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

Re: [videoblogging] Tagging in ANT

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 20 , Apr 1 1:47 AM
    View Source
    • 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 2 of 20 , Apr 1 6:01 AM
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 20 , Apr 1 6:02 AM
        View Source
        • 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 4 of 20 , Apr 1 8:02 AM
          View Source
          • 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 5 of 20 , Apr 1 8:38 AM
            View Source
            • 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 6 of 20 , Apr 1 8:59 AM
              View Source
              • 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 7 of 20 , Apr 1 9:20 AM
                View Source
                • 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.