I am so all about Rashmi Sinha's
cognitive analysis of tagging — this
really captures something I've implicitly felt about the act of tagging, which is that it effectively lowers the cognitive cost of organizing information. Admittedly,
for some folks there is a learning curve associated with grokking tagging, which itself can be a prohibitive cognitive
cost considering most of our lifelong training in classification and hierarchical taxonomies, as well as hierarchical
folder structures on the desktop. This is precisely why I've always felt that tagging is a sort of cognitive liberation
from the need to decide which single category in which to place a bit of data. It just doesn't work anymore —
ideas, concepts, and objects in the digital world are too intertwingled (which I see as a good thing in and of itself)
to place into single categories. Plus, the more tags I add, the more pathways I've created both for myself and others
to later stumble upon this bit of information — each classification also doubles as a navigation, a pathway to possible
discovery.
I take a specific mental pleasure in tagging items as I add them to del.icio.us, Flickr,
My Web 2.0, etc. — and Rashmi defines the underpinnings of that
mental pleasure quite well. The process is no longer one of narrowing but of expanding — it's more like brainstorming
than like analysis. And brainstorming is just plain more fun. The fun is compounded by another aspect she mentions —
the fact that "each tag tells you a little about what you are interested in." This is some bit of satisfying
clarification just for myself — but there is also a sense of pleasure in knowing the potential serendipity that
imagined others out there with similar interests may stumble upon, enjoy, and benefit from an item that I've tagged.
I'm classifying something for myself, and I get the benefit of knowing I've not only made it easier for myself to find
again later, but the benefit of knowing I may have helped someone of like mind discover something of interest to them.
This is where self-interest meets altruism meets contribution to a larger social picture — I feel I'm contributing,
even if in a small way, to a serendipitous, widely distributed collective project of presenting and sharing information
in ways that makes sense. There is thus an aesthetic and a social activist flavor added to the pleasure I'm already
gaining by tagging an item to make it easier for myself to find later.
Tagging is powerful stuff!
Rashmi Sinha on a cognitive analysis of tagging
Reader Comments
(Page 1)2. It's more "complex" because there's more *of it.* There's more stuff. What is it, 1 million blog posts per day? And growing? The tools of production are cheap bordering on free, and they're in the hands of far more people now than they were 10 years ago, 5 years ago, hell -- 6 months ago. This means more people are producing more stuff. In turn, there's more *stuff* to be managed, eyeballed, organized, remixed, etc.
Yet time remains as limited as it ever was, so those of us who work with information for a living (which is a growing number of us) face the complex problem of identifying what's important out of an ever-growing mass of data and metadata.
Not sure if you actually read Rashmi's article, but in it she directly addresses why there is in fact more ambiguity about classifying objects in the digital domain as opposed to the physical domain.
Posted at 8:05PM on Dec 18th 2005 by barb dybwad









1. "It just doesn’t work anymore — ideas, concepts, and objects in the digital world are too intertwingled..."
What I don't understand about comments like this is why in the world you think that the relationships of ideas, concepts, and objects are any MORE complex now than at some (never-specified) point in the past, or in some other (never-specified) context. Complexity is not new to our generation. Strategies for dealing with ambiguity are not new to technology. Heiarchical structures do not represent "the old way" in some monolithic sense; there are examples of "tagging" or free-form associative organizational techniques in many many other contexts in human intellectual history.
Posted at 8:05PM on Dec 18th 2005 by Andrew