• silverwhisper said on Mar 22, 2007....

  my preferences are:
  
  1. i like this, although since presently a tag is required when first commenting, i presume this would be addressed?
  
  2. i'm not sure that people w/ longevity should at all receive priority in bad tag identification--this is way too prone to abuse. i would however suggest reducing the number of hits required to remove a bad tag.
  
  ed

• SoulCast said on Mar 22, 2007....

  @sw
  1. I'm not sure what you mean
  
  2. We feel it would be more prone to abuse if any new account were allowed this ability. We hope that abuse will be kept in check by two mechanism. Transparency. Everyone will know who removed a tag and action can be taken if someone is abusing the system. Second, users will only be allowed a limited number of removals. This works because new accounts aren't allowed to remove tags so an abuser can't make multiple accounts in order to remove more tags.
  
  We are open to other ideas for solving the bad tag issue, but the current removal mechanism isn't working very well.
  

• silverwhisper said on Mar 22, 2007....

  1. when you first comment on a blog entry, you are required to supply at least one tag, no? i've gotten so in the habit that if that was changed, i hadn't noticed.
  
  2. alts are always a risk, that's true. what about including the 7 posts/day users, otherwise following the plan you describe?
  
  ed

• SoulCast said on Mar 22, 2007....

  1. I think you misread the original post. This won't change.
  
  2. My gut says that it should be restricted to the top tier. Think of it as moderator privileges on message boards, but open to anyone that becomes a top member of the community.
  

• BlueHotRage said on Mar 22, 2007....

  Both sound fine to me.  But then I'm biased, 'cuz I have 10 posts per day and have one or two tags I'd like to remove (I'd also like to know who put them there, too, so I can consider blocking them).
   
  Whatever happens, just be sure to let us know.
   
  BlueHotRage

• copsunited said on Mar 22, 2007....

  Hey. SC..try it and see if it is acceptable to all. If not, it can be
  changed. I don't think we do this on concrete or titanium..Okay..
   
  I say..go for it and see.
   
  Cops

• Zayda said on Mar 22, 2007....

  how would the names of the person(s) creating a specific tag be displayed? would it be beside the tag? if so, i can really see the screen real estate where tags are located being cluttered and wouldn't really like either option if this is the result.
  
  in regards to #2-- just because someone is a long-time poster here (10 posts) doesn't mean that he/she creates good tags, equating longevity at SC with the ability to create effective tags is an illogical connection.
  
  and even if "trusted users" are given the ability to remove tags, would just one click by one trusted user remove the bad tag?

• SoulCast said on Mar 22, 2007....

  @cops
  exactly, it's always changeable :)
  
  @zayda
  " how would the names of the person(s) creating a specific tag be displayed?"
  
  A separate page. We thinking of adding a small icon beside the tags that will link to this page.
  
  "equating longevity at SC with the ability to create effective tags is an illogical connection."
  
  We plan to change the way the "tiers" are determined (not any time soon) so that longevity isn't a direct factor. The logic behind using user "tiers" as the determinant is to prevent abuse via account creation.
  
  "would just one click by one trusted user remove the bad tag?"
  
  This is the initial idea. Since it will be transparent and limited we hope that it's abuse if rare. Rare abuse can be dealt with easily.
  

• Zayda said on Mar 22, 2007....

  i think the change in how tiers are determined makes sense, but wouldn't it make sense to implement the way tiers are determined before changing the way bad tags are removed then so as to prevent the ability to remove tags just being privy to those who have been here the longest and, thus, have 10 posts?
  
  
  another question, what happens if a "bad" tag is removed and the person who originally tags with the bad tags simply re-tags a post with that same bad tag? or is there a way to prevent such bad tags from being re-used once they have been removed?

• VICARIOUS said on Mar 22, 2007....

  Personally, I think the whole tagging idea doesn't work. Make it so only the author can tag his own post. This feature is useful for allowing any readers a chance to see what they are reading. Other authors don't need to add more tags. What puprpose does that serve? I get irritated when I want to leave a comment on a post but first have to tag the darn thing.

  You as the "god" of the site should have veto control. If the post isn't tagged appropriately leave that person a note. If they don't re-tag, remove the post.

  Being able to leave private comments would be a nice feature to add. More useful than the tagging thing, and will work if you remove the anonymity feature; which is where all the problems seem to originate.

  Make it so only people logged can read, post or comment, and only with their name.

  My thought is, if you are going to comment then you should have the decency to leave your name in the event the author wishes to comment. The anonymity feature was given with good intentions, but like in the real world good intentions sometimes come with reprecussions.

  Take the anonymous features off SC and add private commenting.

   

• kruuyai said on Mar 22, 2007....

  I would allow people to remove tags only on their own posts.  Allowing them to remove tags on other people's posts opens up room for a whole different type of abuse.

• dailyachesandpains said on Mar 22, 2007....

  Is it just me, I thought we could delete tags on our own posts that others put up if you go back into 'edit' mode then save. 
   
  I vote for a private chat feature or private comment feature before tagging.
   
  Daily

• Bronx said on Mar 22, 2007....

  I am all for transparency in commenting and tagging!
  
  I've had posts with several comments and tags without being able to identify whose comment came with which tag - certainly would help to make the comments more meaningful.
  
  However, preventing new accounts from 'de-tagging' irresponsibly and giving priority to 'tenured' Soulcasters in tagging deletion should be treated as two separate issues, which they really are.
  
  About the separate page issue for seeing who tagged what - I think a system similar to that used in SC member names should be adopted: a cursor hovering above a tag should reveal whose tag it is!
  
  I think anonymous comments should still be allowed, as long as the relevant tags are associated appropriately - there are people who may come in from other domains to read SC posts and leave a comment without spending time enlisting or even SC members who want to contribute positively to a post without being identified.
  
  I think that these two categories of commenters identified above should be provided for. However, SC should make it possible to differentiate between anonymous commenters - I certainly would like to know whether tag1 or tag2 was associated with comment1 or comment2 from anonymous1 or anonymous2.
  
  That is, SC should tell us whether or not two or more anonymous comments on a post came from the same 'person' - that would be the ultimate achievement in transparency, IMHO.

• agentPit said on Mar 22, 2007....

  Too much restriction is just against SC original principal.
  I prefer to see anonymous poster replaced with 1st and last digits set of the IP. address.
  example: 74.xxx.xxx.110
  
  Such identification could discourage abuse and constant remind potential abusive users of traceable IP while SC still still respect users privacy and keep freedom of speech intact as long as within boundary. 
  
  I would also like to see a feature that blog owner allow to ban certain abusive user from posting his/her comment for 1-5 days in any of his or hers blogs. The temporary ban is discourage offensive but not prevent free speeches.
  
  Regarding the tags, it should be automatically tag as per origin blog poster. It's a pain in the S for user to tag on commentary. Thus simplify process and avoid abuses.
  
  
  

• Zayda said on Mar 22, 2007....

  AgentP: SC has noted several times before in other posts both by SC and in SC_help that they don't track IP addresses.

• VICARIOUS said on Mar 22, 2007....

  Not that you asked but....
   
  I think a great feature would be one where as soon as you go to your home blog site you can see if comments were left and where. It is hard to track down everywhere you've been to see if anyone commented.
   
  Could it even work since SC's format is unique?
   
  If you could immediately respond to comments rather than search for them, you could post more ... which would lead to more notes ... which would be easy to find so you ...

• truthsayer said on Mar 22, 2007....

  Just a quick note about private comments.  I too thought it would be a good feature, but would hate to see someone getting privately harassed.  At least this way, the members can police the place a bit, as long as they are all in public view. 

  I wondered about an instant messaging system or private message board, but I suspect that could leave some folks vulnerable as well.

   

• silverwhisper said on Mar 22, 2007....

  truthsayer: a private messaging system would presumably identify the sender of the message, which would allow the recipient not to read it.
  
  ed

• husbandhater said on Mar 22, 2007....

  What the hell is the transparent stuff. I don't like this idea of outting people on an anon site! How much sense does that make. Back to the drawing board with that one guys. There has to be a better way.

• silverwhisper said on Mar 22, 2007....

  HH: what's the big deal w/ putting your username next to stuff you post?
  
  ed

• Zayda said on Mar 22, 2007....

  truthsayer: as silver noted, a private messaging system would identify the sender of the message. presumably the ability to block pms from specific user would also be a feature.
  
  hh: i think the transparency that SC is suggesting for identifying who tags posts with what tag would only reveal the user name of who used what tag. that doesn't exactly get rid of anonymity.
  
  
  lol... and it looks like silver and i were posting that at the same time.

• boyzmom said on Mar 22, 2007....

  I like the idea of linking the tagger with the tags but I don't understand why deleting tags would be a problem? Just because a soulcaster is new doesn't mean it is their fault that someone tags a post incorrectly.

• SoulCast said on Mar 22, 2007....

  There has been a lot said so forgive me if I forget to respond to something.
  
  First, a few general responses.
  We are currently working on private messages. This feature should be up in the next month or so.
  
  Our tagging system is one of the features that makes SC unique. The fact that tags are added by commenters, and not just the author, is a central part of this feature. As a whole, commenter added tags are far more beneficial than they are negative. The site depends on posts being thoroughly tagged and that doesn't happen if the authors are the only taggers.
  
  @zayda
  "so as to prevent the ability to remove tags just being privy to those who have been here the longest and, thus, have 10 posts?"
  
  Improving the tagging system is a higher priority than user tiers. Also, we feel that allowing users with 10 posts to remove tags is better than manually selecting a few users and the drama that would ensue from that. No matter how we decide to select these users someone will complain about it.
  
  "another question, what happens if a "bad" tag is removed and the person who originally tags with the bad tags simply re-tags a post with that same bad tag?"
  
  You can only tag a post once. I.e. this can't happen.
  
  @kruuyai
  We thought about that, and ... well we prefer more tags to fewer tags and think your idea would lead to fewer tags. There are other small reasons we don't want users have complete control over their posts tags.
  
  @daily
  you can NOT delete other peoples tags from your posts
  
  @bronx
  anonymous comments will be allowed, but they won't be able to tag. I.e. no tags from anonymous comments.
  
  @agentPit
  You can unblock them in a few days :)
  
  @vicarious
  "It is hard to track down everywhere you've been to see if anyone commented."
  
  Have you seen the 'my conversations' tab on the home page? This shows you all of tte posts you've commented on ordered by the most recent comment.
  
  @truth
  "I too thought it would be a good feature, but would hate to see someone getting privately harassed. "
  
  Blocking someone will prevent them from sending you private messages (once we add this feature).
  

• silverwhisper said on Mar 22, 2007....

  boyzmom: the issue is malicious tagging or just plain dumb tagging. for example: if i went to someone's blog and applied the "idiot" tag b/c i'm making some kind of personal attack, that would be malicious tagging.
  
  ed

• bloc said on Mar 22, 2007....

  @boyzmom
  People abuse things. Someone will think it's funny to go around deleting legit tags off of a bunch of posts.
  

• Just4fun78 said on Mar 22, 2007....

  I didn't realize tagging was such an issue here.
  And since when did a blog website consider playing favorites
  as to who has deletion control of the site???? Umm...soulcast...who are you?? 5,7,10 posts per day...my understanding was that we are all welcome here and we all understand the purpose of this sight....freedom of speech!
   
  If someone wants to tag my post and call me an idiot, who cares? That's life. I am not offended. But I don't need someone who didn't like something I posted to delete every tag I have..even if it takes them days to do it!! How about no one gets the power and it remains as is?
   
  Or if you want to get fancy, how about create an email address or form to complete so we can submit a request to have a tag deleted. It remains anonymous who controls the Inbox and the requests for deletion..obviously someone trusted...perhaps SoulCast? And the only person who can request the deletion is the person who wrote the post to begin with. It seem as though the idea you present opens up the possibility for more abuse to occur. Am I missing something?

• mom said on Mar 22, 2007....

  I  like it all.

• CamDaMan20 said on Mar 22, 2007....

  I like the idea, especially since several of my post was tagged by "PETE" as "white Trash"..."Kill Yourself"...Horse Ride"..ect....
  
  I fully support SoulCast in this effort.  Others being allowed to improperly abuse a tag should be stopped as it is in fact abused, I was/am a victim to this very abuse.
  
  What does it take to get a post "feature" so to get more input?
  

• SoulCast said on Mar 22, 2007....

  @just4fun78
  "my understanding was that we are all welcome here and we all understand the purpose of this sight"
  
  not everyone understands the purpose of the site. Rather, not everyone respects the purpose of the site. The internet is full of people that enjoy breaking things or causing havoc in general. No community can exist in an environment where anything goes.
  
  "And since when did a blog website consider playing favorites"
  
  We aren't trying to play favorites, we are trying to prevent abuse. I'm sorry if you don't see that. Take 10 minutes to think of all the ways someone could abuse the tagging system or abuse the ability to delete tags. I'm sure you'll understand why there have to be restrictions and limits.
  
  "Or if you want to get fancy, how about create an email address or form to complete so we can submit a request to have a tag deleted."
  
  We are very pleased to say that the soulcast community is growing. Manually processes like you suggest are not practical. However, If you'd like to work 10 hours a day manually deleting tags for free then give us a call ;)
  
  Here are some examples of bad tags
  0
  1
  2
  

• SoulCast said on Mar 22, 2007....

  @cam
  "What does it take to get a post "feature" so to get more input?"
  
  Don't put the cart before the horse ;) <- That really does answer your question.
  

• boyzmom said on Mar 22, 2007....

  Ed and Bloc- thanks for that information. I will be careful of how I tag things then: )

• ALIENated said on Mar 22, 2007....

  I say forget it all and just let the person who is posting determine the tags.
  I have never understood why others can add tags to my posts. I rarely
  ever add tags to other peoples posts, and you can believe that or not. I
  added a tag once and got chastized for it and have not done it again. I
  just do not use tags in any way to get around here. So I could care less
  what you do. I think they just junk up the real estate as someone said.
  Plus, it loses some of the anonymous feel. Why not post our real names
  and a picture as well.
  

• MsBradford07 said on Mar 22, 2007....

  I think that a good idea.

• CreativeWoman said on Mar 22, 2007....

  I'll play along with whatever you decide. 
  
  I like the private messaging idea.
  
  The tagging issue sounds cumbersome to me. I just don't want it to take away from getting to the content of the posts. Let's keep reading blogs here simple whatever you decide to do.
  
  CW
  

• Lucytorial said on Mar 22, 2007....

  Private messaging would be fabulous - as for the tagging I hate having to tag someone elses post and usually just put their original tag back on... dahh you wouldn't need to give priveledges to posters to remove bad tags if we didn't have to tag others posts in the first place.  Seems like SC are creating work for themselves when they don't need to.

• moonriver said on Mar 23, 2007....

  an alternative approach to this tagging issue would be for soulcast to maintain a sort of canonical list of suggested tags, preferably in tree form. when i want to tag in more general rather than highly specific terms, say, just "war" instead of "iraq war" -- i speak from a a bit of familiarity in thesaurus structure here -- then i can just quickly pick from this sc-suggested list and get on with the more serious business of posting my blog or comment. or i can also put in a specific tag that isn't as yet included in the canonical list. the tag remains valid for my posts, but it won't necessarily show until it is used repeatedly (say, 5x) indendently by at least another user. or maybe give the 10-post-a-day users the right to add to the canonical list.
  
  i think this approach remains compatible with the sc philosophy of user-defined and user-policed categories (an established principle in the wiki community), and can co-exist with the present approach of users marking bad tags.
  
  i don't know if this suggestion is hell to implement in the current language being used by sc, which doesn't seem to support drop-down lists or expanding/collapsing trees, but that would be a feature to really think about... :-)
  
  another suggestion: explain more elaborate in the sc help/faq section why tagging helps build connections among users interested in the same topic. one such discussion is buried in the "how do i connect..." item instead of being part of the tagging section, maybe as a "why should i tag..." item. most often bad-tagging isn't a matter of malicious intent, but more of casual off-the-cuff thinking, because users are not too interested in defining precise categories the way a content-structure analyst would want to.
  
  
  

• silverwhisper said on Mar 23, 2007....

  moon: there are, IMV, 2 problems w/ your idea. 1) the way you structure such a recommended list requires significant nesting or it would be unwieldy to navigate, and 2) no matter how well thought out, it's bound to be incomplete.
  
  ed

• moonriver said on Mar 23, 2007....

  and one more thing: once a user becomes interested in the writings of another user as a whole, often the specific set of tags is no longer that important. for example, if i become keenly interested in zayda's comments on whichever blog and topic, i would welcome a sort of marker that would list posts where zayda has new comments -- maybe in a separate tab called "my favorites", probably defined as a subset of a user's subscription list. call it "stalker's list"...lol. just an idea.
  
  
  

• moonriver said on Mar 23, 2007....

  sw -- surprisingly, i found out just now that the global list of tags is already in tree form, although nested at only two levels. whichever algorithm generated the tree, it's in the right direction. how about a third level of nesting, and trim off (not display, although still there) the bulk of tags that are used less than 5x. that would also make it easier to navigate. oh, and nothing would ever be complete...;-)
  
  

• silverwhisper said on Mar 23, 2007....

  how'd you see a global list of tags, moon?
  
  ed

• moonriver said on Mar 23, 2007....

  home page, popular tags (left column), click on "see all." i see now that it isn't really a hierarchical listing, more like associative listing.
  
  

• silverwhisper said on Mar 23, 2007....

  extraordinary--i never really look at the home page anymore. thank you, moon, i've learned something today. :>
  
  ed

• SoulCast said on Mar 23, 2007....

  @moonriver
  Great suggestions, but there are some problems. Mainly, tagging is flat, not  hierarchical. To put it simply, there is no tree structure. The popular tags page fakes it but if you look close you'll notice that there are loops. Life is a sub tag of Relationships and Relationships is a sub tag of Life.
  
  In technical terms this is a cycle so it's not a tree. However, we can fake it well enough to possibly do some of the things you suggested like the "suggested" tag list idea. We've already discussed doing something similar to this so I'm sure we'll do something along these lines in the future.
  
  Also, we don't want to limit the tags users can use because we want users to have the ability to focus their blogging/reading as broadly or narrowly as they'd like. For example, SC is written in the Ruby programming language so I may be interested only in reading posts about 'ruby' or I may be interested in reading all posts about 'programming'. Other users may have narrow interests that we, nor the SC community, ever thought of. We want to make sure they can create and build a community around such narrow topics.
  

• copsunited said on Mar 23, 2007....

  I am glad you address the issue of community.
   
  SC is definitely a community with as diverse a population as
  you could ever find.
   
  Having said that: When making changes or proposing changes please
  bear in mind that not everyone has the same knowledge of the inner
  workings of SC and the mechanics of same.
   
  It would be helpful to many if you would explain in lay terms exactly what
  it is you are proposing and HOW to implement it. Some are very confused
  as to how it will / would work or for what benefit.
   
  I have been asked many times how to send IM's while on SC. I must confess
  that it is not possible and it seems to put a pall over the exchanges. Is there
  enough urge or request or even a need for such. After all , it is a blog site
  and NOT a message site.
   
  thanks for all..
  Cops

• fran.aslam said on Mar 27, 2007....

  Well

  All this is too new for me, I have to be here for few days to know and create an opinion, will post my comments  later on. 

  Thanks.

• portdeco20 said on May 01, 2007....

  Any tips?:
   
  Im trying to get a blog up and running. Its all about my poker. Im trying to turn $40 into $1000. I need to find blogs like mine.
   
  At the moment, Its hard to find. Any sugeestions?
   
  thanks
   
   portdeco

• fran.aslam said on May 04, 2007....

   

  The idea of tagging transparent sounds great to me.  it will absolutely reduce the number of abuse, and is more real,it will improve the quality of Soul cast, as it will make everyone think before writing.

  The tags to be removed by trusted users, looks okay on the surface but if we go in deeper details , it takes away all the freedom that Souls cast has provided to all members.  So , I am not so sure about that.

  My interest is to improve Soul Cast day by day and this is my opinion.  Thanks

   

• RayPettus said on May 26, 2007....

   I am rather new to soulcast and do not really understand the tag conversation and what it involves. Perhaps someone could offer a better explanation for me.

  Thanks, rp

• ALIENated said on May 27, 2007....

  I did not read everything above, but I say keep it simple. Let anyone add tags,
  allow the post's creator to delete tags at will, and forget tagging the tags with
  IDs. I would rather it be as if the tag was never added. I have only had a couple
  of instances when I would remove tags from one of my posts that someone else
  added. Usually it is because they do not understand the subject or maybe they
  are trying to be funny. I rarely, if ever, use tags myself.
  

Comment on "Potential Features"

Currently tagged	soulcast features features tag removal tagger identification Soulcast community just do it private comments Find a better way dont out Anons soulcast why not (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment