 |
 |
> >>> [log in to unmask] 09.03.2006 00:05 >>> > On 3/8/06, Ian Nebe Barnett <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > > > Ed's point about the tags being tied to the submitting user so that > > obvious troublemakers can be blocked is a good one - one that should have > > occurred to me, but that's why we're having the discussion. That doesn't > > address more subtle problems - theoretically, having a large enough > > userbase to drown out the ignorant or malicious entries with good ones > > will take care of it, but not everyone has enough users (that will > > actually enter tags) to make that work. > > Actually, this is the best point of all -- (in general) our communities are > /quite/ small and our collections /quite/ large. Trying to figure out how > to make the tagging and other user-added input statistically significant is > something we've been struggling with here for the greater part of a year. > The logical choice is to open the collection up to other communities, but > then we struggle with the accountability issue. I think the problem of large collections and small communities is an important one, and well described. One solution could perhaps be to build tagging etc. into a service outside of the catalog itself, > And then there's the issue (in the case of our collection, at least) of not > being terribly sure if the collection is anything that anybody would really > /want/ to add content to. > > I think it's much more likely that our users would prefer to tag the content > we license, rather than that which we own. > > -Ross.