Week 6...#12...Tagging!

EXERCISE 1:

Okay, let's do this step-by-step.

1. Go to Google and type in a topic that interests you. See how many hits you retrieve.

About 10,800,000 for Vespa.

2. Do the same keyword search in eQuest and see how many hits you retrieve.

Two hits for Vespa.

3. Now search for the topic as a subject (or author if it is an author) in eQuest.

Ummm...nothing.

Google gave me lots and lots of Vespa specific hits (and I'm sure there are some not-so-relevant hits in the mix). An eQuest keyword search resulted in a grand total of two hits, while a subject search gave me nada. Of course, our library is an academic one. Maybe if I had chosen something else...anyway, now the rest of the exercise:

1. Can you see a parallel between the catalog and tagging in Web. 2.0?

Sure, there is a parallel of some sort there... although my own search was not necessarily the best example.

2. Do you think tagging is a reinvention of library cataloging? Or, do you think that tagging is a continuation of tradition of library catalogs, but an expansion of that tradition into new and exciting possibilities?

I am not really sure. I can definitely see how tagging is useful/helpful/necessary, but I am not entirely sure whether I would consider it to be a reinvention or expansion of traditional library cataloguing. I'm leaning towards an expansion...or maybe neither...

3. Or, do you see another angle to tagging?

I have no idea.

EXERCISE 2:

1. Review the tags in your blog, in Flickr and in Library Thing. Think about the terms you have used.

I have not made good use of tagging in any of these venues; in fact, I have not tagged ANY of my blog entries!

Having learned a little more about tagging, consider changing your tags to make them more searchable.

Yep. I should definitely do that.

You may even want to add more tags. For instance, in case you haven’t noticed, Flickr allows up to 75 tags per photo. Please don’t be like the cataloger writing these words who learned that in traditional cataloging 1 to 3 subject headings are enough.

Again, I should do that.

Go wild with your tags if you want to.

Woot!

Add a few words to your blog about the joys of tagging.

Geez. I don't know yet. Tagging is GREAT! Okay, it is obvious that I have never truly catalogued anything in my whole life, and, if you go to my LibraryThing shelf, you can see the wonders of my tagging. I'm still out on all of this; I can see how it's useful and necessary, but I don't know what else to write. I absolutely understand that it would be hard to find the stuff I want if it had no tags. Additionally, I'm sure we are all familiar with how the language of the patron often differs from that of controlled vocabularies; often, our patrons do not use the same terms that our controlled vocabulary dictates, so user-based tagging would definitely be neat and/or helpful in some instances. Then, on the other side, willy-nilly tagging across the board could lead to some wild times. So tagging vs. controlled vocabularies...do we like it?...do we hate it?...control/no control...bad/good...does it really have to be an either/or situation? I think the University of Pennsylvania has a very interesting idea with their PennTags. User added content in addition to all the things we *know* and *love* about libraryland...not too shabby!