Re: [tlug] [A] Using [TAG SPAM] in email subjects

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

On Aug 8, 2007, at 10:21 AM, Keith Bawden wrote:

> On 8/8/07, emiddleton@example.com  
> <emiddleton@example.com> wrote:
> > Keith Bawden wrote:
> > > As far as I can see, there is no common usage. The IME, FEP, HENKAN
> > > issue being a point in case.
> >
> > Sorry I am not following your point.   Could you explain the  
> > relevance
> > of not having a single word that is commonly associated with input
> > method has on the use of a tagging in subject headers?
>
> My point is that there is no common sense (in this sense) and that is
> there is no commonly associated term that would make it obvious to the
> bulk of readers what the tag actually means. Without doing a table
> lookup first...
>
> > > Of course if we all had pull down menus where we could select  
> > > from and
> > > add new tags[1] from within our email clients then this *might*  
> > > work.
> >
> > Hay it is just two extra keys '[' ']' and they are right next to the
> > Enter key if you are using a Japanese layout ;)
>
> My point was not about how difficult it would be to type the tags. My
> point is how much of a PITA it would be to research what the correct
> tag is and then type it. After all adding this complexity would not
> encourage people to join in, and I would not be surprised if some
> people over policed non-conformity to the new tag regime.

If tagging is done by its concept (as far as I understand it) you do  
not need to look up a tag. You just add tags by what you think what  
is right. If anyone else thinks there is a tag missing, he/she just  
adds it. "Swarm intelligence" will add enough tags that everything  
important should be in there in the end (One of the reasons why I say  
that tags in the subject would be messy and they would make more  
sense in the body or even in a custom header).

Niels