1DebiCates
Now that blue suggested tags (tags from others) are available as we enter our tags, I am thinking about my own tags.
I have this system. I use 3 character prefixes so I can jump right to the grouping of tags in a system that makes sense to me. But it makes all my tags outliers in the LT concept of things and surely are almost meaningless in the "cloud" of tags.
Those "blue" tags are helpful to me when they are "clouded," especially when I m looking at a new possible title to add to my wishlist/TBR. It can tell a person a lot.
I suppose I could do both: my system and the more broadly traditional tags. But honestly, that's more work than I'm willing to do. So I feel like I should at least re-consider my system.
Any thoughts on the overwhelming value of going with the "intended" use for major tags?
Or any thoughts on how I'm not really being utterly selfish (as I feel I'm being)?
I have this system. I use 3 character prefixes so I can jump right to the grouping of tags in a system that makes sense to me. But it makes all my tags outliers in the LT concept of things and surely are almost meaningless in the "cloud" of tags.
Those "blue" tags are helpful to me when they are "clouded," especially when I m looking at a new possible title to add to my wishlist/TBR. It can tell a person a lot.
I suppose I could do both: my system and the more broadly traditional tags. But honestly, that's more work than I'm willing to do. So I feel like I should at least re-consider my system.
Any thoughts on the overwhelming value of going with the "intended" use for major tags?
Or any thoughts on how I'm not really being utterly selfish (as I feel I'm being)?
2lilithcat
>1 DebiCates:
Honestly? I think you should do whatever works best for you. If using the prefixes helps you, then keep them.
Honestly? I think you should do whatever works best for you. If using the prefixes helps you, then keep them.
3keristars
If your tags are fairly evident in meaning with the prefix, they may be combined into the version without the prefix, too.
I use "pov:" as a prefix, and my pov tags are all combined into the standard version - "first-person pov" for example.
There's a whole system for tag combining and separating that uses consensus votes, so "roman" doesn't get combined with "novel" - or "present" with "gift".
Use whatever tags make sense to you and help you do the things you want to do with you books.
I use "pov:" as a prefix, and my pov tags are all combined into the standard version - "first-person pov" for example.
There's a whole system for tag combining and separating that uses consensus votes, so "roman" doesn't get combined with "novel" - or "present" with "gift".
Use whatever tags make sense to you and help you do the things you want to do with you books.
4SandraArdnas
In the grand scheme of things for a tag cloud, a single user makes little difference except for works with few entries. And in that case, yours will be visible by virtue of there being few altogether, so I wouldn't spend much time worrying about that aspect.
Theoretically, you could propose combining your prefixed tag with the common one, say 'OOOfiction' with 'fiction', and they'd both lead to the same tag page and count together in the tag cloud, so the best of both worlds. But in my experience, that's not going to pass the vote. There will be enough people who'll argue that for some reason these should stay separate, even if you're the only one using it and you explicit say '000fiction is my way of tagging fiction'. But you can try a few and see how it goes.
Theoretically, you could propose combining your prefixed tag with the common one, say 'OOOfiction' with 'fiction', and they'd both lead to the same tag page and count together in the tag cloud, so the best of both worlds. But in my experience, that's not going to pass the vote. There will be enough people who'll argue that for some reason these should stay separate, even if you're the only one using it and you explicit say '000fiction is my way of tagging fiction'. But you can try a few and see how it goes.
5keristars
>4 SandraArdnas: Oh good point about the prefix.
It does have to be self-evident and no chance of meaning something else to another person!
So my re-ordering of the phrase to group things together or labeling the meaning (series: name, pov: 1st person, place: hawaii, origin: sri lanka, etc) are more likely to be combined than if I used a 3 character code.
It does have to be self-evident and no chance of meaning something else to another person!
So my re-ordering of the phrase to group things together or labeling the meaning (series: name, pov: 1st person, place: hawaii, origin: sri lanka, etc) are more likely to be combined than if I used a 3 character code.
6reconditereader
Your tags are for you; use them on your own books in whatever way is useful or delightful for you. That's one of the best parts of this site, seeing people's unique, weird, idiosyncratic tags.
7DebiCates
>2 lilithcat: >3 keristars: >4 SandraArdnas: thank you all!
I said they had only meaning to me, but it's the prefixes that are that way, after the prefix others can easily figure out what it indicates--so, even if I'm among the very few who have a book in my library, my tag might be weird, but not indecipherable.
Good. I'm keeping with my system. I really prefer it. I like how it also helps keep my tags "together" too when I view my tags on the tags page. And Lordy that helps.
A downside? When I do searches on tags, I got that extra bit to enter and fiddle with. Small price, though.
I said they had only meaning to me, but it's the prefixes that are that way, after the prefix others can easily figure out what it indicates--so, even if I'm among the very few who have a book in my library, my tag might be weird, but not indecipherable.
Good. I'm keeping with my system. I really prefer it. I like how it also helps keep my tags "together" too when I view my tags on the tags page. And Lordy that helps.
A downside? When I do searches on tags, I got that extra bit to enter and fiddle with. Small price, though.
8DebiCates
>6 reconditereader: Thank you for the "do it your way" confirmation. I too enjoy appreciate that LT is built that way.
9DebiCates
I'm curious. Do y'all do "weird" tagging? I could look, I suppose but it's more fun to ask.
10keristars
>9 DebiCates: what do you mean by "weird"?
11DebiCates
>10 keristars: LOL. Well....anything you want it to mean. if you think others would think it was weird...maybe. And yet, it works beautifully for you.
12keristars
>11 DebiCates: I have my plot-related ones!
- the treacherous sea
- i could have died!!
- a distinct lack of self-preservation instinct
- after school special
- his heart grew three sizes that day
- temporary murder
among others :)
It was exciting when i inaugurated "the treacherous sea" a few weeks ago - i need to go see what other books it could apply to now (i know i have several!).
I'd call these weird because they're idiosyncratic. I deliberately chose the wording to express my reaction to the events in the books, and also partly because I couldn't think of something more pithy that I would remember!
- the treacherous sea
- i could have died!!
- a distinct lack of self-preservation instinct
- after school special
- his heart grew three sizes that day
- temporary murder
among others :)
It was exciting when i inaugurated "the treacherous sea" a few weeks ago - i need to go see what other books it could apply to now (i know i have several!).
I'd call these weird because they're idiosyncratic. I deliberately chose the wording to express my reaction to the events in the books, and also partly because I couldn't think of something more pithy that I would remember!
13LeslieWx
>1 DebiCates: >9 DebiCates:
For the sake of the record: I'm firmly in the "go your own way" with tags on your books and collections for your books. They're tools, and tools should do the work you want them to, not the work your friends or the latest fad says they should do. (Unless health and safety are an issue, which is not the case here!)
@SandraArdnas makes the excellent point that any one person's tags are just noise in this very large ecosystem (libriosystem?), but she makes it in a non-geeky way 😄
It would be different if you were trying to combine your tags, used as you use them, with very very different looking tags other people used, but that's not what you're doing. (Go visit the "Why I voted no?" thread in Combiners! if you don't understand what I'm talking about.) And I know some people get very upset with "weird" tag usage because then they can't find out exactly how many people have some sort of thing they've used a tag for, or which one of their things they've tagged a certain way is more/less common than another -- but you're not actually affecting their ability to mark their own work, just the perfect-ness of some LT-wide calculation they want to do, and to me those things carry different weights in terms of responsibilities to the LT community.
As for "weird" tagging ... how about
• __storedInsideEliotComplete, referring to Mr. Eliot: An Essay by Gilbert Highet, a reprint of a journal article in a nice pamphlet form, which came and remains inside T. S. Eliot's Complete Poems and Plays. The leading "__" helps it visually pop in a listing.
• _signedByAuthor, _signedByPhotographers ; the single "_" pops and sorts differently than the "__".
• _x_2025 & _x_2026, tells me when I "excessed" (weeded out) these works.
• editBook_addContributors and similar jogs to my memory, for a rainy day or when I want some productive procrastination.
• ©1931, ©1935, ©1958 , to help me someday sort out the relationship between 3 different Congregational hymnals all named "Pilgrim Hymnal".
(In answering your question, I standardized the form of a few of my tags. Thanks!)
For the sake of the record: I'm firmly in the "go your own way" with tags on your books and collections for your books. They're tools, and tools should do the work you want them to, not the work your friends or the latest fad says they should do. (Unless health and safety are an issue, which is not the case here!)
@SandraArdnas makes the excellent point that any one person's tags are just noise in this very large ecosystem (libriosystem?), but she makes it in a non-geeky way 😄
It would be different if you were trying to combine your tags, used as you use them, with very very different looking tags other people used, but that's not what you're doing. (Go visit the "Why I voted no?" thread in Combiners! if you don't understand what I'm talking about.) And I know some people get very upset with "weird" tag usage because then they can't find out exactly how many people have some sort of thing they've used a tag for, or which one of their things they've tagged a certain way is more/less common than another -- but you're not actually affecting their ability to mark their own work, just the perfect-ness of some LT-wide calculation they want to do, and to me those things carry different weights in terms of responsibilities to the LT community.
As for "weird" tagging ... how about
• __storedInsideEliotComplete, referring to Mr. Eliot: An Essay by Gilbert Highet, a reprint of a journal article in a nice pamphlet form, which came and remains inside T. S. Eliot's Complete Poems and Plays. The leading "__" helps it visually pop in a listing.
• _signedByAuthor, _signedByPhotographers ; the single "_" pops and sorts differently than the "__".
• _x_2025 & _x_2026, tells me when I "excessed" (weeded out) these works.
• editBook_addContributors and similar jogs to my memory, for a rainy day or when I want some productive procrastination.
• ©1931, ©1935, ©1958 , to help me someday sort out the relationship between 3 different Congregational hymnals all named "Pilgrim Hymnal".
(In answering your question, I standardized the form of a few of my tags. Thanks!)
14reconditereader
I've got the tag "urchins with animals", in which some beleaguered child has to save the day, but they have the help of an intelligent animal companion.
15DebiCates
>12 keristars: Your tags gave me a chuckle. "Weird" if you look at tags through a certain restrictive, uptight lens, or "delightful" if you enjoy diversity and wit. I'll be visiting some of your tags!
>13 LeslieWx: Very methodical which I appreciate as my entire work life has been dependent on a logical way of looking at data.
My overriding criteria is easy typing and grouping. That's why I like the numeric prefixes. I would prefer to use less than 3, but 3 is the number of characters that autofill will give me the dropdown of the already-defined classifications I've set up under a certain concept. Eg. 000 is one I want all my books in my library to have tags of that nature: own/not own fiction/nonfiction. I type 000 and I know I will assign those fundamental things.
Like @LeslieWx I could tighten the ship some, including make it more intuitive (even to just me, ha).
This was really a good question to put out there, I got good feedback, especially before taking on any renovations...which I now feel inspired to do. Which, will bring me to my next question for the Welcome group.
>13 LeslieWx: Very methodical which I appreciate as my entire work life has been dependent on a logical way of looking at data.
My overriding criteria is easy typing and grouping. That's why I like the numeric prefixes. I would prefer to use less than 3, but 3 is the number of characters that autofill will give me the dropdown of the already-defined classifications I've set up under a certain concept. Eg. 000 is one I want all my books in my library to have tags of that nature: own/not own fiction/nonfiction. I type 000 and I know I will assign those fundamental things.
Like @LeslieWx I could tighten the ship some, including make it more intuitive (even to just me, ha).
This was really a good question to put out there, I got good feedback, especially before taking on any renovations...which I now feel inspired to do. Which, will bring me to my next question for the Welcome group.
16LeslieWx
>12 keristars: and >14 reconditereader: Love these, a totally different direction for tags to take!
17LeslieWx
>15 DebiCates: Very methodical which I appreciate as my entire work life has been dependent on a logical way of looking at data.
Been there, done that! Well, whether at work or at home, there's always a certain "pushing against the tide" aspect ...
Been there, done that! Well, whether at work or at home, there's always a certain "pushing against the tide" aspect ...
18DebiCates
>17 LeslieWx: "pushing against the tide"
Oh man, isn't that the truth. No sooner that I am at a happy place than some new tide comes in. Especially, if like me, your workplace has been on the same virtually dead software package for the last 15 years. Imagine! I can't tell you how many solutions I've provided by forever innovatively tweaking the data to mean more and more. It's exhausting. And complicated.
I retire July 4th. They still haven't found my replacement and don't seem to be in a hurry either. My suggestion to them was adamantly to go to newer viable robust software. Management is blithely taking their time even after I declined their offer to stay on part time with a bonus. Oh well.....soon it won't be my problem. I've worked 50 years. Come on, get with it, guys!
Rant over.
Oh man, isn't that the truth. No sooner that I am at a happy place than some new tide comes in. Especially, if like me, your workplace has been on the same virtually dead software package for the last 15 years. Imagine! I can't tell you how many solutions I've provided by forever innovatively tweaking the data to mean more and more. It's exhausting. And complicated.
I retire July 4th. They still haven't found my replacement and don't seem to be in a hurry either. My suggestion to them was adamantly to go to newer viable robust software. Management is blithely taking their time even after I declined their offer to stay on part time with a bonus. Oh well.....soon it won't be my problem. I've worked 50 years. Come on, get with it, guys!
Rant over.
19keristars
>16 LeslieWx: >15 DebiCates:
I've got plenty of more prosaic tags, too! But nearly 20 years into using LT, I find that when I'm looking up a book that I've read to mention it or find something, those prosaic ones don't always do the job of reminding me of the plot.
"which book involving train adventures and Venice was it....?"
My big sigh is that if I think "oh, that's something that's worth tagging, because I've seen it come up before", I have to go back and find where it came up, and it's kind of a pain on my phone.
Oh and a thought about tag clouds - prosaic things like "fiction" or "British literature" can be useful to see there, but they only show up if enough people add them. But I'm increasingly doing away with tags that duplicate other things in my catalogue columns. Fiction/non-fiction, for example, just isn't as important to me, and if I do need that distinction, I can filter by Genre. (on the other hand, that's a crowdsourced work item and frequently not set or wrong, so I'll continue tagging with genre beyond F/NF)
I've got plenty of more prosaic tags, too! But nearly 20 years into using LT, I find that when I'm looking up a book that I've read to mention it or find something, those prosaic ones don't always do the job of reminding me of the plot.
"which book involving train adventures and Venice was it....?"
My big sigh is that if I think "oh, that's something that's worth tagging, because I've seen it come up before", I have to go back and find where it came up, and it's kind of a pain on my phone.
Oh and a thought about tag clouds - prosaic things like "fiction" or "British literature" can be useful to see there, but they only show up if enough people add them. But I'm increasingly doing away with tags that duplicate other things in my catalogue columns. Fiction/non-fiction, for example, just isn't as important to me, and if I do need that distinction, I can filter by Genre. (on the other hand, that's a crowdsourced work item and frequently not set or wrong, so I'll continue tagging with genre beyond F/NF)
20jjwilson61
There's an old thread where people put their idiosyncratic tags. I'll search for it when I get home
21DebiCates
>20 jjwilson61: That would be cool. Thanks Jeff.
23jjwilson61
>22 amanda4242: That's probably it. Now that I think about it, I'm not sure how I'd approach searching for that thread.
24DebiCates
>22 amanda4242: >23 jjwilson61: Oh my, that's fun! I read the first 10. I may read 10 a day for a daily laugh.
