Chaos and order: peaceful coexistence
Human thinking and communication have a component of chance. Such is their nature, this is not a disadvantage, because it allows you to unexpectedly come up with new, interesting things. Therefore, moderation in collective sites is always an art, the ability to withstand the distinction between thematic purity and the natural motivation of people to create oftopes. But imagine two things.
First, the ability to type texts within the discussion, i.e. position them in a certain way. For example: argument, thesis, consideration, opinion, summary. This is not exactly the same as assigning tags to tags, because tags link text (as well as photo, video, audio — in other words, content objects) with a specific topic rather than with a specific positioning.
Secondly, the ability to assign tags to all content objects. Typically, tags are assigned only to some objects, for example, a post on a blog or a topic on a social resource such as Habrahabr. But I did not meet, that labels were appropriated to comments. What is clear by the way - as long as there is a distinction between the author and commentators, the space is not quite collective. Much more collectivity in the forums, but text tagging is not used at all there. It is replaced by a rubrication of forum topics. Which, by the way, is very limited - I have not seen forums with unlimited nesting of sections and branches. Usually something around three attachments, and the branches inside the section are “tagged” with the help of names. Although the names may be even those, their tagging function is quite conditional.
')
By doing these two things, we essentially get a rich set of criteria for filtering / aggregating the desired content. For example, we can quickly isolate from the general mass of discussions, including flooding and oftop, all the arguments, theses, or opinions on any topic. True, the selected elements will not be related to each other in the same way as texts in discussions are usually associated when a post or comment is associated with another specific comment. In other words, communication naturally generates a structure of interconnections between content elements.
Well, this can be solved if we also implement the ability to link content elements, regardless of existing relationships. In this way, we will be able to create “parallel” structures corresponding to some of our goals, purity of the topic, etc. Content is one, common, and the structures of its elements are different. Between them, you can switch, see one and not see the other. What will be the peaceful coexistence of chaos and order. More precisely, different orders.
It would seem that I have indicated not two things, but three - typing, tagging, and establishing relationships. But by assigning a tag to a content object, we essentially declare its connection to a topic. If topics are considered as objects of a special type and included in general structures with content objects, then the need for separate tagging is no longer necessary and there remains only the need to declare links. So the bottom line is still two things - the declaration of object types and the declaration of the connections between them.
First, the ability to type texts within the discussion, i.e. position them in a certain way. For example: argument, thesis, consideration, opinion, summary. This is not exactly the same as assigning tags to tags, because tags link text (as well as photo, video, audio — in other words, content objects) with a specific topic rather than with a specific positioning.
Secondly, the ability to assign tags to all content objects. Typically, tags are assigned only to some objects, for example, a post on a blog or a topic on a social resource such as Habrahabr. But I did not meet, that labels were appropriated to comments. What is clear by the way - as long as there is a distinction between the author and commentators, the space is not quite collective. Much more collectivity in the forums, but text tagging is not used at all there. It is replaced by a rubrication of forum topics. Which, by the way, is very limited - I have not seen forums with unlimited nesting of sections and branches. Usually something around three attachments, and the branches inside the section are “tagged” with the help of names. Although the names may be even those, their tagging function is quite conditional.
')
By doing these two things, we essentially get a rich set of criteria for filtering / aggregating the desired content. For example, we can quickly isolate from the general mass of discussions, including flooding and oftop, all the arguments, theses, or opinions on any topic. True, the selected elements will not be related to each other in the same way as texts in discussions are usually associated when a post or comment is associated with another specific comment. In other words, communication naturally generates a structure of interconnections between content elements.
Well, this can be solved if we also implement the ability to link content elements, regardless of existing relationships. In this way, we will be able to create “parallel” structures corresponding to some of our goals, purity of the topic, etc. Content is one, common, and the structures of its elements are different. Between them, you can switch, see one and not see the other. What will be the peaceful coexistence of chaos and order. More precisely, different orders.
It would seem that I have indicated not two things, but three - typing, tagging, and establishing relationships. But by assigning a tag to a content object, we essentially declare its connection to a topic. If topics are considered as objects of a special type and included in general structures with content objects, then the need for separate tagging is no longer necessary and there remains only the need to declare links. So the bottom line is still two things - the declaration of object types and the declaration of the connections between them.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/101410/
All Articles