered by the item’s non-tag metadata. Then go through it again and pick out what attributes you want to use for tagging. Try to keep it a short, specific list focused on the attributes that sprang immediately to mind. You should also add attributes that didn’t spring immediately to mind, but that you want to make a habit of tagging anyway because they will be useful. When you have this list of attributes, you are ready to tag. You should probably put your list of attributes somewhere visible, for example a Post-It by your computer or a virtual sticky note on-screen, at least until you’ve either memorized them or developed good tagging habits. When you’re tagging, try to consistently attach a tag for every one of the attributes that you’ve selected. The more often you can hit all of them, the easier it will be for you to find files later. Additionally, knowing what attributes you are tagging makes coming up with specific tags much easier. Rather than sitting worrying over every photograph you can quickly attach a location, person, and event (or whatever attributes you decide on). Ideally, your attributes and tags should fit into the following sentence: “This [item]’s [attribute] is [tag].” For example, “this photo’s location is New York.” The specific tags that you use will doubtless shift over time and circumstance, but the attributes that you are tagging should remain much more stable. By defining a standardized set of attributes for each kind of item that you are tagging and only deviating when necessary (or when the way you think about a given type of item begins to change), you will be able to create a consistent tagging system that helps you find items quickly because it matches the way you think. And more importantly, you will have taken your first steps on the road to becoming a full tagging kung-fu master. Or developing a stream-lined personal taxonomy. Whichever works for you. 11 Comments
POSTED IN:
Re: to categorize or retrieveSubmitted by Ian Beck on October 10, 2007 - 9:58am.
I think your take on tagging for categorization vs. retrieval is a very interesting way to think about the process. Over on Tagamac I actually refer to three different actions with tags: tagging (categorizing), searching (retrieval), and browsing (concept introduced here). In the "Kung-fu master" article I focus exclusively on tagging, the idea being that if you have put thought into how you tag items then finding them will be easier because you know what sort of things to look for. Searching is akin to your retrieval; it's using tags to find a specific item. Browsing is slightly different from your retrieval because you have no specific item as your target. Instead you're using tags to find groups of items or to see the relationships between items. The reason I bring up tagging/searching/browsing is because what your tagging software supports makes a huge difference in how you should tag. I tend to think that tagging items with general tags vs. specific tags has less to do with categorizing vs. retrieving and far more to do with how your tagging software searches tags. For instance, if I'm using software that has a tag cloud I will want to use as few tags as possible, balanced somewhere in the middle of the specific <-> general continuum. Too many tags, and the cloud becomes extremely unwieldy. Too few and it's useless for finding anything. A tag recipe, on the other hand, may work better if you tag items with as many specific tags as possible. I think the way to find your "best of both worlds" lies less in how people tag and far more in what software is available for tagging. If you can arrange tags into complex hierarchies wherein browsing to a parent shows you all of the items with child tags (without attaching the parent tag to those items) then you can tag items with the most specific tags possible but still find items based on general concepts. Unfortunately, I don't know of any software that doe this really well. Tagging is one of those features that has erupted everywhere, but has not (to my mind) been developed carefully enough. Also, as a side note, I tried not to suggest coming up with a list of tags in my article. Rather, I think you should come up with a list of general attributes (categories or types of tags, if you will). This is an important difference; with a list of tags you'd like to use, you are far more limited (and it's a major pain to come up with such a list, because it's hard to predict what specific items you'll be tagging). With a list of attributes, your actual tag cloud has a lot more flexibility, but you still have a governing principle on how to tag items (which leads to consistent tagging, which leads to locating items easier). » POSTED IN:
|
|
EXPLORE 43Folders | THE GOOD STUFF |