A tag can be described as a non-hierarchical keyword which can identify a piece of information. In this respect it can be considered metadata, since it is information about information.
Now, tags are usually keywords chosen by someone to describe a particular aspect of that information. In the case of an image for example, tags would vary greatly depending on who "tags" the picture. Since this is not a very reliable way to describe anything, various tools have evolved that attempt to remedy this situation by applying crowdsourcing to solve this problem.
Delicious is one example where each individual tags a particular site with as many keywords that might bring it up again in a future search. We all know how easy it was to completely lose sight of a great site among our bookmarks simply because we forgot either how we named the bookmark or the name of the site itself which can be pretty cryptic anyway, no to mention the fact that before Delicious, bookmarks resided in our computer so we could not access them if we were away from it. So now our bookmarks, that old term, reside in the cloud, for everyone to access.
Google, whose main purpose is to make information accessible to everyone (some might disagree), has developed sophisticated algorithms to classify and tag all the information available on the internet and the cloud. However, tagging and classifying images, videos and music has proven to be specially difficult, because of the same problem we face when we ourselves attempt a description.
So what is the solution? depends on the users of course, to do the dirty work. Google Image Labeler is one such tool that has proven very effective. It's simple, fun, game-like minimal interface allows you and a random partner to label images with ever more complex tags, and it gives you "points" depending on the complexity or precision of the label. For any label to work, both you and your partner must submit the same keyword or descriptive phrase.
This idea was originally proposed by Carnegie Mellon's Luis von Ahn, who also developed the infamous and ubiquitous captchas. Originally called the ESP game, which is when I first played it some years ago, it was subsequently licensed by Google. One important difference is that now, if the picture that is presented to you has been tagged before, all those tags are now off-limits, so you have to come up with new ones. This was in response to the fear that tags would become very generic since it is easier to agree on an obvious word, like bird, instead of for example agree on the specific species name.
I have for a long time been intrigued by how we, humans, have suddenly, as the tools became available, become busy bees tagging, describing, sharing information, even as trivial as to what we are doing at the moment, where we are, what we ate etc. (Twitter and FB being the best examples.) My own weird take on it, is that this is the way the "system", the cloud or the emerging consciousness of our information age, gathers all the necessary bits and pieces to achieve the critical mass or the tipping point in order to wake up. A few years ago this thought was simply part of the SF literature. Today is is just a waiting game.
And please, while you wait, tag your posts!
And please, while you wait, tag your posts!
4 comments:
So do you believe that the critical mass that the system will need in order to wake up requires some systematic tagging or do you think the random and disconnected pieces of information that people feel are importnat to share in twitter and on Facebook help to add to that critical mass? I am thinking that in order for the system to make use of some of this stuff it will need a very sophistocated filtering system. I know at times I need help in filtering all the tags that are coming my way.
I don't think that the pieces of information that people tweet are in any way disconnected or even random. Taken in isolation they might seem so, but out of the massive traffic, patterns emerge which pretty much define what we humans do, think etc as a mass or society. And this is how our descendant, the machine, the robot or whatever we might call ourselves in the distant future is training itself much as an infant does, until one day things start making "sense".
I think that even with its known limitations, Wikipedia for example is a much more balanced source of information precisely because it does not rely on a single point of view or source but in thousands, in some cases millions of inputs. As seen in recent political events in Iran, China, Afghanistan and elsewhere, even if you cannot trust the opinion or POV of a single individual, the stream from thousands, in real time and across large areas gives you a more accurate picture as is possible to obtain. And to those who say that a journalist's POV is more balanced or unbiased, well, what can you say. To begin with, after all is twitted and FB'd the pundits arrive and add their credentialed opinions to the mix, and modern day journalist already know that they have to embed themselves in the flow of information as it happens if they hope to provide some nudge or guidance, although at the end the current will always win and carve the shape of history.
Our own brain receives more information on a per beat basis that we know what to do with, and yes, we use our limited senses as filters to view a very simplified version of "reality" so that our machinery can navigate it, and yet consciousness did arise from a (very large)bundle of neurons firing away and creating patterns of meaning out of apparent chaos.
Hi all...
I am playing games on pc and i like to know more about gaming...
I like this article because it's provide lot's of fun and knowledge...
r4 ds
I came across this article that talks about what happens with our "digital selves when we die. I had also heard a similar thing on TV somewhere that indicates that in the even to of death, most of these social networking sites and MMOG have a contract we have all agreed to that in the event of death that our accounts will be deleted. I think it opens up a lot of questions about how we are all connected in the digital world and legal questions about the "stuff" that is left in these digital worlds and how we could leave them for someone. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/technology/internet/02assets.html
Post a Comment