Joshua Schachter wrote:
i dunno. i think it makes everything very complicated. how would the
relevance affect anything other than notation?
maybe there needs to be a to distinguish this is a url i wanted to
save vs this is a GREAT url i wanted to save
How 'bout a GM script that
Daniel Sandbecker wrote:
It would make some sense for del.icio.us to have a recommended best
practice on this. See
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january06/guy/01guy.html (D-Lib Magazine).
That's not a bad idea - the uniformity would definitely make the
aggregated use of tags easier - but it
Larson, Timothy E. wrote:
W.B. McNamara wrote:
It does if you click on the + sign itself rather than the term. I do
this all the time myself.
That's a good usability point. Half the time I do this, too,
basically seeing the + foo as a single unit rather than a + and a
foo, no matter how
The whole thing is building on sand... we talk about being exact in
correlating tags which themselves are inexactly applied to their
subjects. Even the entities that use exactly the same tag can be quite
divergent (and therein lies the richness).
c
___
4 matches
Mail list logo
