Comments on: The Tagging Plan for AMO http://micropipes.com/blog/2009/03/06/the-tagging-plan-for-amo/ because at 3am anything sounds good Thu, 10 May 2012 20:52:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Mozilla Project Weekly Status: July 13, 2009 « The Firefox Extension Guru’s Blog http://micropipes.com/blog/2009/03/06/the-tagging-plan-for-amo/comment-page-1/#comment-40279 Mozilla Project Weekly Status: July 13, 2009 « The Firefox Extension Guru’s Blog Sun, 19 Jul 2009 17:40:39 +0000 http://micropipes.com/blog/?p=76#comment-40279 [...] Tagging [...] [...] Tagging [...]

]]> By: l.m.orchard http://micropipes.com/blog/2009/03/06/the-tagging-plan-for-amo/comment-page-1/#comment-30916 l.m.orchard Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:16:45 +0000 http://micropipes.com/blog/?p=76#comment-30916 @Dave: The limits are generous, and most people should never hit them. But, they also give room for things like Machine Tags, if such a thing ever proved useful on AMO. For example: upcoming:event=1424682 iso:isbn=0713998393 @Dave: The limits are generous, and most people should never hit them. But, they also give room for things like Machine Tags, if such a thing ever proved useful on AMO. For example:

upcoming:event=1424682
iso:isbn=0713998393

]]> By: Wil Clouser http://micropipes.com/blog/2009/03/06/the-tagging-plan-for-amo/comment-page-1/#comment-30744 Wil Clouser Sat, 07 Mar 2009 01:28:34 +0000 http://micropipes.com/blog/?p=76#comment-30744 @Dave: The numbers are arbitrary. Delicious uses 128 and 128, Flickr has a limit of 75 tags per photo. We just picked similar numbers. @Dave: The numbers are arbitrary. Delicious uses 128 and 128, Flickr has a limit of 75 tags per photo. We just picked similar numbers.

]]> By: Dave http://micropipes.com/blog/2009/03/06/the-tagging-plan-for-amo/comment-page-1/#comment-30742 Dave Sat, 07 Mar 2009 01:16:47 +0000 http://micropipes.com/blog/?p=76#comment-30742 Why such high limits on characters and tag count? The whole point of tagging is to give short concise labels to help find things. 80 tags per add-on feels excessive, and a 128 char tag feels really excessive. Tags should be words or phrases, not entire sentences. Taken to the extreme, this means I can theoretically tag my add-on with 10kB of tagging text... which is insane. With high limits you'll have more redundancy instead of forcing people to be concise so we can actually sort things here. I'd suggest something more on the line with 32 char/tag and 20-40 tags/add-on. Why such high limits on characters and tag count? The whole point of tagging is to give short concise labels to help find things. 80 tags per add-on feels excessive, and a 128 char tag feels really excessive. Tags should be words or phrases, not entire sentences. Taken to the extreme, this means I can theoretically tag my add-on with 10kB of tagging text… which is insane. With high limits you’ll have more redundancy instead of forcing people to be concise so we can actually sort things here.

I’d suggest something more on the line with 32 char/tag and 20-40 tags/add-on.

]]> By: Mozilla Add-ons Blog » Blog Archive » AMO Tagging plan update http://micropipes.com/blog/2009/03/06/the-tagging-plan-for-amo/comment-page-1/#comment-30732 Mozilla Add-ons Blog » Blog Archive » AMO Tagging plan update Fri, 06 Mar 2009 20:28:25 +0000 http://micropipes.com/blog/?p=76#comment-30732 [...] Thanks for all your feedback. I’ve posted again with an updated AMO Tagging Plan. [...] [...] Thanks for all your feedback. I’ve posted again with an updated AMO Tagging Plan. [...]

]]>