I’m chatting with Emanuele about tags and structure, getting ready for my talk at the IA Summit this year. Here’s the chat transcript for prosperity. We talked about adding structure to tag spaces, and whether that’s a good thing, and if so, what kinds of structure, and such.

[1:45:20 PM] Emanuele says: Peter
[1:45:27 PM] Emanuele says: I cannot reach mefeedia
[1:45:44 PM] peterkevandijck says: hi emanuele
[1:45:47 PM] peterkevandijck says: yes, it’s down…
[1:45:50 PM] peterkevandijck says: being worked on…
[1:45:59 PM] peterkevandijck says: wanna talk about tags? :)
[1:46:13 PM] Emanuele says: heheeh i’m thinking hard about the future of tags..
[1:46:33 PM] Emanuele says: today Monthly Vision has published an interview with me
[1:46:36 PM] peterkevandijck says: :) I’m preparing my talk….
[1:46:41 PM] Emanuele says: inside an article about tags
[1:46:46 PM] peterkevandijck says: cool
[1:46:47 PM] peterkevandijck says: online?
[1:46:56 PM] peterkevandijck says: congratulations!
[1:47:08 PM] Emanuele says: no it’s a physical magazine
[1:47:13 PM] Emanuele says: and it’s in italian
[1:47:14 PM] Emanuele says: :(
[1:47:19 PM] peterkevandijck says: :) oh well
[1:47:31 PM] Emanuele says: i’m talking about the future of folksonomies
[1:47:39 PM] Emanuele says: with the guy who wrote the article
[1:47:41 PM] peterkevandijck says: so what *is* the future?
[1:47:53 PM] Emanuele says: you know
[1:47:57 PM] Emanuele says: you are the international expert
[1:47:59 PM] Emanuele says: :D
[1:48:02 PM] peterkevandijck says: yeah right ;)
[1:48:13 PM] Emanuele says: you say facets…
[1:48:16 PM] peterkevandijck says: i just have some suspicions.. :)
[1:48:33 PM] Emanuele says: but interesting ones, I suspect
[1:48:34 PM] Emanuele says: :)
[1:49:33 PM] Emanuele says: and hey, I will be there to listen to your talk
[1:49:34 PM] Emanuele says: ;)
[1:50:09 PM] peterkevandijck says: cool
[1:50:21 PM] peterkevandijck says: The competing talks are also very interesting!
[1:50:29 PM] peterkevandijck says: I think it’ll be one of the best summits so far…
[1:50:50 PM] Emanuele says: it will be great, I know
[1:51:13 PM] Emanuele says: your main idea is
[1:51:17 PM] Emanuele says: facet + tags
[1:51:21 PM] Emanuele says: right?
[1:51:38 PM] peterkevandijck says: yes… and other types of structure: what happens when we build structure and semantics into tags?
[1:51:49 PM] peterkevandijck says: using mefeedia as example case study
[1:52:20 PM] Emanuele says: i talked with you about that
[1:52:46 PM] Emanuele says: i love the idea of bottom up structure between tags
[1:52:58 PM] Emanuele says: created by users with a wiki approach
[1:53:00 PM] peterkevandijck says: one of the interesting things is: if you build semantics into tags (like: a tag is a person), then translation becomes sometimes easier (like: we don’t have to translate names of people)
[1:53:15 PM] Emanuele says: uhm semantics
[1:53:41 PM] Emanuele says: yes this is another dimension
[1:53:49 PM] peterkevandijck says: yeah, I’m not sure I’m using the word ‘semantics’ correctly, but it’s the best word I can think of… giving meaning to tags
[1:54:35 PM] peterkevandijck says: and once you add some semantics (like: a tag is an event), then additional structure becomes very easy (like: an event is in a place, a time, …)
[1:55:14 PM] Emanuele says: how to describe the semantic relationships
[1:55:20 PM] Emanuele says: a sort of ontology at the end
[1:55:20 PM] Emanuele says: ?
[1:55:50 PM] peterkevandijck says: but: it can also be confusing, for example: if I have tags that are people, and I have users that are people too, then my semantics start crashing into each other… you can browse users (people)… and you can browse tags (people)… how are they different?…
[1:56:01 PM] peterkevandijck says: yes, it turns into ontology…
[1:56:23 PM] peterkevandijck says: but I think the problem is limiting it: you have to only choose a very few types of relationships and such…
[1:56:26 PM] peterkevandijck says: and make the most of those
[1:56:37 PM] peterkevandijck says: if not, you just get a really big and messy ontology that’s rather useless
[1:56:47 PM] peterkevandijck says: it becomes like a big topicmap
[1:57:10 PM] Emanuele says: very complex…
[1:57:15 PM] Emanuele says: and me feel is simply
[1:57:22 PM] Emanuele says: let the people do the work
[1:57:42 PM] Emanuele says: you cannot impose a centralized structure or sematic
[1:58:01 PM] Emanuele says: it’s people with their mental models
[1:58:03 PM] peterkevandijck says: well.. but you do impose a UI, right?
[1:58:13 PM] Emanuele says: that create structure
[1:58:15 PM] peterkevandijck says: the UI makes the whole thing useful
[1:58:17 PM] Emanuele says: yes
[1:58:26 PM] Emanuele says: but maybe you can think to a GUI
[1:58:38 PM] Emanuele says: that doesn’t restrict users
[1:58:47 PM] Emanuele says: for example
[1:58:51 PM] Emanuele says: my structure
[1:58:57 PM] Emanuele says: could be different from your one
[1:58:58 PM] peterkevandijck says: so you can’t just tell people, add any kind of relationship, do whatever, because you won’t be able to build a useful UI on top of that.. and without useful UI, why would anyone tag?
[1:59:11 PM] peterkevandijck says: i don’t think that’s possible…
[1:59:18 PM] Emanuele says: maybe you are right
[1:59:22 PM] peterkevandijck says: i have never seen a good, generic UI for generic ontologies
[1:59:22 PM] Emanuele says: i don’t know yet
[1:59:34 PM] Emanuele says: but in a social environement
[1:59:42 PM] Emanuele says: you have the power of people
[1:59:54 PM] Emanuele says: that decides what is useful and popular
[2:00:07 PM] Emanuele says: this could make the difference
[2:00:18 PM] Emanuele says: if my tag organizing is useful
[2:00:19 PM] Emanuele says: it will emerge
[2:00:22 PM] peterkevandijck says: right… so people make up their own stuff.. like special tags and such.. like the tag1/tag2 hacks in delicious…
[2:00:28 PM] peterkevandijck says: but that’s very limited in UI usefulness
[2:00:53 PM] Emanuele says: delicious is not made to support structure in tags
[2:00:58 PM] peterkevandijck says: exactly
[2:01:00 PM] Emanuele says: not yet
[2:01:05 PM] peterkevandijck says: so some users hack it a little bit…
[2:01:13 PM] peterkevandijck says: but: the UI support for that is very little…
[2:01:16 PM] Emanuele says: yes but this is a stong signal
[2:01:20 PM] peterkevandijck says: so the motivation to do it is very small
[2:01:20 PM] Emanuele says: yes
[2:01:22 PM] Emanuele says: yes
[2:02:15 PM] Emanuele says: give them an empowering GUI
[2:02:28 PM] peterkevandijck says: so.. my idea is: build in a minimum of structure.. just a little bit… and create empowering UIs on top of that
[2:02:51 PM] peterkevandijck says: the UI will hopefully motivate people to use the structure…
[2:03:01 PM] Emanuele says: so you decide the structure flexibility
[2:03:02 PM] Emanuele says: ?
[2:03:08 PM] peterkevandijck says: yes…
[2:03:21 PM] Emanuele says: i mean the types of relationship
[2:03:37 PM] peterkevandijck says: yes… I could decide to let users enter their own types of relationships…
[2:03:45 PM] peterkevandijck says: I’m not doing anything with relationships right now
[2:04:02 PM] peterkevandijck says: or I could decide to set a few standard relationships and limit users to those
[2:04:25 PM] peterkevandijck says: which gives me more UI possibilities than letting users enter any relationship.. but limits the bottom-up creativity…
[2:04:35 PM] Emanuele says: yes
[2:04:44 PM] Emanuele says: don’t you believe that restricting
[2:04:55 PM] Emanuele says: is against the original folksonomies’ spirit?
[2:05:27 PM] peterkevandijck says: no.. it’s like creativity: restrictions can set you free. For example: ask someone to draw “something”. They’ll be stuck. But ask them to draw “the dream they had yesterday”. That’s a lot easier…
[2:06:09 PM] Emanuele says: so a powerful small set of things
[2:06:20 PM] peterkevandijck says: so I guess it’s a balance.. but I don’t believe in the idea of just “everything is a tag, and everything is a relationship”… because it is impossible to create good UI’s without the semantics, without knowing what it *means*
[2:06:26 PM] peterkevandijck says: if you know what I mean.. ;)
[2:06:37 PM] peterkevandijck says: yeah, I think so…
[2:06:58 PM] Emanuele says: and what about facets in this scenario?
[2:07:05 PM] Emanuele says: do they still fit?
[2:08:06 PM] peterkevandijck says: Well… facets are useful.. yes: they let you assign semantics (“nyc” is a “place”), PLUS they also let you then use all the powerful faceted browsing techniques that we know and love… as opposed to just letting people assign semantics (“person”, “…) without them being facets
[2:08:14 PM] peterkevandijck says: making any sense?
[2:08:33 PM] peterkevandijck says: the great thing about facets is that they allow for crazy efficient browsing
[2:08:34 PM] Emanuele says: yes of course
[2:08:58 PM] peterkevandijck says: if not, we might as well let people tag tags, randomly, without restrictions… but then we’d loose the great facetbrowsing…
[2:09:02 PM] Emanuele says: but you thought to a one level faceted approach
[2:09:24 PM] peterkevandijck says: yeah, for now.. I don’t see much gain in adding hierarchy for example.. not on mefeedia
[2:09:55 PM] Emanuele says: hierarchy gives context IMHO
[2:09:56 PM] peterkevandijck says: perhaps if I was organizing something else, like products, that would make sense… but if you’re gonna get users to do it, it’s gotta be simple
[2:10:16 PM] Emanuele says: my point here is that
[2:10:23 PM] Emanuele says: users only knows if Venice
[2:10:26 PM] Emanuele says: is in Italy
[2:10:29 PM] Emanuele says: or in US
[2:10:49 PM] Emanuele says: and they could help to create “foci”
[2:10:59 PM] Emanuele says: for your faceted organization
[2:11:13 PM] Emanuele says: a sort of polyhierarchy
[2:11:16 PM] peterkevandijck says: it just seems like too much work for the user (and me!) for too little payoff…
[2:11:33 PM] peterkevandijck says: why add so much structure? I don’t think it’s really needed…
[2:11:38 PM] Emanuele says: did you conduct any test?
[2:11:41 PM] peterkevandijck says: remember, we don’t need 100% recall
[2:11:45 PM] Emanuele says: no ok
[2:11:53 PM] Emanuele says: but a little more precision yes
[2:11:58 PM] peterkevandijck says: just some informal usability tests… and I haven’t rolled out everything yet…
[2:12:13 PM] Emanuele says: as an user
[2:12:20 PM] Emanuele says: serendipity is great
[2:12:40 PM] Emanuele says: but what if I want a more targeted “browsing”
[2:12:49 PM] Emanuele says: at the end facets have the same aim
[2:13:11 PM] Emanuele says: making easier to understand the tags’ mess
[2:13:20 PM] peterkevandijck says: yep
[2:13:31 PM] Emanuele says: i could have not only Us
[2:13:35 PM] Emanuele says: but also Utah
[2:13:43 PM] Emanuele says: in a big system
[2:13:52 PM] Emanuele says: and delicious, flickr or an IBM intranet
[2:13:54 PM] Emanuele says: are big systems
[2:14:06 PM] Emanuele says: this could improve the findability
[2:14:09 PM] peterkevandijck says: but wait, are you like, looking for pictures on flickr, or looking for a tech doc on IBM? It’s very different…
[2:14:24 PM] peterkevandijck says: in IBM, you need to find the right doc
[2:14:28 PM] Emanuele says: yes
[2:14:32 PM] peterkevandijck says: in Flickr, you just have to find something nice..
[2:14:36 PM] Emanuele says: but in flickr
[2:14:42 PM] Emanuele says: i want a Cork’s sky
[2:14:48 PM] Emanuele says: (Ireland)
[2:14:58 PM] Emanuele says: or a Cork’s Monument
[2:15:02 PM] Emanuele says: but i don’t know it’s name
[2:15:13 PM] Emanuele says: i could click on the Ireland
[2:15:21 PM] Emanuele says: or maybe Cork tag
[2:15:32 PM] Emanuele says: and have a chance to find it
[2:15:43 PM] peterkevandijck says: right.. and you might not find the best picture, even though it exists in flickr… but that’s the way it is…
[2:16:02 PM] Emanuele says: yes but here the point is not the known-item search
[2:16:10 PM] Emanuele says: i don’t want “the righ one”
[2:16:31 PM] Emanuele says: but i want one believing at the “right category”
[2:16:44 PM] peterkevandijck says: so you need to find the right tag…?
[2:17:00 PM] Emanuele says: no, one that approximates well enough
[2:17:09 PM] Emanuele says: and structure is needed
[2:17:23 PM] Emanuele says: also to surf the big amount of photos
[2:17:27 PM] peterkevandijck says: ok… so you want to find a good-enough tag… and facets clearly help with that.. and hierarchy would help even more…
[2:17:28 PM] peterkevandijck says: right?
[2:17:33 PM] Emanuele says: yes
[2:17:45 PM] Emanuele says: why not put them together?
[2:17:46 PM] peterkevandijck says: but letting users add hierarchy is really hard…
[2:17:57 PM] peterkevandijck says: I don’t think it’s possible
[2:18:07 PM] Emanuele says: adding geography tags is not impossibile
[2:18:18 PM] Emanuele says: you gave me the “Space Facet”
[2:18:21 PM] peterkevandijck says: what do you mean by “adding geography tags”?
[2:18:33 PM] Emanuele says: you decided to have a space facet
[2:18:37 PM] peterkevandijck says: yes
[2:18:45 PM] Emanuele says: i will add a Europe tag under it
[2:18:52 PM] peterkevandijck says: and I add antwerp :)
[2:18:53 PM] Emanuele says: then tomorrow
[2:19:04 PM] Emanuele says: i will add italy under Europe
[2:19:18 PM] Emanuele says: and one of my friend will add Rome to Italy
[2:19:29 PM] Emanuele says: a wikipedia of tags
[2:19:36 PM] peterkevandijck says: and another will add rome under new york state
[2:19:50 PM] peterkevandijck says: it might be possible..
[2:19:55 PM] Emanuele says: ok.. also wikipedia needs some disambiguation
[2:20:07 PM] Emanuele says: but this is quite rare
[2:20:13 PM] peterkevandijck says: true
[2:20:24 PM] Emanuele says: to avoid restricting users
[2:20:28 PM] peterkevandijck says: except in other facets… like topic
[2:20:33 PM] Emanuele says: the system has to be ambiguos
[2:20:39 PM] peterkevandijck says: right
[2:20:41 PM] Emanuele says: yes
[2:20:47 PM] Emanuele says: topics are messy
[2:20:56 PM] peterkevandijck says: so add hierarchy in certain facets…
[2:21:12 PM] Emanuele says: don’t know exaclty
[2:21:21 PM] Emanuele says: maybe it could work with every facet
[2:21:27 PM] Emanuele says: the system could converge
[2:21:39 PM] Emanuele says: wikipedia is improving its quality
[2:21:56 PM] Emanuele says: because people put it their very different point of views
[2:22:05 PM] Emanuele says: and it makes sense
[2:22:27 PM] Emanuele says: but you are the expert
[2:22:28 PM] Emanuele says: :D
[2:22:35 PM] Emanuele says: it’s only an idea
[2:22:58 PM] peterkevandijck says: who knows…
[2:23:00 PM] peterkevandijck says: :)
[2:23:06 PM] peterkevandijck says: we’ll have to try it and find out..
[2:23:36 PM] Emanuele says: you could give it a try
[2:23:49 PM] Emanuele says: and paying me a beer if it works
[2:23:55 PM] peterkevandijck says: mefeedia should be working now.. :)
[2:23:55 PM] Emanuele says: ;)
[2:23:57 PM] peterkevandijck says: :)
[2:24:44 PM] Emanuele says: Am I crazy?
[2:24:55 PM] peterkevandijck says: yeah, probably
[2:25:00 PM] peterkevandijck says: :) we all are
[2:25:05 PM] Emanuele says: a lot of experts say that structure does not fit tags..
[2:25:06 PM] Emanuele says: but..
[2:25:07 PM] Emanuele says: :)
[2:26:07 PM] peterkevandijck says: oh whatever “experts” :)
[2:26:22 PM] Emanuele says: :)
[2:26:28 PM] peterkevandijck says: A little structure.. how bad can it be? Optional structure…
[2:26:41 PM] Emanuele says: yes optional bottom up free structure
[2:26:43 PM] Emanuele says: :)
[2:31:30 PM] peterkevandijck says: ok, gonna log out :) nice brainstorming with you..
[2:31:37 PM] Emanuele says: :)
[2:31:41 PM] peterkevandijck says: mind if I publish this chat trasnciprt on my blog?
[2:31:49 PM] Emanuele says: no, i would love it