2 thoughts on Strengths and Weaknesses of Metadata Schemes

Comments are closed.

  1. Amy –I keep playing with the idea that “Folksonomies enhance exploration. Taxonomies enhance searching.” Folksonomies, to me, provide the flexibility and adaptation of the many ways people approach retrieving information — “people who browse/explore (unstructured)â€? vs. “people who find/focus (structured).â€?

    I love the way, Adam Mathes puts it in his “Folksonomies – Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata� article (http://www.adammathes.com/academic/computer-mediated-communication/folksonomies.html). “Desire lines are the foot-worn paths that sometimes appear in a landscape over time. …Let wanderers create paths through use, and then pave the emerging walkways, ensuring optimal utitlity.�

    To me, that is how both folksonomies and taxonomies evolve and influence enhanced exploration as well as searching. Creating grassroot paths, vocabularies, and common information maps – ultimately organically evolve from folksonomy to influence more structured taxonomy classifications. Circle of the metadata lifecycle, I would say!

    Good stuff. Thanks!

  2. I venture to guess that the best approach would be to google the tag wording and see what phrase gets the most, or best, results.

    Just my gut reaction. David brings up a good point, I love his contrarian viewpoint, similar to mine in some respects. I question everything, even things it seems almost nobody else questions, like RSS, IntelliTXT, sleazy sponsored links (see New Media Musings blog), excessive inclusion of sensitive personal details in blogs, etc.