We interrupt this forum to inform you that this week's discussion has been Tagged. <b>Tag</b>, a software agent created by Keith Frank, Alex Galloway, and Jon Ippolito, is an immune system for your e-mail; it aims to take the temperature of a virtual conversation, helping you decide what to study and what to skip.
Tag attaches to incoming e-mail a header that evaluates the text according to predefined criteria such as the amount of jargon, hipness, or ponderousness inherent in the message. If the ethics of a community reflect how that community sees itself, Tag offers one mirror to help with that reflection.
More info at <A Href="http://three.org/tag/." target="_blank">http://three.org/tag/.</A>
Have fun!
The Tag Team
From Jeremy Turner:
I am glad to see that I was lower on the jargon scale and higher on the hipness scale than even in the content of the tagging note, left by you, Jon :-D
I was worried for a minute there that my name-dropping scale would go through the roof.
Will the tags be displayed in the print publication?
Now, we will all be watching what we say to one another.
Cheers,
Jer
Clippings from some of Jeremy's posts:
…
> From Jeremy Turner:
…
>discussion initiated by our moderator, Perry
>Garvin.
…
> In my documentary called AVATARA (produced
>with Donato Mancini and Flick Harrison -
…
>first of all, I would like to thank Eyebeam
>Gallery, Still Water and Rhizome for
…
>Moderator, Joline Blais.
And a Zero for name dropping. Ouch.
Strange - in my other post (my 1st reply to
opening questions), I got 60 for "hot!"
(bing)
I think this type of thing illustrates that
one person's value system can suddenly re-
frame the whole discussion!(bing) If you
were to pick any forum and post this kind of
data in response to each post, I suspect
there'd be trouble. Maybe I'll try it out.
This tagging system's empirical criteria
(bing bing) seem biased (bing). Why wasn't
there a vote (bing) on the evaluative (bing)
categories? (bing bing bing)
I also feel a strange urge to resist (bing)
the tags… to demand bad ratings, to
deliberately (bing) compose with bad ratings
as my objective (bing)… distracting me from
the issues at hand… (bing bing bing bing)
THE FOLLOWING IS SIMPLY A TAG SPAM:
obstetrician latinate
supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
antidisestablishmentarianism tag tag tag only
seven neo-classical doctorate open source
closed source open source closed source
irreparable chomsky baudelaire baudrillard
yeats joyce chomsky norman bethune iggy pop
leather tuscadero the matirx the matrix
revolutions the matirx reloaded matrix matrix
matrix matrix avatar avatar avatar
The great thing about a program like Tag is
the very arbitrariness in the labeling system.
The message characteristics that Tag measures
like "Hipness," "Jargon," "Namedrop," "Heat,"
etc. are all subjective terms determined by
the programmers. Tag appears to carry with it
an authority because of its starkly
quantitative presentation, its application of
numerals, its automation, its lack of
interactivity. But debates over who defines
'hip,
I'm with marek on this…I guess I'm a bit
confused as to how Tag functions as either an
ethical critique, or as commentary on what
were referred to earlier as "trust metrics" (I
just think of the Better Business Bureau or
Consumer Reports). Would the developers care
to elaborate?
jon ippolito wrote:
> We interrupt this forum to inform you that
this week's discussion has been Tagged.
I'm totally lost. What's the point of this?