|
Search this group's discussions
|
Tagography ~ case studies
|
Tagography is a bit of a riff on tags, for which an ad-hoc standard can be found here. Please feel free to post your comments and your own examples of tag use in this thread.
Personal Tag Use
A number of people have created interesting image collections using tags. tags are a great way to display a series of images, and there are some good examples listed below.
bjohnson is using the 'mynecktie' tag to create a running record ofthe necktie he wears each day.
striatic {that's me} has used the 'sequentialdream' tag to fashion a gallery for multiple pages from his short comic 'sequential dream'.
schlomo has used the 'pickleproject' tag to collect the documentation of his {mis}adventures with a pickle in a bag.
hexagon sun has used the '1000somethings' tag to gather his quirky image collection of, well '1000 somethings'.
Jun Cruz Na Ligas has used the 'wedding' tag to catalogue 73 images of a wedding.
Popular Tag Use
Geographical tags
Tagging images with a city or town name is quite popular ~ indeed, 24 of the 150 most popular tags reference some kind of geographic location.
you can even take yourself on a bit of a world tour by clicking through ..
Europe: jasenova, itsuaingo, florence, amsterdam, paris, london and crombie
North America: nyc [new york], montgomery, seattle, sanfransisco, toronto, nanaimo, tofino and vancouver
and DownUnder: melbourne and cambridge
or broader regions like: colorado, china, california, italy, slowakia, newzealand and europe.
Other Popular Tags
one of the most popular and interesting tags has to be the cameraphone tag. i'm not including it in the section on standardised later on in this post because it emerged naturally and was only recently added to the ad-hoc standards list. this tag is notable for a few reasons ~ mostly the sheer volume of images and their peculiar esthetic. it is also a tag to check up on frequently, as it is growing rapidly.
Food also seems to be a popular subject for labelling, although i don't exactly find all of the images particularily appetising.
Group Tag Use
Tags have been a successful means by which groups have created galleries of images. a good example of this is the cityProject, a group who's members document their {mostly}urban environments. They've used tags to create communal galleries for their many sub projects.
Images for their faceProject, glowProject and skyProject have all been collected in tag based galleries.
further, the images in any of these project specific galleries have been given a cityProject tag, which creates a comprehensive gallery of all the images created for the group.
Another group using tags is the Caption Competition, a group that uses flickr's commenting feature to add humourous captions to the quirky images that members find on the web. they use the 'captioncompetition' tag to group the images that they have bandied about.
Flickrverse is a group about visualising flickr, and some of these personal visualisations can be found by taking a look at the 'flickrverse' tag.
Standardised Tag Use
The 'comic' tag has seen some use by a number of people, and contains an interesting collection of sequential art.
The 'photo' tag is one of the most popular tags, but also one of the least useful as a cummunal tag. looking through the list, there are many 'mis-labelled' images and the tag is pretty vague in purpose. However, i find it to be very valuable to me as a personal tag, so i can create a list of images that doesn't include my screenshots or drawings ~ perhaps other people find it useful in this way as well.
The 'snagged' tag shows a wide variety of images that flickr users have snagged from the web, typically humourous or quirky ~ and quite a few of george w. bush {i wonder what the fixation is}.
The 'unfound' tag is really interesting because it has been heavily influenced by the combination of two important factors. one, it applies to the vast majority or images on flickr ~ and two, mass uploading tools have helped group images by user as they are uploaded. this means that a single user can dominate a page or two while you search through the lengthy 'unfound' collection. i find this more useful to me in someways {in terms of finding new photos from new people} than the "everyone else's" page that is linked from the home page.
The 'me' tag is easily my favourite tag on flickr, it shows the wide variety of different folks who post to flickr, a wide variety of ages and genders, appearances and attitudes.
Posted at 11:41AM, 17 June 2004 PDT
(permalink)
|
|
Great post - thanks Stri :)
Posted 96 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
not a problem, mister butterfield.
hopefully it gives people some ideas on how they might use their tags.
Posted 96 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
that is really beautiful when you look at all the photos with the "me" tag. page after page of those faces, it reminds me of the part in the film "cinema paradiso" when the lead character looks at what his friend left for him (don't want to ruin it if you haven't seen it). i love the humanity.
Posted 96 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
nice post
Posted 96 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The unfound tag has been perplexing me for about a week, ever since I first found the tags page.
It's a very popular tag, and it has the heavy air of the vernacular of criticism or a art movement... although I 'm at a loss to place it, so I'm not sure that it is.
Can someone explain to me what constitutes an unfound image? Is it simply an image that was not found by the poster, i.e. an image they created themselves?
Or is it something else?
Posted 96 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I agree with your assessment of the me tag. I have enjoed using google for similar purposes in the past, although it has its own interest when it's constrained to people who hve tagged their photos themselves.
Posted 96 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Illovich, unfound is a pic that I took. As opposed to "snagged", which is a pic that I stole from the web. So I guess it is an art movement as it's the creation of something "new".
But the movement kept moving and I just can't keep up!
Posted 96 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
you can find an explaination of unfound and other tags here.
Posted 96 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I was perplexed by 'unfound' too. It seems like it's is actually more popular than 'photo' :)
I like the fact that people are tagging with colours (or colors, if you must). (I found out about it at apophenia, and there's more at Kottke).
Posted 96 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
it is more popular than photo because there are more unfound images than photos.
unfound includes photos AND drawings AND screencaps AND cg work.
Posted 96 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
(I think I've been round all the tag case study/ad hoc standards /suggestions posts now)
Tags are beautiful because they are simply one-bit labels (present=true?), and there's no formal relationship expressed or necessarily implied between any of them. They mean what the users want them to mean.
Which is exactly why they will become unmanageable and forgotten in the end [orders of magnitude more users], unless some structure is found. In fact, they code for less than a bit, since I can't say NOT(selfportrait) without making an unpredictably named second tag.
Soo, I could make up my own tag-grammar, but it won't help Miss Random other user unless she and I follow the same convention. And we've never met and don't read any guidelines so we won't.
My main suggestion is not saying "this tag should mean X" but that the system should structure users' meaning at some meta-level so it all gels. Think a DTD for tag-XML, rather than any document content.
Structure could start, for example, by coding the allowed relationships between Unfound, Snagged, Photo, Drawings and the other basic categories. These are necessary for all to comprehend others' material.
Less basic but still generic, would be tags denoting more-or-less objective features: location, media, member_of_series, belongs_to_group, is_of_person_X and other uncontentious aspects of each image. Some additional data parameters would be helpful for many of these. These are nice-to-have administrative aspects of the images.
Then you could leave the field open, as the present anything goes system, for interpretations ("grey, abstract, funky, loneliness") and all the other imaginations. This is probably where you want to leave well alone.
Posted 96 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Flickr Ideas!
not to sound rude, but this is not a feature request thread.
it is very difficult to have a discussion about the possibilities within the current system if it keeps getting sidetracked into a discussion of whether the tags suggestions should be collected in a wiki or in a thread ~ whether flickr should impose tag meanings or relationships or not.
Ideas is really the place for that, not here. i've had too many posts here that were NOT feature requests hijacked by calls for feature requests.
discussion of what people are doing or should do with flickr = flickr central
discussion of what devs are doing or should do with flickr = flickr ideas
Posted 96 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
can we see tags assoicated by people? not that the images are tagged by people but more so like "here are all of drocks tags"
Posted 96 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
here are all of drock's tags.
:)
when looking for interesting tags, i don't normally start of that page. mostly, i start either by looking at something coming through "everyone's images" and click through to the tag, or i see something emerge through a group, or mentioned in chat.
Posted 96 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
ahhh there we go.. thx striatic :P
Posted 96 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
A couple of counter-examples. "coxy" is one of the 150 most-used tags. It tags (seemingly) all photos posted by the user "coxy". Both "photo" and "photos" appear on the list, despite meaning the same thing, from all appearances. There's even a certain amount of dissonance in "me" - is it anywhere someone appears? just the poster? just the person who took the photo? group shots (that's a little ambiguous, after all)?
A large percentage of locationally-tagged photos I've found aren't particualrly qualified. "San Francisco" with "California" or "USA", for instance. If your one of the people who don't consider San Francisco a part of either of those surrounding territories, there's also "Scotland" without "UK" or "Europe" as a good example. Place names also serve double-duty, for recognisable depictions of the places, as well as where a particular picture was taken, even when that picture is an otherwise unremarkable group shot at a restaurant, for example. This happens to some extent as well for tags used to denote an event as well as a literal description of the photo, such as 'fireworks'.
Lastly, there's the question of personal use vs. communal use - striatic mentions "photo" as an example, though "unfound" is another good one. If the vast majority of one's uploads are, say, unfound photos taken in Edinburgh, how useful is it for the individual to add these tags? I'd argue "not very" since it provides them with very little they don't know. They may instead tag the exceptions to this trend (a doodle they found in Paris, say). The group benefits most from tagging everything, of course, but would benefit more from having the standard set tagged.
This sort of annotation noise only increases with the number of annotators and pictures present, and ends up robbing tags of a good deal of their utility.
Posted 96 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
although it is pretty easy to manually add UNFOUND PHOTO EDINBURGH to all the images one uploads, especially because chances are it applies to the enitire set that you are uploading.
the 'mind tax' on doing this is pretty low. I find that when i am uploading/tagging and see the empty field i type in UNFOUND PHOTO OUTDOOR TORONTO almost by reflex, and then start consciously thinking about what other tags might apply to the specific set. then i upload, and comb through the images to add tags that don't apply to the entire set, but only individual images. this generally doesn't take very long to do ~ unless i am uploading some odd mixture of images, in which case i upload in batches.
{granted, this method only works if you are using an uploader or the upload page, not the flickrlive version or the bookmarklet}
but here's the thing:
the truth is that the most powerful public tags are the specific ones, like PICKLE PROJECT that create cool little galleries. TORONTO is marginally less useful. UNFOUND will never be a very useful public tag, and it was never really intended to be. this is more effective as a private discriminator to help narrow a search, or if you have a lot of SNAGGED images, allowing you to send others a link to a page that doesn't include them.
the other thing is that, yes, as users increase, there will be more noise .. perhaps up to 10% of images in the photo category might not actually be photos .. if so, how exactly is this a major problem? maybe 50% of images taken at the zoo are labelled 'zoo' and the other 25% are labelled as 'animal' and another 25% are labelled as 'animals' .. this doesn't mean that each of these galleries is suddenly worthless. surfing through either of the galleries will still be cool. you'll still find what you're looking for.
the point of tags {for me anyways} isn't some near airtight means of sorting images, it is simply a means to an end .. creating fun galleries to search through.
Posted 96 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'm simply observing areas where the system doesn't work particularly well. It doesn't mean, nor did I say, that tag galleries were "useless" any more than a positive observation implies that tags are the final, perfect solution to the world's information indexing problems.
Where the system doesn't function particularly well is as useful for people to know about as what common tags mean, or any of the success stories already posted.
So while the system may be great at creating specific tag galleries like the pickle project, it's pretty naff at certain other uses, geography in particular. As a test case, take someone looking for pictures of Canada. 'Canada', as a tag, does get some pretty good stuff, but it misses out a large proportion of 'Vancouver', and 'Toronto', and doesn't catch any of 'Edmonton' or 'Nunavut'. Which is an odd parallel to the Globe and Mail, but I expect that's just a coincidence. In fact, no more than 19% of photos with Canadian location tags are also tagged 'Canada'. So while the 'Canada' gallery is still useful and cool, it's pretty far from being as useful and cool as it could be. Given the relative popularity of geographical tags (close to, if not the most popular class of tags), I'm pretty sure that someone will find this a fairly useful observation.
Quick methodological note, 'cause the scientist in me won't let me leave it off. I calculated the above stat by adding the totals of Vancouver, Toronto, Edmonton, Nunavut and Arviatnunavut (747), and dividing by the number of Canada photos (143). This assumes (generously) that all Canada-tagged photos also have a more-specific geographical tag as well.
Posted 96 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
hm .. the question is whether the canada tag would benefit from the flood of images of vancouver, toronto, edmonton and nunavut. perhaps it would be, or perhaps not.
as it stands, 4+ pages of 'canada' are filled with "ritwick's" vacation pictures.
the question is whether all images shot in canada should be labelled canada, or mostly images which are somehow canada-ish.
for instance, should i label all the pictures in my apartment as 'toronto'? certainly my apartment is in toronto, but a shot from inside my generic living room might not benefit the 'toronto' tag very much, whereas a shot of buildings on the street might. or a street festival. or yet another shot of the CN tower.
tags are symbolic markers i guess. maybe the canada tag is better served as being viewed by thinking it as a collection of images that SAY canada, as opposed to a collection of images taken IN canada.
Posted 96 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i think it depends on the size of the Nation.
NZ for example is 3 times smaller than Los Angeles.
Posted 95 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
We do have a plan for sorting the photos listed under tags that should make everyone happy (using an upcoming "interestingness" score).
For the record, I don't like the unfound and photo tags (as they are currently used) because tagging everything in the system with the same tag isn't useful (and having all the people 'in the know' tagging their photos with the same tag is only marginally more useful).
Posted 95 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I've been tagging my photos with "yyyy.mm" (like 2004.07) as a hack to backdate older photos until we can set the "taken" date for each photo. I would like it if things like year, month, day, f-stop, shutter speed, image size, etc. were to automatically behave like tags in the future. Especially if you could do AND searches on tags and have the results with a legible URL.
A search sting might look like this to find surfing beach photos from june-july:
tag:(surfing AND beaches) date:(2004.06 OR 2004.07)
Then that "gallery" could be easily linked to...
Posted 95 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
i can see where stewart is coming from .. although for me, the photo tag is invaluable because i have such a volume of non-photo material.
when i want to link people to my photostream, i have to take into account all my comic related stuff that interrupts the narrative flow of 'photos from my life'
so when i want my sister or friends or mom to see my pseudo photoblog, i link them to my 'photo' tag gallery, and not to my photostream.
you might have a point on 'unfound' though, stewart.
'unfound' and 'snagged' were created at a time where images copied from the web were much more common on flickr. why were these images more common?
well .. flickr was much more IM centric, and image quality was significantly lower. in chat, a snagged image would often be a fun in-joke or sly comment. also, they were often used striking visual imagery that lent itself well to the chat environment.
since then, flickr has developed tools {including tags} that have de-emphasized chat and boosted the web side of flickr. image quality increased, pro accounts offered more space ~ and it finally became worthwhile to upload your own photographic work without fear of flickr's {former} compression mangling.
so at that time, there was MUCH more 'snagged' imagery floating around flickr. having an unfound/snagged filter made a lot of sense.
Posted 95 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
There's a parallel tag style discussion happening on the del.icio.us-discuss mailing list at the moment which some folks might like to follow. Clay Shirky's post sums it up well, so far.
(apologies to keen group joiners, I posted a similar message to FlickrIdeas too)
Posted 95 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Pace Shirky, I'm with the fourth school : near-mandatory standards sweetened by a smart user interface. But then I'm from a long line of librarians and other arch-categorisers.
Posted 95 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
possible sign of the coming apocalypse?
Posted 94 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
great!
Wishlist: create a badge photorolling of photos of a certain tag :-)
Posted 94 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i have a couple of questions both regarding i guess protocol and tags.
the first is about pluralism. it makes sense to hang a picture of a cat w/ a "cat" tag but some people use "cats" as my librarian persona would tend to do. it doesn't matter that much i guess but having one tag would make "cat or cats" a bigger tag group. and folk who are searching for a certain tag wouldn't necessarily look for singular and plural.
also dates. having one way would make things neater. i like fo.ol's idea of 2 months ago [2 months! is anyone going read this?-- sorry if this has already been discussed, i did poke around a bit and didn't see anything]
Posted 93 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
i guess but having one tag would make "cat or cats" a bigger tag group.
hm .. how about if there is one cat, tag it "cat" and if there is more than one tag it "cats"?
either way, i wouldn't sweat it as we can always combine the two tags through an advanced search: www.flickr.com/photos/search/tags:cat,cats/tagmode:any/
Posted 93 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Tags are good and sets are better, especially with a slideshow.
Air guitar world Championships
HyperBob
It's not PC so don't put that
Wife carrying world championships in here
Posted 93 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
tags and sets really fill different needs. do different things.
sets can't do half the things tags can, and do very few things that tags cannot... but they are prettier.
Posted 93 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I've been thinking for awhile that there are two things that this system needs. One is "personal" versus "private" tags. As I think everyone agrees, "Photo" is a basically useless tag, unless you are one of the few people who has a significant number of non-photo items, and then it's only useful to you. Nobody would ever do a search to view all items tagged with "Photo". Likewise "Unfound", "2004", etc. All these things are only useful to the person looking through their own collection. And when I say "private," I don't mean "hidden from the public," so you should be able to look for all "Photos" from striatic.
What would help a great deal would be to have some kind of guidance on tag selection in the upload or editing process. A search-as-you-type list, for example, which would use a dictionary of sorts composed of all tags, or maybe all public tags. (Actually the dictionary should NOT have all public tags, there should be some editorial process. I agree that generic cat photos should be tagged "cats," for example.) You would obviously still be able to fill out the tag however you wanted, for the anti-pluralists out there, but at least there would be a bit more uniformity.
Posted 93 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"I've been thinking for awhile that there are two things that this system needs. One is "personal" versus "private" tags."
i agree with the spirit of this post, but consider that tags are firstly a means of sorting images for personal use. also, a useless tag pretty benign. it doesn't do anyone any real harm, other than taking up a little space on the popular tags page.
"What would help a great deal would be to have some kind of guidance on tag selection in the upload or editing process."
so long as it doesn't over complicate the UI or doesn't demand a mind tax that would discourage tagging or lengthen the tagging process.
personally, i don't think that the problem should be solved in the tagging process. rather, it should be solved through dictionary/thesaurus driven compilation on the server, and improved search features. start messy and easy and tighten it up from there.
keep in mind that whether you search 'cat' or 'cats' ~ you're going to find a lot of pictures of cats .. combine the tags and you just get more cats. not combining the two tags is only a problem if you are looking for a collection of absolutely every single image of a cat on flickr. completeness for completeness' sake.. for most applications, A LOT is just as good as ALL.
you have to weigh the marginal benefit of combining the tags to the significant development and UI costs in combining them.
Posted 93 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i agree with striatic on this. metadata/tagging has always been a classic Good Thing To Do That Nobody Does. by keeping it simple on the user's side and taking the burden on themselves, i think that flickr can overcome the barrier to usefulness that obscures many "thinkier" or more complicated tagging interfaces. there's no reason, with as many throbbing brains and processors tasked to the matter, that the semantics and fuzziness of the tags couldn't be discerned.
why create a row of SELECT boxes and radio buttons where a single text field will do? i am very interested to see what emerges from a rich body of liberally-tagged images and a well-written engine to help navigate them.
Posted 93 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"why create a row of SELECT boxes and radio buttons where a single text field will do? "
Spelling mistakes for one.
Less trivially, to guide the herd. Whilst it's actually head down munching the grass.
Free text tagging is essentially open loop (at least during the actual tagging episode itself), hence the numerous divergences and misapprehensions.
The control types mentioned are probably too rigid. I dream of subtle java/flash jazziness - that Flickrists do so well - that will help me tag whilst sensing the centres of gravity of the existing tag spaces (plural: mine, a group's, Everyone). The search engine of striatic's, perhaps, but running continually as I tag.
Posted 93 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'm going to weigh in with what I see as a core issue:
Is there really a problem, or just a "It would be nice ..."?
Personally, I think the freeform text interface of tags is absolutely brilliant design. Concensus can be grown, and evolved, over the life of the site. It doesn't need guidance, its an emergent trait. As such, its far more informative to look at the tags in play on images now than after some Grand Reification.
(If there is a problem, its that its a damned pain to add/remove/modify tags on large numbers of already-present images. Give me the ability to refine my tags reasonably, and even if I start badly, I can improve as I learn.)
In my mind, more freedom is always more interesting than front-end handcuffs. Different ways to data-mine tags would be interesting, but they're far from necessary.
Posted 93 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
This does seem to be at the core of tag-ness. The freedom is at once a power and a burden.
The discussions we keep having (maybe it's just me) are related to dealing with this essence, coming from decades of more formal paradigms. For years I have been offered freedom of expression through mastery of tricky formalisms (language, music, programming, typical data structures & catalogues).
Tags, suddenly, are the other way about. Freedom is immediate, hard algorithmic power is elusive. (I already hear the intake of breath as you're about to ask why I would want that!).
Posted 93 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
i just wanted to pitch in here with a little update on the utility of the 'unfound' tag
it is, as yet, the the only way for someone to coalesce all* of their images images into a slideshow.
*well, the most recent 200 or so
Posted 93 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
That's not a property of the unfound tag, it's a property of any tag that you add to every image you have. This suggests that it's not even a proper role for a tag, since it doesn't produce any equivalence classes. I'd argue that it's really just an oversight/bug in the surrounding system that you can't do this with an account name.
Posted 93 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
right, but my point is that it helps to have a tag on {nearly} every one of your images more than it hurts. and the tag might as well mean something.
if they get around to tag based badges, you'd be able to use the unfound tag to hide snagged images from the badge. or we could, you know, not upload snagged images ..
but still ~ it has utility. to all the naysayers: "neenr neenr neenr"
Posted 93 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I liken this to iTunes. The sensibility and utility of tags grows in relation to the size of your library. If you only have a couple of dozen photo (or tunes in the case of iTunes), then tags are a pain. But as your collection grows, it gets harder and harder to drill down and sift through your archive to find the image you're looking for. When I moved my entire fotolog collection onto Flickr, I took extra time to add tags to each shot. Sure, it took a few hours, but now a dividend is paid every time I need to look for a shot to post or to share. It's a great time saver.
Now if only I could be as disciplined with iTunes.
Posted 93 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Is there a way to list other people's tags beyond the 150 most popular?
Posted 91 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Nice to see this thread persist. Half of my dream
of subtle java/flash jazziness - that Flickrists do so well - that will help me tag whilst sensing the centres of gravity of the existing tag spaces (plural: mine, a group's, Everyone). The search engine of striatic's, perhaps, but running continually as I tag.
has now come true.
They used to have the super-list on display, unless I dream still. It grew large and mushy, which I suspect is why it isn't offered now. I'm hoping it will come back with contextual and popularity grooviness.
Posted 91 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
interestingly, now 42 of the 150 most popular tags {give or take some replication} reference geographic locations.
almost double the number when i first posted the topic.
Posted 91 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
the theory being? e.g. mundane details outnumber nuances as the community grows?
Posted 91 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
or else continuing to prove that the three most important things are location, location and location. ;)
Posted 91 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
and this rate, location tags will dominate the popular tags page.
i think another reason is that sets and pools now take up some of the more specific groupings .. so tags are left to cover the general stuff like locations.
Posted 91 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
It's nice to be able to see the most popular 150 tags. Is there a way to see the 150 tags that are most often viewed/searched?
Posted 80 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Is there a way to see the 150 tags that are most often viewed/searched?
no.
but i would suspect something like the following order.
1. cats
2. cats
3. boobies
4. kittycat
5. porn
Posted 80 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
LOL! I think you're right. :)
Posted 80 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Striatic: at the top of the thread you have included 'Cambridge' in the 'down under' category.
There may well be a town called Cambridge somewhere in Australia or New Zealand, and I understand there's also one in Massachusets, but the original is certainly in England: so I generally add the 'England' tag as well as 'Cambridge' to any pictures I take there.
Posted 80 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
nono. most best viewed simonized tag:
"flying buttocks"
why not
Posted 80 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
at the top of the thread you have included 'Cambridge' in the 'down under' category.
that's because when i wrote this a long, long time ago this fellow named mouse was the most prominent poster to that tag.
guess where he was from?
anyhow, the porn tag is actually one of my very favourites.
any guesses as to why?
Posted 80 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
complete randomness?
Posted 80 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Coolio that this thread was renewed! I am an extensive tag user, but then I am happiest that most other flickrites do NOT tag as extensively: thus I can use my tags with groups and my own images and quickly draw up in a tag search exactly what I want.
Posted 80 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
My guess is that people often try adding a spurious 'porn' tag to see if it increases their number of views.
Posted 80 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
the reason it is my favourite tag is because most of the time it is completely devoid of any porn.
when i posted that link, it was clean, now it is dirty again, and soon again it'll be clean.
i think it is one of the tags that the flickr staff manually clears every so often.
what is left after the cleaning is a buch of photos tangentally related to porn, but not actually porn.
thus I can use my tags with groups and my own images and quickly draw up in a tag search exactly what I want.
an example of this?
Posted 80 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Hi. we are a flickr group and we do many trips to take pictures.
We always have a tag to identificate our pics.
The last one taht was on the last weekend to Paraty, Rio de Janeiro the tag is VIVAPARATY.
This flickr menber [link removed by admin] put the same tag in all her/ his pics, would you please ask her/ him to take it of or our work is in vain, I'm very desapointed with this!
Thank you very much!
Tatiana Sapateiro
Originally posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
GustavoG edited this topic 79 months ago.
|
|
I've been using a negative tag to help divide my photostream into two distinct parts.
A lot of my photos are tagged rock balancing but to view the stream without those pictures I've added not rocks to (most of) the others.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I did that for a while too... 99% of my pictures were of my daughter, so I had "naomi" and "notnaomi" tags. Now we have Elijah too, so the whole system has broken down to chaos.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
But you could edit "notnaomi" to be "notkids" and then tag photos either "naomi" and "kids" or "elijah" and "kids" or "notkids". Would that restore order?
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
What is the significance of the font size of the words in the most popular tags area? Are the bigger words more popular?
Posted 76 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Yes, zzackrison, more popular tags are writ large. It's a weighted list, or "Tag Cloud"
Posted 76 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Anyone know the purpose of using tags like:
taggedout, tag1, tag2 and tag3??
Thanks,
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
STANGSTA, sounds like tags being used for one of the "rating-type" groups.
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
 |
Michel ! [deleted] says:
Simulating smart sets with tags
Say you have portraits, some in b&w, others in colors. It would be nice if you could easily see all your portraits in b&w .
So here is the trick :
1) add the tags portraits, color or bw to your pictures
2) now, in the link in the note put e.g.:
flickr.com/search/?w=me&q=bw+portraits&m=tags
(note that this link will work only if you're logged in and have pictures with "bw" AND "portraits" tags, just edit and enter your own tags)
if you add a tag with the year to the tags, you can easily link to your "portraits 2006", "my children 2005" and so on (trip, 2006, spain , trip 2006 flickr headquarters, trip 2007 amazonia ..)
you can see it in action :
 
the hyperlink structure is slightly different however as it does not use the new "gamma" search facilities.
you could even put these thumbnails on your own home site as clicking on these will bring you (or you vistors) to a a up to date list of your pics.
Originally posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
Michel ! edited this topic 73 months ago.
|
|
A really useful way of tagging organisms is to use the scientific name of higher taxa. Like boraginaceae for all plants that belong to this family and coleoptera for beetles.
What makes it nice is that you know that people with a sense of taxonomy have tagged the photos, so it skips the "ladybug" and "blue flower" photos taken by photographers who are not interested in taxonomy. And because these scientific names are internationally used, there's no language problem.
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Not seen this thread before, but as I'm a black and white developing geek, I'd like to point out that the film / developer tag list has become as important to me as the Massive Dev Chart.
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I do put the scientific name when I can find it, but for those of us who are not botanists (or the animal equivalent - zoologists?) it can be tricky tracking down the info.
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Hi, not sure if this is the right place for this question, may be more technical... if so, please redirect me!
I've been tagging my photos since I started using flickr, great system, I've found its a fantastic way of keeping track of friends especially (using "firstname lastname" system etc etc) I've never had a problem with it until now....
I've been adding the tag "john and neils house" to our friends house, however, I discovered today that if I search for this (ie typing into the search field - john and neils house) it comes up with no results, it says - You don't have any photos matching john and "neils house" interestingly the 'and' is greyed out & neils house is within inverted commas.
However, even though the tag has spaces between the words, searching for johnandneilshouse as one word will bring up all the images... but typing in only john house or neils house gets varied results. Sometimes it says there are no photos, sometimes it his them all.
I guess I will re-tag these photos to something less complicated, although I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this. As the tags become more complicated it seems flickr gets confused. Certainly adding the word 'and' has made it do a wobbly.
Do you have any suggestions / comments / similar problems?
Posted 64 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Think of "and" as a reserved word (q.v.). Use spaces as you wish, but understand that they are collapsed when doing searches. Hence "blue black" and "blueblack" are the same tag, search-wise.
Posted 64 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Mr. Striatic,
Is it possible or rather allowed to run a contest with a 'Keyword Tagging' functionality?
If I create a Group for the competition and ask people to Upload and Tag a photograph to enter the contest, will i be sued ;)
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
kamelboor [deleted] says:
Hi STRIATIC
I don't want to be a pest . but in the interest of accuracy, I'd like to point out that u refer to your "sequentialdream" tag in the top entry, but u seem to have deleted it from your photostream tag list.
It sounded like a great idea and I wanted to take a look at it.
IRA in nyc
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Striatic is no longer active on Flickr..
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Ivan_Hristov (away) [deleted] says:
Do you know why? Is he ok?
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
A lot of things can happen to man on the internet after 86 months.
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
FC has a problem with some mystery bumper bumping up really, really old threads.
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
www.23hq.com/striatic
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Muzzlehatch wrote A lot of things can happen to man on the internet after 86 months. yes, that makes sense to a man, but I wonder what happens to photographers.
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Cognitively, it is very interesting to see what kind of tags people attribute to photos.
But I wonder: is it the FIRST tag that one gives by instinct to a photo, also the most important and the most salient tag that defines the photo?
And the Related Tags of a given tag, build a cluster? Or 'clusters' are built in another way?
Posted 12 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The first tags I assign any photo are the geographic location. I'm in the USA, so my photos in the USA are alway tagged City->State->State postal abbreviation. Outside the USA, they are tagged Country->City and state/province if applicable. Then subject tags follow the location.
Posted 12 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
FlickrCentral /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to FlickrCentral discussion threads
