1. Good post. There is a rather active discussion of tags at the WebJay features forum: http://webjay.org/geeklog-1.3.8-1sr2/public_html/forum/viewtopic.php?forum=2&showtopic=823

Also, Lucas has mentioned this general folksonomy service on his blog: http://blog.forret.com/blog/2005/02/folksonomizer-generic-folksonomy.html

fyi and thanks!

Posted at 8:05PM on Dec 18th 2005 by Markus Sandy

2. Most excellent! Thanks for those links! My kingdom for a folksonomizer! :)

Posted at 8:05PM on Dec 18th 2005 by barb dybwad

3. I'm confused as to why playlists of "unauthorized" content are not accepted in this service.

With commercial content, this could be a valuable resource, as was Audiogalaxy when it was still active (RIP.) Audiogalaxy was outstanding as it compiled a database of everyone's playlists (and illegal because it integrated p2p, but that's another issue.)

It was a database of stunning breadth as a result, and the cross-references among collections made it very easy to discover new bands and genres of music. Simply removing the Satellite p2p connection would've kept it a very compelling resource on the quality of the database and community interaction alone.

Simply exchanging metadata doesn't strike me as particularly illlegal. It's my playlist - does the RIAA also claim ownership of the metadata of my collection? I'm unclear on the legal issue at play if not.

Alas, without commercial content, this appears to be little more than the old MP3.com with a social software edge. Potentially useful all the same, but considerably more so when supported by a database of millions of hard-to-find commercial tracks.

Posted at 8:05PM on Dec 18th 2005 by Michael Jones

4. Thanks for the shout-out. It's very cool to see it here.

The issue with WJ and tags is that playlists are a parallel form of defining collections, so reconciling these two forms requires you to understand the subtle differences. Playlists in the Webjay style reflect their authors' creative intent. Tags in the del.icio.us style are facts.

Tags are primarily facts about genre, an idea which I have trouble with. We are used to thinking about music in terms of genre because of the limitations of rack space in record stores and of marketing campaigns. Now that rack space is no longer an issue, and now that social filtering is taking the place of marketing, is that still an asset?

Posted at 8:05PM on Dec 18th 2005 by Lucas

5. About Michael's comments with regard to the lack of unauthorized content, the point is to turn music libre into a source of music that is better than the current recording industry.

Without expensive marketing, music libre has lacked a filtering mechanism. Social filtering fills that need. The social software aspect of Webjay is not at all a gloss or trendy add-on, it is fundamental to the purpose.

But note that WJ is not social software about social software, like Friendster or Orkut. It is social software in support of music libre.

To meaure how well this approach works, compare the quality of music on Webjay to stuff on the old MP3.com. Taste test it yourself.

Posted at 8:05PM on Dec 18th 2005 by Lucas

6. @ Michael - I have to agree with Lucas, here. If you only consider commercial music to be worth listening to, you're likely really missing out on some great stuff out there. There are many talented folks who neither have the desire nor the money to run the music biz gauntlet and secure big budget production.

@ Lucas - regarding playlists and tags being parallel descriptors: I see your point. On the other hand, (and keeping in mind I don't consider myself the 'average user' :)) I tend to consider one of the cool things about tags is that they are some curious blend of "fact" and "creative intent." I worry about "accuracy" of a tag only insofar as it's relevant to retrieving it later on, and sometimes use creative naming schemes accordingly.

There's a sense in which I could see taggable playlists as opening up that "genre box" you describe - nobody will be forced into using traditionally accepted genres; they'll be free to make up their own. And/or, each playlist could get a whole series of tags to create a "genre cocktail" that would serve to help members relate to a playlist from different perspectives. e.g., a playlist that contains funk and metal can be tagged with both, and the folks who are looking for funk will find it as easily as the ones looking for metal, and both will be enriched by the 'other stuff' on the playlist. Otherwise, nobody is able to find the playlist other than by browsing.

Ultimately I tend to see the folksonomy component functioning to add value to an already established collection of data - it's just a way to create more interlinkages between items, making them easier to find. But I'll have to come to the features forum and make my case there, I think! :)

Posted at 8:05PM on Dec 18th 2005 by barb dybwad

7. Upto11.net allows you to create playlists from over 9M songs and has a folksonomy. Check it out at http://www.upto11.net

Posted at 8:05PM on Dec 18th 2005 by Peter Adams