A list of all the tags, with links.
It seems there is a debate about tags vs folders. They are not mutually exclusive. Here is a principle I adhered to for years:
Folders for browsing, tags for search.
So what really is the difference between the two?
Physical libraries have shelves and things are grouped (like folders). Tags are really not possible. So it might be good to brows the theatre section if you are into theatre.
Digitally the same applies you can’t browse one big pile, so put stuff into folders, but not too many (at least at the top level). Folders are there to facilitate browsing. The Dewey decimal classification has 10 top levels, and that is about right. They are rather beautiful:
000 – Computer science, information & general works
100 – Philosophy & psychology
200 – Religion
300 – Social sciences
400 – Language
500 – Pure Science
600 – Technology
700 – Arts & recreation
800 – Literature
900 – History & geography
But what about ‘Karl Marx’? Browse in Social sciences. But there would be stuff about him or by him in probably everyone of those groups! Hard for librarians who are forced to chose one shelf for something like: Sociometry, Experimental Method and the Science of Society, An Approach to a New Political Orientation by J.L. Moreno, which also has a chapter on Marx. Digitally it could be in many at once i.e. in three folders: Moreno, social science and politics. That is worth doing. Some one browsing might like finding it there. But consider the power of tags.
Tagging that book with: Moreno, politics, social science would be useful, but imagine adding sociometry, Marx, psychodrama group work, philosophy, religion.
It would come up in a fairly short list with any two of those tags. Also be easy to see what other books come up with a search on any two of those tags.
But what the hell! Functionality for tags is lousy in most apps. They take time to add. Maybe search has outsmarted tags. Google does it all.
In Google Drive a file can be in many folders, that’s an an aid to browsing. No tags, and search works well.
I used to write more in this blog than I do now. I always said I was just writing for myself, that it was a sort of note taking.
I have become an avid user of Evernote – and it is all private. Notes to myself. This has taken the driving force out of my motivation, which, I’m sorry to say, dear reader, was not to inform or please you but more about me.
Of course blogging has lost its pride of place as a form of communication with the advent of social media. I don’t do much of that, but some, and that will have had an impact as well.
The other thing that never worked well in this blog is that I am a multiple personality. I have six.
Which one is writing this blog? The psychophile, the technophile… those two do ok here, after all the blog is on the cusp of these two interests, but I also do art, and I am a bushwalker and then there is a passion for specifically psychodrama and imago. And movies and books! And I used to be a communist so there is that whole interest in politics. I use the tag World for that.
No unified focus. Does that matter?
My Evernote account is more than capable of containing wild diversity. Tags.
There are tags here too. And “notebooks” This one has the notebook Journal. And a bunch of tags, but who would ever use them? I do, Psyberspace is a resource with all my ramblings for a couple of decades.
I’m interested in tagging.
I love the way that books can be on two shelves at once in cyberspace.
Pursuing this idea to see if I can tag better on the Mac has led me to
Default Folder x
Ironic software who make Deep & Leap — though I can’t tell which one I should use.
Noticing that Path Finder, that I already use has an option for OpenMeta tags (that all the above use as well)
More strangely to this site, which may or may not be related:
Later — Sunday, 28 January, 2018 : https://psyberspace.walterlogeman.com/2012/rational-thinking-and-its-conceptual-content/
But has some interesting stuff about Gurdjief and states of consciousness
And that led to a lovely entry on Gurdjief in SkepDic
I doubt there is a connection with Gurdjief in any way, but tagging does do something to your consciousness…
This is about straight tagging:
Just as well I can tag this post!
From the Gilbane Report Blog
Our opening keynote panel at our Amsterdam conference on 25 May, The Future of Content Management will be looking at strategic technology issues businesses, governments and NGOs need to be thinking about. Our panel is made up of technology executives who are responsible for a huge number of installed tools, and for strategic technology development at their respective firms. There will certainly be strong differences of opinion, but where this panel agrees on something, it will be worth knowing.
In Psyberspace here I have been doing quite abit on tags and such. Content management – it is an interesting idea. Is psychotherapy a sort of very sophisticated process that in some ways could be called “Content management”. Of course to call it that would be to belittle it, but it is interesting to see it as in the same family.
Think of mirroring and empathy… it is a way of giving back in a condensed form what is really a huge amount of information. Think of dream work. The structure of the content is related to a theme or meaning that is not to be found by searching the words that describe the dream.
And perhaps there is a lot that CMS vendors could learn about relationships from psychotherapists – content does not flow without a trusting and secure container and the relationship is the container.
And what is content? Not always just what is spoken, or expressed. Content has an unconscious.