Author Topic: What kind of tagging system would be appropriate for DC? (Read 86848 times)

nosh · « **Reply #25 on:** January 07, 2008, 08:32 AM »

The drop down list may be lacking since we're mainly dealing with classification of software.
How about an ajax-ish drop down/popup software classification tree, which can be navigable in its own little window - something like inserting those fancy smileys - u navigate the tree and click on the category/label that fits and it appears in an edit box for labels. Those of us familiar with categories need not navigate the tree and can enter them straight into the edit box, separated by comas & all that... standard stuff.

The mods will have to fix the categories/ tree structure but new ones are bound to creep in so there has to be a provision for that. Letting users create new labels at will is a recipe for disaster though.

J-Mac · « **Reply #26 on:** January 07, 2008, 04:03 PM »

This is a mess. And it can get worse, I imagine.

Jim

CodeTRUCKER · « **Reply #27 on:** January 08, 2008, 07:40 PM »

Why does attempting to make things more hospitable to others besides ourselves constitute a "mess?"

CodeTRUCKER · « **Reply #28 on:** January 08, 2008, 10:57 PM »

It always takes a good bit of work to get something done, even cleaning up a mess. My interest is controversial, obviously, but I think Cody's reputation outside of DC could improved. I really do care about this place as more than a place to spend time.

CodeTRUCKER · « **Reply #29 on:** January 08, 2008, 11:45 PM »

I took a look at Chris' (Veign) test case. Simple clear and doesn't add any noticeble "noise" to the experience. Give it a test-drive!

tinjaw · « **Reply #30 on:** January 09, 2008, 09:05 AM »

I took a look at Chris' (Veign) test case. Simple clear and doesn't add any noticeble "noise" to the experience. Give it a test-drive!
-CodeTRUCKER (January 08, 2008, 11:45 PM)

Link please.

=0=

codeTRUCKER, you've been quite prolific, and, I dare say, productive. I think you have done a good job of summarizing and focusing the criteria.

=0=

I would like to do something that I do for all my projects. I would like us, the DC community, to come up with a goal statement. This will help to keep the project focused and on track. It should then be broken down into intermediate milestones. We can then take a pseudo-spiral development approach. I also favor a try-then-adjust repetitive cycle.

Some attempts at sparking a goal statement:

Provide a means for participants to opt-out of conversations they do not wish to pay attention to. (For whatever reason)

We can have secondary or tertiary goals that overlap, or are completely "Free" as any solution to the primary goal will also cover the secondary/tertiary.

Examples:

Augment existing searching mechanisms.
Allow readers to see "censored" versions of postings.
Assist contributers to better classify their contributions.

=0=

I have several ideas in my head that I need to organize first, and then I will post them here. If I can find the time I would like to work with Wordzilla on these and try them out individually and in combination to see if they are effective or just add clutter. I'll post those ideas as soon as I can.

CodeTRUCKER · « **Reply #31 on:** January 09, 2008, 12:44 PM »

Excellent, Chaim! True to your form.

zridling · « **Reply #32 on:** January 09, 2008, 06:59 PM »

I think tagging should be on a voluntary basis by the topic starter. The only exception should be given to mouser, since its his website, to add a tag if a topic drifts too far away.
-Veign (January 06, 2008, 07:36 PM)

What Veign said.

tinjaw · « **Reply #33 on:** January 09, 2008, 08:14 PM »

The genius that I am, I left my notes at the office.

Let me see if I can recall it all. Give me a few minutes....

CodeTRUCKER · « **Reply #34 on:** January 09, 2008, 08:26 PM »

FYI - For things of interest about DC when I'm away, I send "myself" a PM so I don't forget. Of course, I know you knew that. I just mentioned it for the benefit of others.

tinjaw · « **Reply #35 on:** January 09, 2008, 09:22 PM »

FYI - For things of interest about DC when I'm away, I send "myself" a PM so I don't forget. Of course, I know you knew that. I just mentioned it for the benefit of others.
-CodeTRUCKER (January 09, 2008, 08:26 PM)

The problem is that I was doing it on a tablet of paper with a pen. Otherwise it is usually online or I email myself a file.

CodeTRUCKER · « **Reply #36 on:** January 09, 2008, 09:42 PM »

tinjaw · « **Reply #37 on:** January 09, 2008, 10:45 PM »

The first thing I started to plan was a way for classifying posts in a automagic manner. I envision a section in the member profiles to select several options for filtering out various things based on the autoclassifications done by this modification. The modification would, of course, be server side and be done without the need for human effort.

1) An option to handle "naughty words".

User can create their own naughty word list.
User can start with a default list and modify as they wish.

Based on this list, when threads are displayed, they will be modified in some manner, also chosen by the member on their profile.

Don't display the entire thread, but instead redirect to a page that lists the reasons the thread has been deemed "inappropriate" based on their profile.
Display the thread, but not individual posts in the thread that have been deemed inappropriate.

There would also be links to override and display the thread/post if the member chooses as well as links to provide a more detailed report on why it was deemed inappropriate. Furthermore those pages linked to would have a further link to provide feedback on how the system is working.
Short of not displaying the thread/post, the profile can be set to modify the way the thread/post is displayed.
I plan on making some mock screen shots to demonstrate these. However, some options might include:

Modifying hyperlinks to such threads/posts.
Substituting *'s for the letters of an inappropriate word.
Substituting the icon for inappropriate words.
Encasing the inappropriate sentence in a spoiler tag.

2) An option to flag external links.
I have taken the initiative to contact the folks at OpenDNS. I would work (in conjunction with wordzilla and mouser) with the folks at OpenDNS to allow for DC servers to run the URLs through OpenDNS and determine if they are classified as "adult - for nudity", "adult - for mature themes", "known phishing site", etc.
The information obtained from OpenDNS (Adult site data is provided by St. Bernard's iGuard. iGuard is the 100% human-reviewed URL database from St. Bernard Software.) would cause the hyperlink to be modified in some manner to signal the possibly objectionable material.

(to be continued...)

tinjaw · « **Reply #38 on:** January 10, 2008, 12:21 AM »

The second thing I wanted to do is create a new user icons, to be displayed like the current icons

that would link to a user's "Content Pledge". The content pledge would be something that is part of a member's profile.

The default would state that the user has not created a personalized "Content Pledge" and the member's Content Pledge icon will signal that it is advised to use discretion when view any posts by this member.

If a member opts to fill out a personalized Content Pledge, they will check a series of boxes for the types of content they pledge to voluntarily refrain from posting. There will be absolutely no means of registering your agreement or disagreement that the user is holding to their pledge. IOW, no way for you to signal good or bad feedback about that member's choice to hold to their Content Pledge. It is up to you to keep your own personal notes about your feelings and I would suggest we implement the SMF plugin to filter out all posts by member name on a member-by-member basis, based on the member's personal "blacklist".

The Content Pledge will be integrated into the forum software so member's can use their personal profile settings to filter out/identify/modify any postings by other members whose Content Pledge is not inline with your personal choice.

For example, (and I will mock this up at a later date) the Content Pledge will have checkboxes for things like:

I will not post links to URLs that are flagged by the OpenDNS Adult Site Filter.
I will not use curse words in my postings.
I will refrain from the use of sexual innuendo.
I will refrain from posting on religious matters.

I also have grander plans for the Content Pledge that I will expound upon at a later date.

(to be continued...)

tinjaw · « **Reply #39 on:** January 10, 2008, 12:22 AM »

It's bedtime for me now. I will continue this tomorrow. Please post your thoughts on what I have posted so far.

f0dder · « **Reply #40 on:** January 10, 2008, 06:19 AM »

I don't like the direction this is going.

It's sounding more and more like censorship and filtering out "bad stuff" (eyes of the beholder etc.) than designing a general-purpose tagging system. I'm all for a general tagging system, but not this.

tinjaw · « **Reply #41 on:** January 10, 2008, 07:07 AM »

f0dder,

I understand your concern and I believe you my be feeling that way because you haven't seen "the big picture" yet.

1) This is only the portion of the automated means of classifying.
2) This mode of operations will NOT be the default. People will have to purposefully go to their profile and ask for the various filtering to be turned on.
3) Nothing is being censored. All content will remain in its original form, and if you, as the reader/poster chose to do nothing differently from the way you do things now, you will see no change to the forums.
4) There will be further posting by me describing how I picture voluntary tagging, by the author/contributer/poster to work.

Please understand I am 100% against censorship. I am 100% for privacy. I am a Libertarian. Rest assured all of these things will be strictly voluntary and be turned off by default.

Personally I would rather we had greater participation and that our (very good, frankly) information gets to more readers. The people throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Added: Please also understand that I am just starting the discussion. I am not one to sit in the back and wait until the end to throw out my opinions. You know that.

And, these are also only my personal initial suggestions. I'm sure I will mold and change them as the discussion happens. That is my intent. Remember I like "Try, Then Modify".

f0dder · « **Reply #42 on:** January 10, 2008, 07:13 AM »

Well, parts of your ideas are okay, but I reaaaaally dislike the "Content Pledge" idea. Gives me the creeps, to be honest.

tinjaw · « **Reply #43 on:** January 10, 2008, 07:24 AM »

Well, parts of your ideas are okay, but I reaaaaally dislike the "Content Pledge" idea. Gives me the creeps, to be honest.
-f0dder (January 10, 2008, 07:13 AM)

I don't see why, it is a strictly voluntary matter, which will effect you in the least possible manner I can imagine. i.e. if somebody clicks on your profiles they will get a message that you don't have a Content Pledge. They will still get everyone of your posts, unless *they* decide to filter you out personally. No different than somebody choosing to use the filter by username plugin.

Again, I welcome discussion.

Added: I don't see this turning into a McCarthy-style witch hunt, with loyalty oaths and such. And if it does, it fails as an experiment and we rip it out.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #44 on:** January 10, 2008, 07:36 AM »

Well, parts of your ideas are okay, but I reaaaaally dislike the "Content Pledge" idea. Gives me the creeps, to be honest.
-f0dder (January 10, 2008, 07:13 AM)

Can't remember what it said now but I think the original sign up agreement includes stuff like that. Even if people do sign up to such a thing how many people read it or think about it afterwards.

Personally I agree with fOdder on the 'content pledge' bit - I think that we should all behave in a civilised manner towards each other (and do so pretty much on DC 99.9% of the time - the other 0.1% being spam that most people never see) without having to sign up to a contract to be well behaved (even voluntarily). If for some reason there is a problem or perceived problem I think the 'reported post' or emailing Mouser or a moderator (such as me) has seemed to work pretty well in the past and situations can be resolved.

The whole tagging thing could be really usful (esp. if you can search on tags too) and maybe there is a little room in there for a 'not for the squeemish' type tag with an opt in filter in the user profile.

Personally I quite like the idea of a bad language filter - I wouldn't use it myself (being of good Anglo Saxon stock where four letter words have been in common use for well over 1000 years) but there are a lot of people who don't like the use of expletives and find them offensive. Again it could be an opt in function within the user profile and replacing 'naughty' words with **** seems a pretty straight forward way to protect people's sensibilities from such content. There is such a filter included within SMF forums where unacceptable words can be filtered but if enabled it seems to be global - maybe there is a way to make it a user option.

f0dder · « **Reply #45 on:** January 10, 2008, 07:42 AM »

I think an opt-in bad-language filter is an okay idea. Personally I'd love for it to use the 'censored' smiley, as it's soooooo cute

nosh · « **Reply #46 on:** January 10, 2008, 08:02 AM »

We keep getting stuck on the NSFW thing. $:-\$

Here's my last suggestion on that - after this I shall start considering NSFW a four letter word and try my best to refrain from discussing it.

The board already has an unwritten (now a lot of it written) code for handling that kind of stuff. And to be fair I have only seen one person have a problem with the content in general though there are a few threads that have raised more than one set of eyebrows. Maybe the "report to moderator" step though essential, is too drastic. A lot of people would consider it far easier to hit the back button than click on "Report to moderator" and do whatever comes next...whatever that is. What if we supplement this with a softer approach. People can just choose to flag a post as objectionable, completely anonymously. After x number of objectionable votes that post can be automatically contained within a spoiler tag with a button labeled NSFW, the admins may choose to receive an automatic alert after a certain number of votes.

Two thoughts regarding classification of posts based on subject:
1. We generally tend to have long threads but not THAT many new threads daily, I really don't expect subject-wise tagging to be a problem at all even if the original poster doesn't bother with tagging. There are too many older posts to tag but the useful ones still visited would eventually get tagged and show up.
2. Once we have a subject-wise tagging system in place methinks we should also be able to rate threads, that way if I'm looking up posts on any subject I know which threads are more likely to help.

The keyword for all the above is voluntary. It's quite obvious that most people are happy with the way things are and are wary of change. As far as I can tell none of the above would have any impact on somebody who can't be bothered about it.

KenR · « **Reply #47 on:** January 10, 2008, 08:47 AM »

None?

Gothi[c] · « **Reply #48 on:** January 10, 2008, 09:01 AM »

None?
-KenR (January 10, 2008, 08:47 AM)

I agree.

jgpaiva · « **Reply #49 on:** January 10, 2008, 09:38 AM »

At first, i was also interested in the new tagging system, but now, the more i think about it, the more i find it too complicated to really work.

First, it'd take a lot of manpower to implement it.
Second, it'd take a lot of manpower to maintain it (since a tagging system only becomes really useful when lots of posts are CORRECTLY tagged).
Third, i don't quite see the usefulness, since we already have a great search system, it only seems to benefit the "hide NSFW content" point of view, since the DC search is relly powerful (and thus the tagging wouldn't really bring an improvement on that).

My stand on this is: In terms of work/usefulness, a tag system is a fiasco, because more important things can be done with the time it'd take to implement/maintain it.

Thus, unless there's another great use for the tagging system, i wouldn't support it. (UNLESS there's someone that doesn't have much to do and would like to implement the tagging system and rectify wrong tags, etc... Then i'd be all in for it, as i don't think it'd make the forum worse

)

PS: carol and app don't take me wrongly when i say "manpower", i just couldn't find a better word for it

PS2: i also like the "censored smilie" thing, though... I'd love to see posts with lots of those..

[edit] not "menpower", but "manpower" [/edit]