Tag combining : preparing for disaster -- and disaster it is

Tag combining at LT's is an awfully diffucult job. Then again remains the rule of thumb : If any doubt : don't combine !

Nevertheless, some seem to think that doubt is for weaklings only and thus are quite active in rough combining. This is no good and prepares for disaster indeed.

Take into account that Thingamabrarians might have some quite specific meaning when using a certain tag. On top of this, they are using tags in all kind of different languages. Combiners that are not enough aware of the latter, the more when they are not familiar with all different specific meanings a tag might have--remind : in whatever language, that is !--'d better NOT combine tags, Methinks.

Have this example : Den Hellige Frans af Assisi (link) by Johannes Jørgensen.

At present, the work page for this books says :
-----
Tags used to describe the book
assisi(1) biography(1) french language(1) saint(1) Theology
-----

This is madness indeed, Methinks.

Please, can someone explain what exactly is the meaningful relation between a Danish language book on Saint Francis of Assisi by the Danish author Johannes Jørgensen has to do with "french language" (sic) ?

Apart from the result of the rogue combining, that is--but that doesn't exactly make sense, does it ?

I didn't get the impression that these tags were combined, merely that there is a person who is describing the book for their library as "french language". Some people do things like Shelf 12, and the tag is a locational device. Maybe you should write the person who used that tag.

Ok, I'm not sure what you're saying. It seems that only one person has that book in their library, and used those tags to describe the book.

Are you not liking the tags this person used to describe their book? And how are those tags messing with combining?

I have the feeling I'm missing something here.

>2 vpfluke: It looks like the tag "french language" is combined with the tag "frans". That would mean tagging the book "frans" like in its title would result in the book showing up as tagged "french language".

edited to ask: Why don't you uncombine the tags?

Ok, I understand now. I'm not sure why those two tags would be combined. But I imagine tag combining is just like work and author combining, in that it needs some policing also.

>4 DaynaRT:

The problem is that "Frans" can mean "french language" indeed, but that is doesn't have to.

Take this example in Dutch :

1) Frans (fr : Français (*) ; en : French) : adj., related to France;
2) Frans (fr : français (*) ; en : French language) : n., name of a language (iso 639-1 : "fr");
3) Frans (~fr : François ; ~en : Francis) : boy's name.

(*) Mind that in French, (fr) "français" (no capital) relates to the language, while (fr) "Français" (with capital) relaties to the countr--i.e. : in French, the capital is significant and discriminatory !

In the example as above, "Frans" was clearly meant as Frans (3)--i.e. relating to the boy's name (~ Francis, as in : Francis of Assisi). By rough combining "Frans" and "French language", "Frans" turns out to be narrowed at Frans (2) only. This is nonsense.

Either, the combiner didn't understand what he was doing nor did he understand its consequences; either, the combiner was aware of what he was doing and did it on purpose.

In the former case, he 'd better refrain from combining tags at all, for his knowledge in this matter turns out to be too poor indeed.

In the latter case, his behaviour is to be considered as plain vandalism. Methinks one 'd deserve to and better be banned for that.

Adding to all of this : when the Tag Combining feature first popped up, I was one of the Thingamabrarians who have been warning that this feature might prepare for disaster indeed. Alas and as foreseeable, this has been proven now.

WARNING : You cannot know what meaning a Thingamabrarian has added with providing a tag.

Though for sure, several patterns might and will rise when taking into account all different tags added with some work (LT concept), and though those patters might and will bear meaning indeed, combining several tags without knowing what they mean--and remember : one cannot know what they (might) mean !--is breaking their value and is making all tags patterns useless.

While even remaining within one single language, perfect synonyms are hard to find--most of the times, they will not come closer than : "more or less" or : "might have some relation" (when taking into account this one meaning of this word only, and comparing it with that one meaning of that word only, that is); as soon as different languages are at stake, combining tags, or even trying to combine tags rather becomes a strong NO, NO, please DON'T !

We cannot help that the very same word might have quite different, even plain opposite meanings in different languages--as is the case with so-called "false twins". False twins do exist indeed, and we (should) know this and pay attention at their existence.

Example : "jurisprudence"

People might think that they know what "jurisprudence", hence what the tag "jurisprudence" is meaning. Then again, they might be wrong.

Let's have a closer look at this example :
(en) "jurisprudence" = (fr) "doctrine" = (nl) "rechtsleer"
(fr) "jurisprudence" = (en) "jurisdiction" = (nl) "rechtspraak"

For we cannot know what language was chosen when adding the tag "jurisprudence", we cannot know what this tag is supposed to mean. This is a problem and a pain indeed, but we cannot solve it. Neighbouring tags with the same work (LT concept) might give us a clue.

However, all of this will turn for the worse when some "smart" (?) combiner starts and combine "jurisprudence" with whatever other tag. It might be clear that whatever tag he is picking and combining with "jurisprudence", the combination MUST be wrong.

Methinks--rather : I am quite sure--that even polyglots cannot know all possible meanings in all possible different languages of whatever word/tag.

Therefore, UNLESS one can absolutely be sure that two tags are exactly the same and have got exactly the same meaning, adding positively 100% sure that no other meaning (in whatever language) is possible; unless all of this can be 100% guaranteed, DO NOT COMBINE TAGS.

The "Frans"/"French language" disaster example (Message 1) was but one example of what is happening when no 100% sure guarantee can be given, thus preparing for meaningless tag soup.

Many, alas, all too many other examples can be given.

The present tag combining feature--and the way tags are combined, without knowing what they mean, that is, and we cannot know what they mean (see examples above)--is rendering all tags useless.

>6 boekerij:

So did you separate them?

Disaster? How so?

I agree that, with tag combination, it much easier to make a mistake like this (that's why I shy away from combining based on semantics). Fortunately, misfortunate tag combinations are quite easily fixed (that is, compared to work combinations, which sometimes require hours to sort out).

In this case, I would probably have shrugged my shoulders (perhaps laughing a little at the foibles of the good-intentioned), and then promptly separated frans from french language. No questions asked. No excuses needed.

Now, please, why is this a disaster?

>5 9days:

> But I imagine tag combining is just
> like work and author combining

I am quite afraid I cannot agree with this.

For with author and work combining, we can/might know positively sure that e.g. "J.R.R. Tolkien" = "John R. R. Tolkien" = "John Ronald Reuel Tolkien" = ... --i.e. : the author of i.a. LOTR.

The same way, we can know positively sure that i.a. (da) "Ringenes Herre" by "J.R.R. Tolkien" and (fi) "Taru Sormusten Herrasta" by "J.R.R. Tolkien" and (fr) "Le Seigneur des anneaux" by "J.R.R. Tolkien" and (ja) "指輪物語" by "J.R.R. Tolkien" and (ko) "반지의 제왕 세트" by "J.R.R. Tolkien" and (nl) "In de ban van de ring" by "J.R.R. Tolkien" and (ru) "Вла�?телин Колец" by "J.R.R. Tolkien", etc., etc., and (en) The Lord of the Rings by "J.R.R. Tolkien" are all the some work (LT concept)--i.e. all of the earlier mentioned ones are different language translations of the last one, which is the original English language one.

Then again, I think tags are entirely different and much more complicated matter.

I 've seen lots of tags that have been combined, though, while on the one hand the combination might make sense if one took a quite narrowminded look and would consider but one single possible meaning of a tag indeed, but on the other hand, considering even one single other possible meaning of the very same tag, are completely nonsense--not even taking into account that the very same tag might have--and is having !--many more different meanings, too.

Have another example :

Take whatever translation dictionary translation foreign language words into your own language. Most entries will indicate quite a lot of different--even mutually completely unrelated, so it seems--possibilities to translate whatever foreign language word into your language.

In fact, when combining whatever of the latter translation possibilities with the foreign language word, the combiner is purporting that each and every translation possibility has got the very same meaning, though he wouldn't think about combining all of those, but he just has !

One might imagine that when taking into account enough different languages, one might as well combine each and every tag with each and every other, thus rendering whatever tag absolutely meaningless and thus useless.

Therefore, I think, I repeat and I maintain that I am quite sure that combining tags is one of the very most dangerous features that LT is offering today.

Though for sure it might make sense to combine some tags, lots if not most of the present tag combinations are absolutely crap--and adding.

Though I do speak and understand a handful of different languages only and thus cannot check each and every tag combination; even my rather poor knowledge of languages was abundant to understand that many of the present tag combinations are crap indeed.

Concluding :

Taking all of this into account and considering whether we 'd better have either some tag combination feature, either no tag combinations at all, Methinks the latter would be the wiser.

Tag combining is killing the tag feature.

> But I imagine tag combining is just
> like work and author combining

I am quite afraid I cannot agree with this.

It seems you've misunderstood me. What I said is that they're similar in that tag combining probably needs the occasional look-over, just as author and work combining needs looking after, just to check for combining errors. Although, in my opinion, the top tag combiner does a pretty good job. So I won't be declaring a Hindenburg-like disaster any time soon.

Anyhow, as I understand it, everyone gets to be a librarian on LT, and not just the self-appointed authorities. If you think certain tags should be combined, combine them. If not, uncombine them.

But you have the same problem with tags without combining tags. Many words have multiple meanings by themselves and you can't be sure that every user of that tag has the same meaning in mind. So, is connecting tags across different users useless? I wouldn't say so. It would be more useful if each word had exactly one meaning but there's not much we can do about that.

But I agree that tag combining shouldn't be used to combine words of different languages.

Tag combining is killing the tag feature

Boekerij, I didn't think it would ever happen, but I have to admit that I am with you here.

>11 jjwilson61:

> But I agree that tag combining shouldn't be
> used to combine words of different languages.

Part of the problem is that we cannot know whether tag words are in different languages at all.

Even if within one single language, two tags seem to be--more or less (!)--each other's synonyms, one of them--or even both--might have quite a different meaning in some other language(s).

There are that many different languages and hence our knowledge of languages--all of them--is that poor, that, even considering our best intentions, except for some really trivial combinations, we are to fail in this matter.

What's more : does one of us really is aware of each and every possible meaning and each and every possible nuance of each and every "synonym"--and, except for some trivialities, are we, can we be positively 100% sure that two seeming "synonyms" are exactly the same and in all cases and circumstances have got exactly 100% the same nuances ? Except for some trivialities indeed, I do not think so. And I think that everybody else 'd better doubt in this matter, too.

Methinks that, even when remaining within one single language, 100% synonyms are extremely rare.

Tim's--i.e. : LT's; i.e. : The rule in this matter is :
-----
Tag combination

The rule: When in doubt, separate it.
-----
(Cf. i.a. tag combination pages)

continuing :
-----
The combined tags feature is designed to
erase trivial distinctions. Lots of seeming
synonyms have differences in nuance.
When in doubt, separate it.
----
(ibid.)

On top of this, we--LT, that is--are not dealing with one single language only, are we ?

Synonyms within one single matter is not trivial matter at all. When entering different languages, this matter is becoming extremely complicated and all too easy might rise beyond the understanding capacities of each of us. We 'd better be aware of this. "When in doubt, separate it." Better doubt !

Have a look at LT's own examples with the tag combining feature :
-----
Good

wwii / ww2
19thc / 19th century
children's / childrens

Bad

unread / to be read
movies / cinema
farsi / persian
-----
(ibid.)

Does one--even one of the tag combiners--really think is absolutely sure that all present tag combinations are of the former type only ? Though YMMV, I 'd dare to doubt this--at least.

"When in doubt, separate it." (The rule) Better doubt !

That's why after the tag combining feature was released, very soon it was put on hold--and right so.

"Bad : movies / cinema"

Why ?

Because : Tag combining is killing the tag feature.

My thanks to whomever, finally, separated the tags.

Can the sky stop falling now? ;)

How can tag combining kill the tag feature? Even if every single tag were combined into one, it still wouldn't do anything to the value of tags for most people, which is as an essentially private tool. The problems you point to from a multilingual collection of tags come with a broad enough collection of languages with or without combining.

That's why after the tag combining feature was released, very soon it was put on hold--and right so.

It was absolutely not put on hold very soon after it was released. You complain above about saying that tag combining would be a problem when it was first introduced - I find this hard to believe as it is much older than August 2006. Plenty of people complain about works being combined inappropriately as well and say the work combination system is more trouble than it's worth. I suggest you take a look at some of the social cataloguing websites that don't involve any combining of tags or works and see how much more useful that turns out to be. When no tags were combined the system was comparatively much, much worse. I get irritated at inappropriate combinations as well but it's not rightly called a disaster, as most people here seem to agree.

I think and maintain that definitely there is a clear difference between work combining and author combining at the one hand, and tag combining at the other hand.

Dealing with the former -- i.e. : work combining and tag combining -- though of course errors might and will occur, and though not all problems with this matter are solved yet, still, we can check and know for sure whether a book is belonging to the same work (LT concept) or not.

Tags are different matter.

We cannot know what a tag means. Context is vital, and we do not and cannot know the context of each and every use of whatever tag.

Even though a tag might have no specific meaning in itself, tag clusters -- tag clouds -- might and probably will reveal meaning.

Pay attention though. While tag clusters and tag clouds might reveal meaning -- because some patterns might and will pop up -- tag combining is killing this feature.

Tim provided the example of "movies" and "cinema". Though both of the latter are quite similar and related indeed, It seems that "cinema" people do not want to hang out with "movies" people. Hence the rule :
-----
The combined tags feature is designed to
erase trivial distinctions. Lots of seeming
synonyms have differences in nuance.
When in doubt, separate it.
----

IIRC, some months ago, it was discussed over here that we cannot even know whether "humor" and "humour" -- seeming synonyms, aren't they ? -- have got the very same meaning, without any differences in nuance. Most probably, they haven't. Therefore, even both of those should NOT be combined.

Remember, Tim said (and right so) :

-----
The Philosophy of Tagging

(...) tags should not be controlled.

Free tagging will of course create information "noise,"
but there is also "signal in the noise." As tag-guru
Clay Shirky argues, the tags movies and cinema,
while seeming synonyms, actually encode differences
in outlook. ("The movies people don't want to hang
out with the cinema people!") Even spelling can
encode difference. Compare humor and humour!
-----
(LT)

Therefore : Tag combining is killing the tag feature.

>10 9days:

> Anyhow, as I understand it, everyone gets to be
> a librarian on LT, and not just the self-appointed
> authorities. If you think certain tags should be
> combined, combine them. If not, uncombine them.

I think tags and tag combining is far less easy than this.

It is not those who are warning and begging please not to combine tags in the way that some are doing now that are self-appointed authorities, Methinks. Rather is it the opposite. It is those who think they have got far enough knowledge -- whatever that might be -- to combine tags as they see fit, that are taking the role of self-appointed authorities indeed. It is them that seem to think that tagging can and should be controlled. By them, that is. They seem to think that they know what others think. Reality check : they don't. One might doubt whether they have properly understood The Philosophy of Tagging.

It is them and (their) tag combining that are killing the tag feature.

Dear boekerj,

I think the spirit of LT is that we are all experts to some degree, and each one of us is a self-appointed authority.

I am not sure what is dead now that some tags are combined.

Let me ask a theoretical question about tags. It looks like at this point the city in Belgium which has three spellings - Brussel, Brussels, and Bruxelles - has not been combined. Now, they are all the same city. Would you say that these three should not be combined? If you are looking for a book on "Brussels", and you can handle Flemish, English or French, would you not want these to be combined, to ease your search?

I took a look at your catalog and noticed that most of your tags are in Dutch. It seems to me that perhaps 99% of the peculiar tag combinations that exist in LT are in English. I wonder if there is another Dutch language user who has some unusual ideas about tagging, and if that isn't the source of your problem?

All in good spirit,

Bob Campbell

I would just like to say again: go check out a site where there is no way to connect the tags "20th century" "twentieth century" "20th c." "20th c" "20thcentury" and "20thc" and explain why it's better to let tagging go "uncontrolled." This is completely off-base, by the way, since tag combinations don't control what people use as tags, quite the opposite, they give lots more freedom while keeping good connections - why should I be forced, for example, to use the long tag "20th century" just to get connections because it's more popular than my preferred "20th c."? The tag feature is definitely not being killed by tag combining. It may be being hurt by bad tag combining, but bad combinations can be undone. Tag combining went on happily for months and months before Talk ever existed and in its initial stages especially, really helped the LT experience.

>20 vpfluke:

1. - "Brussels"

I think that "Brussels" (wiki-nl) might be quite a good example indeed.

Dutch language Wikipedia "Brussels" page is a disambiguation page, reading i.a. :
-----
Brussels kan duiden op:

* Brussels dialect
* Brussels, een schip van Exmar
* Brussels bier
-----
(source : "Brussels - Wikipedia (nl)" (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels)

Do you know what possibility is meant? I don't.

Of course, one might think and add, Dutch is a "foreign" language -- though it is not in the Brabantic city of Brussels (nl: Brussel), capital of Flanders.

Have a look at the English language Wikipedia disambiguation page Brussels (disambiguation) - Wikipedia (en). It reads i.a. :
-----
Brussels is:

* Brussels: the capital region of Belgium, and a metonym to refer to the European Union institutions, such as the European Commission
* the city of Brussels, one of the 19 municipalities in the above mentioned capital region.
* the name of two places in the United States:
o Brussels, Illinois
o Brussels, Wisconsin
* the name of a community in Ontario, Canada, see Brussels, Ontario

and can also refer to Brussels sprout, Brussels Airlines or the football club FC Brussels
-----
(source : "Brussels (disambiguation) - Wikipedia (en)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_%28disambiguation%29)

Methinks that's quite a lot of entirely different and completely unrelated meanings of "Brussels", don't you ? And there are a lot more still !

Therefore, taking e.g. this one "Brussels" example only, if you 'd ask me what is the meaning of "Brussels", my sole possible -- i.e. : sole reasonable -- answer is : "In what context ?" For, out of context, "Brussels" can mean all of the above and a lot more still. That's why I don't and cannot know what "Brussels" means. Do you ? Do you think you do ? I don't, nor do I think you or whomever else can -- except for the Thingamabrarian that has been adding his one single and specific "Brussels" tag in a very specific context : his one, with his copy of a book.

Worse : even the same Thingamabrarian may have added "the same tag" -- e.g. "Brussels" -- with different books in a manner that depending on context, even this "same tag" is having different meanings. We don't now. We cannot know.

Recapitulating :

We do not know as well as cannot know what is the meaning of a specific tag. Most probably, the very "same" tag -- e.g. "Brussels" -- is having quite diverse meanings.

This might be a pity, some might think, but we cannot help it, neither solve this.

Then again, combining tags all the while we do not know what a tag means is madness. It is not solving problems, but making things worse. The remedy -- combining tags -- is worse than the disease.

Therefore : Tag combining is killing the tag feature.

2. - Unusual ideas about tagging ?

I am quite sorry, but you might want to be more explicit in what you mean by your last paragraph, for as it is now, Methinks it is reaching beyond my understanding.

Methinks that some people -- tag combiners, that is -- might think they know what a tag means. I think -- i.e. : I am quite sure -- that in the utmost number of cases, they haven't even got the slightest idea.

Do I mean those good-willing people are dumb ? I don't.

My point is that no one can have the knowledge that... no one can have -- no matter whether the combiner or would-be combiner is a self-appointed authority or not.

Please, because some people have made reference to this, mind that I didn't speak about combining books/works, neither about combining author's names. Both of the latter are different matter indeed. We can know whether one book is a translation of another book and thus is to be combined the one with the other as belonging to one single work (LT concept) -- or not. The same way, we can know that two different author names are refering to the same author. Obviously, J.R.R. Tolkien and John Ronald Reuel Tolkien are the same author : John Ronald Reuel Tolkien CBE (Bloemfontein (RSA) January 3, 1892 – Bournemouth (England) September 2, 1973).

This is definitely not the matter with tags.

Except for some really trivial cases -- but do we and can we really know which ones are really trivial; Methinks this is quite complicated matter, too -- tag combining is killing the tag feature, for we cannot know what a tag means, for context is vital is this matter, and we haven't got the context, have we ?

This is the Brussels :

IMO number : 9142150
Name of ship : BRUSSELS
Call Sign : ONDF
Gross tonnage : 22323
Type of ship : LPG Tanker
Year of build : 1997
Flag : Belgium
Status of ship : In Service

Pictures of this vessel are available from i.a. EXMAR SHIPPING (Antwerpen) (http://www.belgischekoopvaardij.net/exmar.htm) -- owner of the ship -- at http://www.belgischekoopvaardij.net/brussels_exmar.JPG and http://www.belgischekoopvaardij.net/brussels_big.htm.

3. - User names

Please do not mess up my user name. Thank you.

You have yet to either (a) respond to my points about the usefulness tag combination has really provided or (b) show any respect in which tag combination is actually "killing" or even hurting the tag feature. Please show me how this is killing the tag feature:
The tag kennedy assasination combined into kennedy assassination (Edward) (separate it)

The tag conspircy theory combined into conspiracy theory (Edward) (separate it)

Or this:

The tag 19th c fiction combined into 19th century fiction (DisassemblyOfReason) (separate it)

The tag doctorwho combined into doctor who (Edward) (separate it)

What purpose does it serve to keep these apart? It would be killing the similarly-tagged features to prevent these sorts of combinations. And it would be pretty far out to claim that we can't tell these mean the same thing.

edit: thanks to Edward and DisassemblyofReason for your hard work and good examples

Dear boekerij,

I apologize for messing up your user name.

I have no intention of combining any of the tags for Brussels, but I do note that you made no mention of Bruxelles. Inasmuch as one could be really confused by the words Brussel or Brussels, as indicated by your lengthy post, perhaps the tag Bruxelles might be preferred for the city in the middle of Belgium, as it might just be less confusing.

In my last paragraph, I was trying to ask in a round-about way as to whether any of your own tags have been hurt by combination efforts. You have almost 12,000 tags and you express quite a bit of bitterness on this subject. So, I was just wondering.

24>> So you do not think that the combining of the tags "england" and "angleterre" into just one tag diminishes the richness of the tag information on a work social page? Notes from a small island has been tagged by at least one person "angleterre". I would find it very interesting to know this looking at the page, but no, it's buried under "england". I wonder how the people using the tag "england" (and I'm one) would feel it the case were turned around?

btw if I had a souvenir book from my visit to Brussels I would tag it brussels, as that is what the book would mean to me. These are tags, not subject headings.

25> For the record, I agree with you. I've posted several times about the issues in combining tags of different languages at all and I don't think it should be done for exactly the reason you mention.

I'm not sure that I have formulated an opinion on mixing languages in tagging. Now that I know synonymous tags are likely to uncombined, which I might have thought belonged together, I am now using more tags on each books I catalog.

I have noticed that most foreign language users of LT are using English language tags, so it hard to survey the use of other languages' use of tags so far. Boekerij is an exception, with most of his tags in Dutch.

I only have two items dealing with Brussels, one is Baedeker guide book which is in English, so I tagged it Brussels; the other is a timetable book for the Brabant, and, as it is bilingual in French and Flemish (Dutch), I tagged it both Brussel and Bruxelles. So, I've gone with the usage of this book. I am not sure that I can combine tags for Brussel and Bruxelles. I would prefer that that determination be made by someone who lives in Belgium.

>24 vpfluke:

Fortunately (*), it turns out that "Bruxelles" won't help that much either. Cf. i.a. Bruxelles (homonymie) - Wikipédia (fr) (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruxelles_%28homonymie%29).

(*) You might think this is a strange remark. It has to do with i.a. Belgian politics. You 'd rather want to keep away from this snakepit, Methinks. Cf. i.a. A throne in Brussels by Paul Belien, too. Pay attention : in some people's opinion, this is quite sensible matter.

Therefore, it is definitely NOT a good idea to combine either Brussel, Brussels, Bruxelles, Brüssel or pompstok into one single tag.

I understand that the Flemish / Walloons divide is indeed sensitive in Belgium.

I visited Brussels in 1975, and found that the suburban buses were operated in very similar way to the suburban buses in Detroit, Michigan, where I had done bus scheduling. This was the SNCV system, which I think has now been broken due to the politics you refer to. Belgium had quite an extensive network of suburban and rural trams, now mostly discontinued except a few lines in Charleroi and Oostende. There were still a couple of suburban trams in Brussels (to Wemmel or Strombeek, I think). (The other trams in Belgium, Brussels city lines, Charleroi city lines, Gent, Antwerpen were operated by local authorities). This is a little off-track.

In any case, I would not combine the tags for the various names of Brussels.

I am going to try an obtain a copy of the book, A Throne in Brussels, which is available in a library in a nearby county.

Boekerij, what's your opinion on the points raised in message 23?

Having read this whole thread, I have to say that for me, tag combining enhances the tag feature. The supposed problem of tag combining - we don't know the difference in nuance between the tags, so can't reasonably combine them - exists within tagging itself. You might as well say "Tagging is killing the tag feature."

Take boekerij's example of brussels -- what justification is there for combining different uses of that single tag in a tag cloud? That tag could mean any of dozens of things to different people. If 10 people use it to mean the city, and 10 use it to mean the beer, how can it possibly deserve the same size font in the cloud as a tag where 20 people mean the same thing?

Indeed, since we can't know what any individual means when they use a given tag, every tag in the cloud should appear as many times as it is used, each time with a weight of one.

Nonsense, of course.

Humor means the same thing as humour. Personally, I would combine them. There may be different nuances of meaning between them, but then when I tag The Joy of Work: Dilbert's Guide to Finding Happiness at the Expense of Your Co-Workers as humor that's not the same variety of humor as I Guess You Had To Be There which is different still from Before and After. The similarities between humor and humour are much greater than the differences between those three books.

(And I've tagged I Know You Got Soul as humour. Not because it's different from the others in a way in which they are similar, but because I'm an American living in Britain and my brain doesn't always use the same spellchecker.)

(edited to fix touchstones)

rorrison,

I appreciate your comments. I am doing multiple tagging because of uncombiners.

For humor, I would most likely have a basic tag of "humor" and then a humorous British book would have an additional tag of "humour."

All of life is fuzzy. My paying occupation is to schedule buses (I work with a three-month horizon, not day-to-day). I frequently can't get a fix on how many ride a specific trip. (is the farebox accurate? why do the numbers change so much from day to day? how do I account for a bus in front of this specific trip I'm being late or early, and thus taking passengers from or giving passengers to the trip in question.). So, both words and numbers have a certain amount of flux to them.

I have combined the tags "greek" and "geek". It's obvious that the missing r is a typo.

Er...

You may jest. I have seen Thursday Next combined with Tuesday Next. Fortunately that user seems to have corrected the day in their tag.

I have combined 'boekerij' with 'Booker T and the MGs' (and 'Chicken Little').

33> Why don't you try addressing one of my actual examples? No one has yet so they are wide open for discussion. Some of us have put a lot of effort into tag combining and I'd still love to see another website where tagging works better because tags remain uncombined.

And 31> I agree with this post completely. Funny how boekerij's conclusion isn't that all potentially ambiguous tags kill tagging. It would be more logical, methinks.

#36...

I'd like an example also. Perhaps there's something I'm missing in the complaint, but so far it just seems the problem is some people think some of the combinations are iffy. I've yet to understand any actual negative effect.

So could someone who is against tag combining give an example of a negative effect combining is creating?

Despite the fact that I've seen (and separated) many obvious combining errors, and many others that are errors only to those who see subtlety and nuance everywhere, I've yet to see an error that affected my data. My tags remain the same.

The only negative effect that I see is that it's one more thing to separate, which is not terribly burdensome.

The way I see it (and I may be wrong), is that tag combining is primarily meant to "correct" different and erroneous spellings. I've noticed that LT treats a word with no capitals as a different tag than one that starts with a capital. Tag combining is a good way to help users connect with related books even if they haven't used the same spelling, capitalisation, or punctuation as someone else.

For example, one of the books in my own library has been tagged elijah bailey (2), Elijah Baley (7), lije bailey (1), and lije baley (4). All refer to the same protagonist. There is no issue with different languages, different meanings, or any of the other pitfalls mentioned in the posts above. Yet, wouldn't it be silly if someone who has tagged his or her book "lije bailey" is unable to find any other books with the same protagonist, simply because they use a different spelling than used in the other tags?

I have combined 'boekerij' with 'Booker T and the MGs' (and 'Chicken Little').


That explains why I see 99% next to your name.