On 8/2/09 04:07, Mr. Meitar Moscovitz wrote:
On Feb 8, 2009, at 7:20 AM, Evan Prodromou wrote:
If we tried to make groups and tags the same thing, we would ruin
people's expectations of hash tags in order to make a bad version of
groups. I would prefer not to do either.
I should perhaps start by clarifying that I actually *like* groups, a
lot, and I like them even more after hearing some of Evan's plans for
how they will evolve with distinct features over time. I started this
discussion as a *response* to other people's concerns over the
!group/#tag issue, not any immediate ones of my own.
This was also my initial reaction when I started using Flickr.
"Hey, there are groups and tags ... aren't the both kinda metadata about
my photos?"
And indeed they are. Life went on, and it was all fine. One thought that
I think makes sense for both Flickr and Laconica, is perhaps we could
have default tags associated with a group. These needn't show up in
every API, but could be used by apps, eg. search/browse by tag. Not
every group might have default tags, and sometimes a post might go to a
group that didn't really fit the default tag, "eg. !javascript Bar BOF
in 15 mins for all those at XTech" ... but hopefully we're robust enough
to survive a misplaced tag or two?
cheers,
Dan
_______________________________________________
Laconica-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.laconi.ca/mailman/listinfo/laconica-dev
