Recently the term 'folksonomy' has been coined to refer to the use of unstructured keywords to classify and group resources collaboratively ('resources' as in photos on Flickr and links to web sites on del.icio.us). Supposedly the experts on metadata are chagrined to discover that structured keywords, hierarchical taxonomies, and faceted metadata have been outdone by such a simple system. But this approach isn't actually all that new.
The problems with metadata
But first a little background, based on my own bitter experience! In 1997 I comprised the entire technical staff on a multinational European project to create an on-line repository of information on HIV and Aids called SEAHORSE, after a year-long feasibility study in 1995 where I was the one arguing that we exploit this new-fangled WWW concept to distribute information, rather than creating our own ISDN-based network!
Mostly SEAHORSE was about linking to the growing corpus of material already existing, since there was no budget for creating original material. It seemed to me that a good approach would be to tag the web sites and documents we linked to with one or more categories, and have the user choose a cluster categories to search for documents. For example, suppose a certain drug régime gives you brittle toe nails, and eating more grapes will ameliorate this symptom: a page describing this would be annotated with the names of the drug, 'toe nails', and 'grapes'. The challenges with this are fairly obvious:
- authority (people can disagree on how pertinent a page is);
- homonyms (same word, but different meanings);
- synonyms (different words with the same meaning);
- hypernyms (this word is a more general concept than that one);
- localization (the web site had to be multilingual); and
- navigation (how to choose your cluster of categories).
The issue of authority was especially interesting because during the 1980s and early 1990s, the subject of HIV and Aids was one where people with Aids often knew more about it than many medical professionals, and there were many people who were publishing information that did not go through an academic peer-review. Even within our consortium we had the Immune Development Trust emphasizing complementary medicine (and now renamed the Complementary Health Trust), and London Lighthouse (now assimilated into the Terrence Higgins Trust) working with conventional medicine. My solution was to partition the annotations in to annotation-sets (later renamed repositories because annotation set was considered too technical a term) and to allow users to select which annotation sets to actually use information from (a profile of the system).
The problem with homonyms I can easiest illustrate with a hypothetical couple of Flickr posts: one from a fishing trip and one of a jazz quartet, both tagged with bass. When I'm searching for bass, the fish, how do I avoid hits for bass, the instrument? (For that matter, how do I google for information on the Latin language or latin alphabets without instead discovering web sites devoted to pictures of incompletely clothed Americans of Spanish descent?) The solution is to organize the concepts in to some sort of hierarchy, so that you can have objects/musical instruments/stringed/bass distinguished from nature/animals/fish/bass, say. In directories like the original Yahoo and the present DMOZ, you locate categories by navigating from general categories to more specific ones, and I took that as my model for my SEAHORSE prototype.
Synonyms are tricky because different people will choose different words to represent the same subject, often hypernyms (more generic terms) or hyponyms (more specific words). For example, using our hypothetical bass photos again, if I searched for tags like micropterus, fish, double bass, or strings, it would not match bass. This is where a prearranged collection of categories is useful: by either requiring people to choose from a list, we avoid confusion caused by synonyms; hypernyms and hyponyms by treating a page tagged with nature/animals/fish/bass as implictly being tagged with nature/animals/fish, nature/animals, and nature. This ends up with what amounts to a controlled vocabulary or taxonomy, where a bunch of wise people come up with a standardized list of categories in advance to be used by everyone else. There might or might not be arrangements for extending the taxonomy as new concepts are required.
In a way localization is similar to the synonym problem: this project was pan-European, and we were working on the assumption that it would sometimes be useful for a non-English-speaker to be directed to English-language resoures (they might be able to get someone to translate them once they've found them). The approach taken was to use numbers to represent categories internally, so that number 356 might be named fish in English and poisson in French. Unlike DMOZ, I did not split the hierarchy in to segments based on language: all languages shared a common taxonomy, translated in to that language. We did not have any budget ear-marked for translation, so I designed the system so that volunteers could supply translations gradually and piecemeal. If a new category was added in English, and you visited Greek version of the site, you would see the English word until the Greek translation was added.
For navigation I followed the lead of Yahoo and other directory web sites (most people have forgotten it now, but Yahoo started life as the first attempt at a directory for the whole WWW). This meant that most pages had a list of cataegories, and clicking on them lead to a page containing their subcategories, and so on, until you found the page with the precise category you were after, and the list of links and articles related to that category.
The problems with the solutions
There were all sorts of problems with the GUI for a variety of reasons. Partly this was lack of development time: I was the sole developer on the whole project, which is rather remarkable considering there were about twenty people working on the project. I was expecting there to be another person working on the UI proper, with me supplying the back-end code that handled the links and categories and so on. I structured my code accordingly: I had a test framework to allow me to exercise the innards of the program and index the fifty sites that I had been given (on paper) to prime the pump. As it turned out, the consortium partner with responsibility for the UI had never used a computer (she had a friend to 'do the photoshopping' bit), so that responsibility devolved to me. We ended up adapting my Yahoo-style test rig as the public face of SEAHORSE.
The upshot of this was that we designed the application backwards: first the underlying model, then a user interface, then inventing use cases to fit the UI.
There were two big problems with this. First, we had no way for the reader to choose to search using more than one category, since the only way to choose one was to visit its page. Second, creating new categories, and tagging links with categories, was a clumbersome process. It made sense for my test rig to have a Create Category page separate from the Add Link page, because I wanted to be able to create all these various objects independently of each other during testing; quite another thing to expect volunteers to click through several pages in order to register one lousy link.
As a result of this, no-oner quite grasped the idea of a page being tagged with many categories. It also meant they never saw any need to create the fine-grained categorization scheme I had envisiaged. I did not matter that I had documented all this; users don't read documentation.
It got worse. We added a hierarchical list of categories with progressive display (Microsofties call this a TreeView), which was nice (once I had worked out how to make it display fast). But this just encouraged people to think of categories as being like folders. My boss started talking about our clever use of the 'Windows Explorer metaphor'. We redesigned their icons to look like folders. It didn't really matter what I said: they became folders to everyone else.
No-one else on the project seemed to grasp my attempts at empowering the user to choose whose reputations to trust (the annotation-sets and profiles and suchlike). It just meant extra user-interface clutter that they did not care about and just got in their way. Soon they were asking me to create folders for 'their' metadata to go in, which was pretty much the end of any attempt to make categories be used for organizing pages by topic.
What about people who want to contribute to the database? Our users were 'empowered' to suggest additions to the linkbase that would not be published on the site until checked by an agent of one of the consortium partners. This was to 'preserve quality'. What it meant, of course, was that we gave no reward to casual readers volunteering information, so they would wander off to a web site that did.
There is also a big problem with deeply hierarchical taxonomies: people don't like them, and they won't use them. Consider Roget's Thesaurus, which originally was all about subdivision of concepts in to collections of terms for describing that concept: it was never successful until an alphabetical index was added, so that people could look up excellence without the trouble of trying to work out where it belonged in Roget's system. Similarly, have a look at the front page of DMOZ: can you guess which of these very abstract top-level categories will be concealing an entry for bass? I had to use the search box to find it. Yahoo started as a directory, but has long since sidelined that in favour of free-text search and other features.
The SEAHORSE hierarchy is particularly bad because it was created before tagging any documents, not after. As a result, its top few levels are cluttered with concepts that no-one is particularly interested in, and you have to dig deep to find anything of interest. This is a common problem with taxonomies that are designed before a large body of work has been analysed to see what topics actually are needed, and actually are useful enough to be worth emphasizing.
Another thing that undermined SEAHORSE was the time it took to come
on-line. By 1999 there were many web sites with HIV and Aids
information; you could take your choice of providers of information.
Other things that were good for people but bad for SEAHORSE were
statutory organizations' catching up with HIV research, which made
grass-roots medical publications largely obsolete, and combination
therapies: people with HIV were suddenly finding themselves
in the position of being able to resume the lives they had had to
abandon when they became sick. As a result there were simply fewer
people available with any time for and interest in contributing
to a community-based HIV/Aids information resource.
When I came to be throwing together the software that generates this web
site, I wanted to be able to categorize my articles. I decided to
eschew all the clever formalisms and try to invent the simplest thing
that could possibly work. Articles for this site are plain text files,
starting with an RFC-2822-style header (but I do not support all the hairiness of RFC
2822), followed by the text of the article in Markdown format
(older articles are in XML).
One of the headers is
Topic, and it contains keywords separated by
spaces. There is a file,
subjects.data, that lists these keywords on
separate lines with a properly spelled version of the name:
... pbmplus: PBMPlus markdown: Markdown pymarkdown: pyMarkdown zeo: <abbr title="Z Enterprise Objects">ZEO</abbr> zodb: <abbr title="Z Object Database">ZODB</abbr> ...
The page subjects.html is made by scanning the articles for keywords and making the links automatically. The idea here was to make it as easy as possible to add categories, but still to allow for their names to use the features of HTML. The topics are arranged in the file in a fashion I vaguely intended one day to use to group the topics into a hierarchy. But (unlike SEAHORSE) I intentionally concentrated on making adding the topics easy, while leaving scope for more complicated stuff later.
This is reminiscent of the 'worse is better' debates that used to rage between Lisp and C enthusiasts. Lispy culture emphasized the 'better is better' approach, where you would decide ahead of time exactly how something would work, and implement that correctly and without compromise. C hackers were content to come up with something that was easy to implement and work around the imperfections. The WWW is often cited as another example: HTML solved the problem of broken links that had been concerning hypertext experts for decades by simply ignoring it.
Flickr and del.icio.us wisely give usability precedence over all other concerns, and use essentially the same system. Entering a set of as many categories as you like is a simple matter of banging in the names with your keyboard. Unlike my site (which is static HTML), they both allow you to search using multiple tags in combination.
The problems of synonyms, homographs, and localization have been dealt
with by ignoring them: the problems are not bad
enough to be worth the cost of solving them. If the alternative is the
complexity that stifled SEAHORSE, then they are right to do so.
Some people are aware of the hypernym problem, and can address it themselves by using multiple tags. For example, I tagged my photos of the Westminster clock tower with london in addition to westminster. This gives much of the benefit of a hierarchical geographical taxonomy, without the inconvenience of the hierarchical taxonomy itself.
If synonyms are a big enough problem in the longer term, we can think about clustering tags together using loose look-up tables. Flickr already do this to an extent: if you visit the page for a tag, as well as listing photos with that tag, it also lists tags that are often found associated with the same photos. Other forms of analysis might be able to derive structured keywords from the unstructured tags: and this will work better because tags are so easy to add, which means there will be enough of them to do decent statistical analysis on.
This will not be completely straightforward. Different people make up words according to their own ideas, and the result is that sometimes tags are not used the way you might expect. But if people find that clustering of tags makes Flickr more fun for them, then they will take more care over choosing their own tags to increase the number of matches. Flickr allows you to change the spelling of existing tags to correct typos.
You could also (if you really cared) piggy-back a structured vocabulary on top of Flickr's tags. ISO Topic Maps allow for a topic to be identified by any number of subject indicators (that is, URLs used to identify a subject). I could publish a topic map in which I describe the topic identified by my tag http://del.icio.us/pdc/programming and how it relates to other topics, including ones identified by other users' tags, thus merging our taxonomies in arbitratrily subtle and nuanced ways.
Just remember what the corpses of countless overdesigned metadata projects tell us: subtlty is not everything.