I didn't tag it at all - I don't wish to participate with tags that don't go two ways. The way tags currently exist, for the original poster to tag something he or she must consciously think to himself "who am i going to piss off by posting this? And how can I go out of my way to not offend them?" Note that it should properly be tagged #digg, not #reddit... but it could just as easily be tagged #comics or #history or #beentheredonethat. I only get one and the only reason I have to apply it is to deliberately shelter my followers from it. The system, in that regard, is broken. Note however that someone - you? - tagged it #reddit after I tagged it. As such if you'd been patient you wouldn't have had to look at it at all. The system, in that regard, is functional. Also note that now that it's been tagged #reddit, I can never un-tag it. Had someone tagged it #rddit or #reddt by mistake, we'd be stuck with it and someone else would have to notice. I think a lot of functionality was destroyed when tags went away - for example, the structure of Hubski now requires power users, who were essentially the downfall of Digg. As I'm just one step below Kevin Rose in this analogy, I hope I have some credibility when I say that in my opinion, the ability to ignore tags without the ability to follow tags is a big step backward in fluidity and diversity.
I think that the tag system is still evolving. It certainly isn't at its endpoint, and mk is always willing to implement suggested changes. And there need to be some more changes. (For example, the poster should always have full control over what their post is tagged, if they can control who is going to post on it.)Note however that someone - you? - tagged it #reddit after I tagged it.
Not I.
the poster does have the control to implement one of the tags. Kleinbl00 is a conscientious objector. The tag conversation has been around for some time.
I have now confused myself, probably. But I'll go ahead and believe you.Had someone tagged it #rddit or #reddt by mistake, we'd be stuck with it and someone else would have to notice.
the poster does have the control to implement one of the tags.
Every post can have 2 tags. One by the person making the post and one by the community. KB chose to not tag the post. He's right that if someone from the community tagged it rddit by mistake we'd be stuck with it unless someone from the community changed it. Once you get a badge, you'll see a +# symbol indicating that you can suggest a tag to a post you didn't author. If multiple members of the community suggest tags then the most popular suggestion prevails.
So, if I tagged kb's post #somethinginappropriate, he himself couldn't change/remove it? He'd have to wait for someone else to come along and suggest something better? That seems to go against the control function that mk is ultimately working toward wherein posters can control what happens in the discussion on their post.
if it was #somethinginappropriate, it would more than likely get changed relatively quickly. But, you do raise a valid point. I think it's worth making sure that someone you ignore cannot community-tag your posts. mk.