Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [videoblogging] Tagging in ANT

Expand Messages
  • Michael Sullivan
    I dont understand your thoughts on technorati at all. please ellaborate, if possible. ... -- ~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~ i n t e r d i g i t a t e . c o m
    Message 1 of 20 , Apr 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      I dont understand your thoughts on technorati at all. please
      ellaborate, if possible.



      On Apr 1, 2005 2:59 AM, Adam Quirk <bullemhead@...> wrote:
      >
      > > > Doesn't Technorati do the tagging for you with certain blog engines?
      > > > I think I read that Technorati pulls tag data from whatever category
      > > > organized you post into.
      > >
      > > Yeah, they look at your RSS feed as well, and it's a stupid practice.
      > >
      > Expound on this. I need a learnin' to.
      >
      > I know just from a gut feeling that I really shouldn't be tagging any
      > of my stuff with "technorati" in it. When I'm 40, Technorati will not
      > be in human vocabulary.
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >


      --
      ~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~
      i n t e r d i g i t a t e . c o m
      =====================
    • fALk
      Just looked into technocrati tagging. I don´t find it overly bad. I mean you put a couple of in the rss feeds that contain the tagging info and
      Message 2 of 20 , Apr 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Just looked into technocrati tagging. I don´t find it overly bad. I
        mean you put a couple of <subjects> in the rss feeds that contain the
        tagging info and there you go. The plugin for movable type is like 10
        lines long and very easy to use and install. I do not have the time nor
        would I take the time to tag anything after it is published and I would
        never tag more then once. So to make ant have tagging and mfeedia too
        support something that is already out there before developing your own.
        Just display the tags that are in the rss feed. if there are no
        specific tags use the catagory I think its a good way to do it. But
        PLEASE don´t make it all more complicated by adding more "standards"
        that are none and diverting the already problematic tag/rss stuff.

        just my 2cent...

        fALk


        On 01.04.2005, at 10:32 Uhr, Michael Sullivan wrote:

        >
        > I dont understand your thoughts on technorati at all. please
        > ellaborate, if possible.
        >
        >
        >
        > On Apr 1, 2005 2:59 AM, Adam Quirk <bullemhead@...> wrote:
        >>
        >>>> Doesn't Technorati do the tagging for you with certain blog
        >>>> engines?
        >>>> I think I read that Technorati pulls tag data from whatever
        >>>> category
        >>>> organized you post into.
        >>>
        >>> Yeah, they look at your RSS feed as well, and it's a stupid
        >>> practice.
        >>>
        >> Expound on this. I need a learnin' to.
        >>
        >> I know just from a gut feeling that I really shouldn't be tagging any
        >> of my stuff with "technorati" in it. When I'm 40, Technorati will
        >> not
        >> be in human vocabulary.
        >>
        >>
        >> Yahoo! Groups Links
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >
        >
        > --
        > ~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~
        > i n t e r d i g i t a t e . c o m
        > =====================
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >

        ----------------------------------
        life through an artificial eye
        the world in vj vision
        ----------------------------------
        http://vjblog.prototypen.com

        ANTfeed:
        http://vjblog.prototypen.com/feed
        ---------------------------------
      • Andreas Haugstrup
        On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 02:49:06 +0100, Julian Doncaster (Yahoo1) ... No, for any kind of web content. ... I didn t say that. But when you have content meant for
        Message 3 of 20 , Apr 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 02:49:06 +0100, Julian Doncaster (Yahoo1)
          <julianduk@...> wrote:

          >> That's the problem. Blogs (and other web-content providers) should never
          >> publish information only in their feeds.
          >
          > Can you provide a rationale for that to be applied universally, and do
          > you just mean text feeds?

          No, for any kind of web content.

          > Is there an implication that there
          > should be a parallel blog for *all* RSS feeds>

          I didn't say that. But when you have content meant for the web (eg. not
          syndication of tv shows via RSS or something) your feed should correspond
          with your web content.

          It's very simple really. Your RSS feed will only be available for a week
          or so until the item gets pushed off. So if the information isn't
          available on a webpage it's gone. It's not cool when your tags expire
          after a week, and even less cool when your enclosures expire after a week.

          When you are blogging you need to think about your webpage first, and your
          feed second, because the webpage is the permanent location. It's that
          document people can link to, it's that page they'll be coming back to.

          - Andreas
          --
          <URL:http://www.solitude.dk/>
          Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
        • Andreas Haugstrup
          ... No, anyone can read and understand Technorati tags. That s why you should be using them. Even if Technorati goes away a new service could pick up without
          Message 4 of 20 , Apr 1, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 02:59:03 -0500, Adam Quirk <bullemhead@...> wrote:

            >> Yeah, they look at your RSS feed as well, and it's a stupid practice.
            >>
            > Expound on this. I need a learnin' to.
            >
            > I know just from a gut feeling that I really shouldn't be tagging any
            > of my stuff with "technorati" in it. When I'm 40, Technorati will not
            > be in human vocabulary.

            No, anyone can read and understand Technorati tags. That's why you should
            be using them. Even if Technorati goes away a new service could pick up
            without any old tags having been lost.

            --
            <URL:http://www.solitude.dk/>
            Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
          • Andreas Haugstrup
            On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 11:59:01 -0500, Michael Sullivan ... No, that s overkill. Save the damn info in the damn HTML page. There s no need
            Message 5 of 20 , Apr 1, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 11:59:01 -0500, Michael Sullivan <sulleleven@...>
              wrote:

              > More use of locally stored xml files that get generated by the blog
              > engine...such as for monthly archives or other defined parameters,
              > should be used so that this problem (expiring posts/feed items) is
              > avoided. Whatever happens to your webpage and your dynamic blog
              > content wont effect the loss or inability to retrieve data if you
              > provide linking to these local xml files.

              No, that's overkill. Save the damn info in the damn HTML page. There's no
              need to complicate matters with having two files. The permalink is so
              wonderful because it's the place to link to. If you suddenly have two
              places to link to for the same content the power of the permalink goes
              away.

              - Andreas
              --
              <URL:http://www.solitude.dk/>
              Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
            • Andreas Haugstrup
              On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 12:20:47 -0500, Michael Sullivan ... Oh, like that. That s how my blog is archived. 12 xml files a year with my
              Message 6 of 20 , Apr 1, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 12:20:47 -0500, Michael Sullivan <sulleleven@...>
                wrote:

                > true. i thought you were referring to cases when the content is for
                > some reason no longer available, no post, no perma, no feed. Then
                > having these backup xml files, even with xslt to present them in
                > style.... is a nice option to have...especially if your blog/site is
                > second priority to the actual distribution of your content for
                > aggregators to retrieve.

                Oh, like that. That's how my blog is archived. 12 xml files a year with my
                posts. Actually the xml files are xhtml files. :o)

                Anyway, don't make those public in addition to your public archives. One
                permalink. :o)

                > Some people use rss feed generators to create content and do not use a
                > blog.
                > They are just concerned with getting content into feed readers.
                > In these cases, they are creating xml files, not blog posts.

                Yeah, I wasn't talking about those people. They're not a part of the web,
                and since I deal with blogs (especially on this list) they're not
                interesting to me. In those cases you're just using HTTP+RSS as a delivery
                mechanism - there's no actual web stuff going on.

                - Andreas
                --
                <URL:http://www.solitude.dk/>
                Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
              • Michael Sullivan
                More use of locally stored xml files that get generated by the blog engine...such as for monthly archives or other defined parameters, should be used so that
                Message 7 of 20 , Apr 1, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  More use of locally stored xml files that get generated by the blog
                  engine...such as for monthly archives or other defined parameters,
                  should be used so that this problem (expiring posts/feed items) is
                  avoided. Whatever happens to your webpage and your dynamic blog
                  content wont effect the loss or inability to retrieve data if you
                  provide linking to these local xml files.

                  sull


                  On Apr 1, 2005 9:01 AM, Andreas Haugstrup <videoblog@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 02:49:06 +0100, Julian Doncaster (Yahoo1)
                  > <julianduk@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > >> That's the problem. Blogs (and other web-content providers) should never
                  > >> publish information only in their feeds.
                  > >
                  > > Can you provide a rationale for that to be applied universally, and do
                  > > you just mean text feeds?
                  >
                  > No, for any kind of web content.
                  >
                  > > Is there an implication that there
                  > > should be a parallel blog for *all* RSS feeds>
                  >
                  > I didn't say that. But when you have content meant for the web (eg. not
                  > syndication of tv shows via RSS or something) your feed should correspond
                  > with your web content.
                  >
                  > It's very simple really. Your RSS feed will only be available for a week
                  > or so until the item gets pushed off. So if the information isn't
                  > available on a webpage it's gone. It's not cool when your tags expire
                  > after a week, and even less cool when your enclosures expire after a week.
                  >
                  > When you are blogging you need to think about your webpage first, and your
                  > feed second, because the webpage is the permanent location. It's that
                  > document people can link to, it's that page they'll be coming back to.
                  >
                  > - Andreas
                  > --
                  > <URL:http://www.solitude.dk/>
                  > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >


                  --
                  ~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~
                  i n t e r d i g i t a t e . c o m
                  =====================
                • Michael Sullivan
                  true. i thought you were referring to cases when the content is for some reason no longer available, no post, no perma, no feed. Then having these backup xml
                  Message 8 of 20 , Apr 1, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    true. i thought you were referring to cases when the content is for
                    some reason no longer available, no post, no perma, no feed. Then
                    having these backup xml files, even with xslt to present them in
                    style.... is a nice option to have...especially if your blog/site is
                    second priority to the actual distribution of your content for
                    aggregators to retrieve.

                    I dont think having 12 xml files a year stored lcoally (if generated
                    monthly) is overkill. You could even host them elswhere outside of
                    your blog environment if needed.

                    Some people use rss feed generators to create content and do not use a blog.
                    They are just concerned with getting content into feed readers.
                    In these cases, they are creating xml files, not blog posts.

                    Not really disagreeing with you... just added babble =)

                    sull

                    On Apr 1, 2005 11:02 AM, Andreas Haugstrup <videoblog@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 11:59:01 -0500, Michael Sullivan <sulleleven@...>
                    > wrote:
                    >
                    > > More use of locally stored xml files that get generated by the blog
                    > > engine...such as for monthly archives or other defined parameters,
                    > > should be used so that this problem (expiring posts/feed items) is
                    > > avoided. Whatever happens to your webpage and your dynamic blog
                    > > content wont effect the loss or inability to retrieve data if you
                    > > provide linking to these local xml files.
                    >
                    > No, that's overkill. Save the damn info in the damn HTML page. There's no
                    > need to complicate matters with having two files. The permalink is so
                    > wonderful because it's the place to link to. If you suddenly have two
                    > places to link to for the same content the power of the permalink goes
                    > away.
                    >
                    > - Andreas
                    > --
                    > <URL:http://www.solitude.dk/>
                    > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >


                    --
                    ~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~
                    i n t e r d i g i t a t e . c o m
                    =====================
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.