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.
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.