Re: [tlug] using [TAGGING] in email subjects

[Niels Kobschätzki <n.kobschaetzki@example.com>]

On Aug 8, 2007, at 9:30 AM, emiddleton@example.com wrote:

> Niels Kobschätzki wrote:
> > On Aug 8, 2007, at 8:03 AM, emiddleton@example.com wrote:
> > > > I think that tags are mostly for searching or browsing the archives
> > > > for general information about a specific problem.  Online, they're
> > > > somewhat useful to follow the progress of a technical thread (eg,
> > > > SOLVED or SUMMARY tags), and to save Josh expenditure on keitai and
> > > > keyboards (not to mention his coffee costs).
> > >
> > > We are talking about something very different.  Think flickr  
> > > tags, or a
> > > folksonomy[1]. As Josh suggested I will put something more  
> > > concrete on
> > > the wiki.
> >
> > But things like flickr-tags are meant for search (in my understanding
> > of the concept). Therefore wouldn't it be better to put the tags
> > regarding a message into the message-body? Those are searched anyway
> > if you search the archives or when you are doing a full-text  
> > search on
> > your mails and the readability of the subject keeps the same.
>
> The problem is that the meaning of the tags becomes unclear.  If the
> message is not about the GPL license but contains a reference to it
> should this be tagged or not?  In the subject it is clear that the  
> tags
> refer to the content of the message.  There is another issue which is
> being ignored with these examples.  If you are asking about an
> application why isn't it mentioned in your subject field?  The
> difference should really just be whether it is in [] or not.

But tags are imho a way to classify/group messages. If I ask for an  
application it will be in the subject.
Why isn't the subject of this mail for example not:
Re: [tlug] using [TAGGING] in [email] [subjects]?

> > I "scan" my mails via the subject if there's something interesting
> > (read) or not (right to the archive) - if there are a bunch of  
> > tags at
> > first and I can't read the actual subject anymore, it would waste  
> > more
> > time (because I would have to adjust my three-pane-layout for fitting
> > the whole subject or at least the beginning of it) than it would  
> > save.
>
> Obviously reasonable limits need to be placed on the method of  
> tagging.
> If you take
>
> [message type][user level] the usual subject line with [tags]  
> embedded.
>
> as the maximal form.  They are going to be about the same as they are
> now with Re: [tlug] Re: [tlug] ... etc.

In my daily routine I use a lot of tags because (at least in Mac OS  
X) more and more applications become "tag-aware" (sometimes called  
keywords, sometimes tags -- I've never got the difference). E.g. I  
use them to tag my entries in my Bibtex-library for being able to  
classify papers/references to being able to find faster stuff  
regarding special topics. Also I use an application called Yojimbo  
which I use mainly for downloading articles from the web - there are  
articles with 10 and more tags. Tags shouldn't be limited because you  
can narrow down search with them pretty fast w/out being dependent on  
the actual content of what you tag.
If you put them in the mail-body, ppl who reply to the mail can  
easily extend the tags. Ok - they could easily extend subject-tags as  
well but limit down the readability of the subject.
And how often do you see stuff like "Re: [tlug] Re: [tlug] ... etc."?  
I see it rarely and if it gets too much you can easily clean it up w/ 
out hurting threading (which should be based on message-id) but if  
you clean up tags you hurt the concept of it.

Actually I think it would be a rather cool idea if tags could be  
included in the message-headers and that tag-aware e-mail-clients  
would show them to you (and those could handle then also stuff like  
tag-clouds). Why isn't this done yet?


Niels