Combining our tags

I have proposed combining 14 in 14 and 2014CC if anyone wants to vote on this.

There was a discussion at the beginning of the group. You can find it here. I don't think any concensus was reached except that everyone had their own preference.

>2 mamzel: @hailelib is talking about tag combination. So that those different things people used will all lead to the same place.

http://www.librarything.com/tag/14+in+14#combine <--Go there and click yes, folks. Those in the combiners group will probably vote no, because that's how they are, so it's up to members here to get them combined.

>3 .Monkey.: I'm for it, and I've just voted, thanks PM :)

Voted yes.

Ditto...

By the time I saw this thread and voted, the "fors" were running far behind, so I talked to the combiners about it here. We've started to catch up, but are still losing, so I'm hoping others here will see this and vote.

7>Do you think you could also post it on their "correct" thread so more of them will see it? And thanks for doing it. Even though I don't use tags for the group, I feel that "we" should be able to combine them if we want.

Sure. Now why didn't I think of that?! Done.

Also posted on another thread in this group, hoping to garner more votes.

As a relatively new person to LT and the category challenge, I don't know what this proposal is about. Could someone explain what "14 in 14" and "2014CC" are and what the pros and cons of combining these are?

They are just tags people put on their books that they've read for the challenge (this is the 2014 Category Challenge group). The only "con" is that the people in the combiners group tend to only combine exact wordings, because if they can conceive of any instance where one single person could possibly use it in a different way (even though no one is and the odds of it are practically nonexistent), then they will refuse to combine. The pro is that clicking on the tag means one will see all the books people tagged with the two main formats of the tag. Without being combined, one would have to check each individually.

I thought this was pretty funny:

"2014CC is a common abbreviation for the 2014 Volkswagen CC Sedan. I doubt many people would tag their books with it, though, but it's not inconceivable."

Their reasoning seems to be that by combining tags, people who are actually looking for a certain quality of a book will get erroneous items. The thing is tags can be personal to you anyway. Perhaps I tag my books with the location I was in when I purchased them. So, look at books tagged London, and you'd get say The Stand, which has nothing whatsoever to to with London to anyone but me. Even without a combined tag, really specific, oddball associations are going to pop up regardless. It seems silly that they are so picky over something that none of them really seem to have any cause to use anyway.

Yeah, they get that people can use single words in different ways and there's not a layer where we can filter each definition, but for combining different words into it, even when they mean the same, they revolt. They wouldn't combine my "location:COUNTRYX" tags for the reason you mention, because people can mean it as where the book is located physically or where things happen within the book etc. Nevermind that the COUNTRYX tag has those very same things going on. There's just no winning with them.

Do most people tag their books for the challenge this way? It honestly never occurred to me...

I don't tag myself but I voted for. I use tags all the time when looking for books and it would be so helpful if more tags were combined when it's obvious they relate to the same thing.

>14 leslie.98: There are currently 7 members using "14 in 14" and 15 using 2014CC. That's only about 10% of the group, but, it's 10% of the group, so it's still something. There are people who tag every year.

Like Paws, I'm not one of them; I use read:YEAR for all my reading, and all my reading fits in the challenge, so if I want to know what I read for it, I can just click that. Maybe it's being a little anti-groupish, but it's just how I prefer to do things. I, obviously, voted yes long ago, though, since it's clear they should be combined. But with 27 "no" votes, unless the "helpers" decide to change their votes, or a lot more people in the group actually go vote, it's not going to happen. It seems like those who haven't used the tag haven't bothered to vote. :|

Maybe it out to be posted in some of the threads everyone looks at, like the main CAT threads or the monthly threads, that if everyone could just take a moment to click the link and click yes, those who use the tag would really appreciate it?

>16 .Monkey.: I agree. Since the threshold for combination is 4x as many yes votes as no votes, it's unlikely that the combination will go through unless a lot of those who voted no could be persuaded to change their votes.

I think we have a good case for combination based on the guiding principles on the tag combining wiki page:

Tag combination is driven by a single basic rule: Tags should be combined only when they are the same in both meaning and usage on LibraryThing... When in doubt, attention should be paid to the effect that tag combination will have—how books and users will be linked together—rather than to abstract question of semantics.

I think we can demonstrate that "14 in 14" and "2014CC" are the same in both meaning and usage on LibraryThing, and the effect will link books and users from the 2014 Challenge Group.

The trick will be convincing the naysayers!

Monkey: By "the main CAT threads", do you mean the Geo, Mystery and Random CAT threads? Because I went back through all the threads here and couldn't find a main/general thread for the CC group as a whole. I don't do my own categories, so don't really follow the threads of those who do. And I didn't know if those who do their own categories do the Geo/Mystery/Random CATS in addition to their own. Point me in the right direction and I'll be happy to keep reposting the plea. Right now we're ahead, but it'd be nice to make it decisive.

eta: Change that to NECESSARY to make it decisive! Thanks for that info, Carrie!

Yeah, that's what I meant, the monthly and/or general/planning ones for them. I think a large number of the group poke their heads in them, even if they don't wind up doing the particular one for the month.

I hope I don't tick anyone off with so much repetition, but I did go ahead and post on the March threads for GeoCAT, MysteryCAT, and RandomCAT. Also, the general threads for GeoCAT, MysteryCAT, and RandomCAT. Let's hope it yields more votes than ire!

Thanks for all the info! I ended up here as a result of one of those posts in a general thread, so that definitely was effective for me :)

Now that I understand the issue, I have voted yes on the poll.

The only "con" is that the people in the combiners group tend to only combine exact wordings, because if they can conceive of any instance where one single person could possibly use it in a different way (even though no one is and the odds of it are practically nonexistent), then they will refuse to combine.

And this is why it is so important to ensure that your vote is recorded... otherwise the 'nay sayers' - for whatever unfathomable reason they concoct - will group en-mass and vote to ensure that the combine does not occur. It really is an interesting live example of extreme politics in action. If I was back in school right now, I would consider writing a thesis on it!

So how can we tell what became of this? The last time I checked, pros for combining were running far ahead. Today, it shows NO proposed combinations, but the aliases at top of the two tag pages do not show the other tag, so combination apparently hasn't happened either. Was the proposal pulled?

If these things don't get enough votes to either fail or pass after a definite period of time then it is removed. I suppose someone could try again with an explanation of why it should pass.

It would be a good idea to try again. An explanation posted in the "Tags to click yes on" thread in the Combiners group as soon as the proposal is made would probably boost the chance of success this time around.