Magnus Enger wrote: >>>>>[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, > > > I agree with this last comment completely. Most people don't do the bulk of their research in the library catalog; it's one source, but far from the only one. I've been interviewing humanities undergraduates this week for a related project and they've uniformly commented on how hard it is to manage the disconnect between what they find in the library catalog and what they find using other online resources.