> >>> [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.