Comments on: Controlled Vocabularies Cut Off the Long Tail

By: order effexor

order effexor — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:53:09 +0000

Very useful website, thanks for this article and very interesting design, thanks.

By: Teddie

Teddie — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 16:04:37 +0000

Joshua, cutting off the long tail isn't just a problem with tagging. Many search engine marketing agencies are finding controlled vocabularies to be an increasing problem with some mechanisms within Pay Per Click search advertising. You might be interested in the Cutting off the Long Tail of Search post on the Search Engine War blog that explains it. PS. I borrowed and credited a quote from your post.

By: InfoSpaces » Blog Archive » Controlled Vocabularies and Folksonomies

Sun, 17 Apr 2005 09:42:03 +0000

[...] , change comes from those in control, too: the users. From this other Joshua’s post Controlled Vocabularies Cut Off the Long Tail, an other fundamental difference bet [...]

By: jim wilde

jim wilde — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:17:34 +0000

“On the fly” tagging is important because many new ideas (half-baked ones) are hard to explain. Tagging is not categorizing but a way for us to informally describe how we feel about something in our own words. Malcolm Gladwell, author of “The Tipping Point ” and “Blinks” offers some anecdotes on why we canâ€™t trust peopleâ€™s opinions â€” because we donâ€™t have the language to express our feelings

By: Bud Gibson

Bud Gibson — Wed, 09 Mar 2005 22:36:03 +0000

Josh, I just spent the weekend at the IA Summit in Montreal. My cut, some of the theoretical debate is overblown. People who have to actually manage large controlled vocabularies are looking for help, any help, in maintaining them. They may be “taxonomists” (I actually know one whose nom de guerre is taxonomist), but they are quite willing to resort to folksonomy.

It then becomes an issue of the extent to which folksonomy can help them solve their real-world problems. I think, as you point out, those issues become:

1. Making the taxonomy more friendly to users.
2. Incorporating change into the taxonomy.

Believe it or not, I have a rather gushy post that I wrote on IBM’s treatment of the issue and how they might use folksonomy in a new project. They have a 3700 node *uber* taxonomy (their term) that they are wrestling with.

You can see my post here:

http://thecommunityengine.com/home/archives/2005/03/ibms_intranet_a.html

By: Josh

Josh — Wed, 09 Mar 2005 17:38:40 +0000

Mike, you’re entirely correct, most web sites aren’t built to help everyone. But are the ones that are built satisfying all those folks they should be? Are there folks in the system’s Long Tail being excluded in some way? This is my concern.

In my experience, many CVs aren’t “real” in the sense that you talk about. Most simply stay static over the long term, with little updating. This is unfortunate, not bad.

You’re right to call me on my bias. I’m skeptical of CVs, and always have been, because they’re not inclusive. Perhaps I am being too dismissive, but I have a feeling that those CVs that are continually updated, the “real” ones, are few and far between. In other words, I hesitate to use the “ideal” CV to represent the “usual” CV.

I do disagree, however, with your claim that CVs are artifacts of real behavior. They are not direct artifacts. The changes made to CVs as the result of user feedback are only interpretations of that feedback.

Folksonomies, on the other hand, are direct artifacts. That’s why I’m pushing for them, and, admittedly, giving them the benefit of the doubt at this early stage.

By the way, my opinions and writing here do not necessarily reflect those of UIE. I’m trying out ideas here, and I enjoy productive arguments…

By: Mike Steckel

Mike Steckel — Wed, 09 Mar 2005 16:13:58 +0000

Websites are rarely intended to meet the needs of “everyone.” They are intended to meet the needs of a particular audience segment. “Inclusive” or “not inclusive” just doesn’t mean much when you are talking about the vast majority of websites.

CVs are absolutely the artifacts of actual behavior. A real CV is constantly being updated based on user feedback. B&N rearranges their stores based on feedback also. For them, the books that are “excluded” do not warrant the costs of inclusion. They won’t make their money back by physically restocking them in their stores.

Folksonomies could potentially help with improving the effectiveness of a main CV. They are not mutually exclusive. You are too quick to divide this topic into “good” and “bad.”

I love UIE and have enjoyed other things you have written, but this one seems to be so black and white in its thinking that I remain entirely unconvinced.