Ciao Mat I think you slightly over-trash Mark S. The point HE WAS MAKING is in context of what we GOT. Not an immaginarium of possible thingies that are non-existent.
YES. It would need an author of a tool to add a string of keywords. Or a curator. In a post. If they realise its (utility to) Informatic-Darwinian to do so. The key POINT I read in Mark S.' post was *the value of descriptive text that gives "in-line proximate tagging"*. I think it looks hopeful WITHIN HERE, GG, the otherwise one-legged discussion group. FWIW, some little time ago ability to POST-TAG freelance at will was stopped for this GG. I understand why. I noticed it was messed up. But it all went silent. That is useless. Taggery is actively evolving always. It is OBVIOUS that once a thread is no longer active here there are serious issues finding it. Indisputable. Crap search mechanism. Taggery that can't really handle the polymorphous TW. For instance, Mat, it is currently impossible to find YOUR excellent plugins via GG easily on one search. That is nuts. WHY can't I find ALL YOUR GOOD STUFF in one go? Dimmi. Really. My point to you, Mat, is, actually, within CONTEXT of GG, Mark's approach (maybe taken a slightly different way, not sure) is GOOD to think with. In terms of the OP richer descriptive text WITHIN posts might provide sufficient to hit targets. His approach does approach the OP, which I am grateful for. Thoughts TT On Friday, 15 May 2020 21:44:58 UTC+2, Mat wrote: > > Mark S. wrote: >> >> Idea. We need curation, but the curation needs to be easy. >> > > I agree - but I don't agree that your proposal fulfills the "easy", at > least not easy enough, for it to be workable in the longer run. (I'd > happily be proven wrong, though!) > > IMO people are willing to provide extremely simple meta data via a click > (e.g a thumbs up or selecting predefined tags) or possibly to type a word > or two, but that's already pushing it. And, perhaps even more critically, > it has to be done "here", not "over there". I don't even think a solution > where you're supposed to merely *scroll *elsewhere would work. That is, > if we expect "an average forum user" to contribute. Think youtube likes or > almost all social systems. Relying on a few individuals is not only > unsustainable but it also makes the curation less meaningful because it > becomes more biased. > But again, I'm happily proven wrong. > > BTW, I bet you've all forgotten WHitWoT by Daniel Baird: > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/tiddlywiki/WHitWoT%7Csort:date > > <:-) > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/dc17dc24-c699-4908-a874-93052b6e0395%40googlegroups.com.
