Topics

moderated Hashtags


Tina
 

I have a qiestion regarding the hashtags please.

Is there a way to increase the number of hashtags we can apply to a post at all please?

For a recipe sharing group, 5 hastags is simply not enough by the time we hashtag for Country, Ethnic origin, and Type or Category of a recipe, this leaves us only two hashtags to assign for main ingredients to aid members in their searches.

Is there a reason why we can only assign 5 hashtags?

Delicious Low Budget Recipes Group Owner.


Duane
 

For me, I'd hate to see the limit set to 10 for all groups.  5 is 4 more than we normally use. ;>)  Would a compromise of 7 work to keep problems to a minimum?  If Mark thinks it's worthwhile, a floating number, set by the group owner, say up to 10, might be most flexible.

Duane


Bruce Bowman
 

On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 08:56 AM, Tina wrote:
For a recipe sharing group, 5 hastags is simply not enough by the time we hashtag for Country, Ethnic origin, and Type or Category of a recipe, this leaves us only two hashtags to assign for main ingredients to aid members in their searches.
This strikes me as a peculiar application of hashtags.

The online search engine searches the message body in addition to the subject line...and with that understanding, I don't see how duplicating one into the other is going to enhance search capabilities.

Regards,
Bruce


 

There have been occasions when I've wanted to use more than five hashtags. Recipes are not necessarily the only application.


On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 2:44 PM Bruce Bowman <bruce.bowman@...> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 08:56 AM, Tina wrote:
For a recipe sharing group, 5 hastags is simply not enough by the time we hashtag for Country, Ethnic origin, and Type or Category of a recipe, this leaves us only two hashtags to assign for main ingredients to aid members in their searches.
This strikes me as a peculiar application of hashtags.

The online search engine searches the message body in addition to the subject line...and with that understanding, I don't see how duplicating one into the other is going to enhance search capabilities.

Regards,
Bruce


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Tina
 

Hi Duane,

I would like to see the increase in hash tags as an option available for group owners. Not everyone is irresponsible or responsible so a cap is definately required for commonsense purposes. 10 would be a good number but if all we can get is 7 then that would also be better than what we have now. 

With recipes we don't always need, say 10 tags, but there are times when ten would be far more helpful for those that are not so computer savvy. Most of our members are elderly and some not so, with the group aimed at helping poor people. Some can barely turn a computer on and as my group is designed to help poorer people to find recipes to cook cheaper foods for them and their families, for my group, having more tags is a distint advantage.

If Mark could up the tag limitation then that would be really good. I am sure that there are other responsible group owners that woud also find this option useful. Maybe if possible Mark could set it so that only the group owner can set the limit. We don't have a problem with members assigning the tags willy nilly to posts or even at all as only the owners assign the tags. This may also help to reduce people just willy nilly tagging posts -  by making it limited only to group owners or moderators to have the ability to assign the tags. Just a thought.

Tina 

Helping Those Most in Need Within Our Communities and Beyond"

“Failure is knowing that you can make a difference in someone’s life but You CHOOSE not to!”- David L. Hill



On Tuesday, 18 December 2018, 4:08:43 am AWST, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:


For me, I'd hate to see the limit set to 10 for all groups.  5 is 4 more than we normally use. ;>)  Would a compromise of 7 work to keep problems to a minimum?  If Mark thinks it's worthwhile, a floating number, set by the group owner, say up to 10, might be most flexible.

Duane


Jim Higgins
 

Received from Bruce Bowman at 12/17/2018 10:44 PM UTC:

This strikes me as a peculiar application of hashtags.

The online search engine searches the message body in addition to the subject line...and with that understanding, I don't see how duplicating one into the other is going to enhance search capabilities.

I agree. But no objection to the proposal provided the implementation of it lets the group owner select the max number of hashtags... from zero to 10 (or whatever).

Jim H


Marv Waschke
 

Is there a reason for limiting the number of hash tags? Hashtags are different from searching the message text because the user intentionally classifies the message with a tag but a search infers the classification from the contents. Similar, but not always the same. The recipe example shows that a single post can be in a large number of orthogonal categories. Other subject matter could have more.

Limiting the number of tags seems unnecessarily arbitrary if there is no performance or underlying structural reason for limiting them.  If the only reason for limiting hashtags is that someone might unwisely use too many, wouldn't that be better dealt with by moderating and education rather than limiting the system?
Best, Marv


 

I think there’s some difficult technical issue Mark alluded to awhile back with increasing the max.


On Dec 18, 2018, at 8:17 AM, Marv Waschke <marv@...> wrote:

Is there a reason for limiting the number of hash tags? Hashtags are different from searching the message text because the user intentionally classifies the message with a tag but a search infers the classification from the contents. Similar, but not always the same. The recipe example shows that a single post can be in a large number of orthogonal categories. Other subject matter could have more.

Limiting the number of tags seems unnecessarily arbitrary if there is no performance or underlying structural reason for limiting them.  If the only reason for limiting hashtags is that someone might unwisely use too many, wouldn't that be better dealt with by moderating and education rather than limiting the system?
Best, Marv

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Dave Sergeant
 

We don't use hashtags in our groups anyway. But there is a very strong
reason for limiting the number of hashtags. They make subject lines
very long. For those of us who receive email versions of posts and who
use email clients that thread by the subject line the threading breaks
since only a limited number of characters are used for the threading
(at least in my email reader).

Personally I can see little point in more than one hashtag in a post.

Dave

On 18 Dec 2018 at 8:17, Marv Waschke wrote:

Is there a reason for limiting the number of hash tags? Hashtags are
different from searching the message text because the user intentionally
classifies the message with a tag but a search infers the classification
from the contents. Similar, but not always the same. The recipe example
shows that a single post can be in a large number of orthogonal
categories. Other subject matter could have more.

http://davesergeant.com


 

I almost never use less than two. I’m ok with five as the limit but can see legitimate uses for more, depending on the group.

On Dec 18, 2018, at 9:03 AM, Dave Sergeant <dave@davesergeant.com> wrote:

We don't use hashtags in our groups anyway. But there is a very strong
reason for limiting the number of hashtags. They make subject lines
very long. For those of us who receive email versions of posts and who
use email clients that thread by the subject line the threading breaks
since only a limited number of characters are used for the threading
(at least in my email reader).

Personally I can see little point in more than one hashtag in a post.

Dave

On 18 Dec 2018 at 8:17, Marv Waschke wrote:

Is there a reason for limiting the number of hash tags? Hashtags are
different from searching the message text because the user intentionally
classifies the message with a tag but a search infers the classification
from the contents. Similar, but not always the same. The recipe example
shows that a single post can be in a large number of orthogonal
categories. Other subject matter could have more.

http://davesergeant.com



--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Jim Higgins
 

Received from J_Catlady at 12/18/2018 04:18 PM UTC:

I think there's some difficult technical issue Mark alluded to awhile back with increasing the max.

Possibly (read that as "semi-informed guess") the same reason it would be a problem for some mail reading programs... field size for the subject in the message database may be too short to hold more than X number of bytes... with 68 - 72 bytes or so being a number carried forward from the old days when terminals were teletype machines. Ten hashtags jammed into that space would make for some really short tags... esp after considering that the bytes in "Subject: Re [GROUPNAME] " count toward any possible limit on bytes.

Jim H


Jim Higgins
 

Received from Dave Sergeant at 12/18/2018 05:03 PM UTC:

For those of us who receive email versions of posts and who use email clients that thread by the subject line the threading breaks since only a limited number of characters are used for the threading (at least in my email reader).

Same for most of them.


Personally I can see little point in more than one hashtag in a post.

If used solely for SEARCH purposes and not for the actions that certain classes of #hashtags can trigger... the result the recipe group wants can be had by putting "tags" in the first line (or anywhere) in the message. Just put some character that isn't "#" in front of each "tag" so just plain words won't be confused with tags when searching.

Jim H


Jeremy H
 

My thought (for what it's worth) is that the optimal position would be for there to be an overall limit that is as high as technically possible (based on groups.io and e-mail technologies), and a limit that can be set for each group by its owner, based on their consideration of what is desirable for their group, from zero up to the overall limit.

Jeremy