TOPIC/tag discrepancies and misclassification solution!!

  • Idea
  • Updated 3 years ago
  • Under Consideration
Archived

This conversation was archived and is no longer visible to community members.

I think we need our topics updated.
Separate "SEWING" and "QUILTING". those who are avid quilters mostly only quilt, and most people who sew generally don't quilt - like me.

Another, even worse, is the topic "COMICS". There is a huuuuge problem with this tag. SOLUTION: separate "WEB COMICS" and "COMIC BOOKS". That would DEFINITELY save me some headaches.

I'd also say split the "softcore porn" (topless chicks) from the topic "NUDE ART"....
Separate "LINUX/UNIX" and maybe add different Linux distros or at least just "Ubuntu" - Ubuntu users don't want to see Mint themed stuff, etc etc etc. They're entirely different systems.
Stumbling the topic "VIDEO GAMES" will heed you both online flash games and console games. That shouldn't happen.
"ATHEIST/AGNOSTIC" aren't the same thing, either.
"VEGETARIAN" has got a problem as well - VEGANS need their own separate category.
And there is a "YOGA" topic - why not PILATES?
I feel that "MARIJUANA" should be separate from "DRUGS", perhaps even "DRUG LEGALIZATION" added- to differentiate the "hey bro letz get high" crowd/pages from the serious (medical-) marijuana users.
I notice when searching "ARCHITECTURE" I get a tooooon of "HOME DESIGN" stuff. Not the same!

I understand half of this is solved by using tags and the SEARCH function - but most cannot be. And I know new topics would be hard to impliment - especially due to the fact that billions of pages are already stumbled sans suggested topics.... but I want it fixed!

Thanks to the hard-working Stumble crew!! I'd bake you guys some cookies if I could.
Photo of Miranda

Miranda

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
  • HOPEFUL!

Posted 6 years ago

  • 61
Photo of Innomen

Innomen

  • 3 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Nope, its all a matter of opinion. imo nude art is porn. Nude art is never a 300 pound naked cab driver named steve, its always some little college girl crawling around in the sand or whatever, thats makes it porn.

I'm sure many agree and disagree.

The fewer core topics the better, thats why we have sub topics.

What stumbleupon needs is real competition, and a reigning in of censorship, not better tags.
Photo of Matthew Crowson

Matthew Crowson

  • 0 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Yes, IMHO...it isn't...the difference for me between nude art and porn is that nude art is photographed in an artistic way which presents the model in a way that she(if a she, the nude art cat. also contains nude males) does not look degraded.....porn is degrading showing close ups of genitalia, sex acts, and just not nice ways to treat women....

thats my opininion.....
Rev. Matthew
Photo of Miranda

Miranda

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I do think there should be some kind of line between "hey look at this blonde college girl with big boobs" and artistic more "tasteful" photography and art. I mean, when I think "nude art", I don't think Girls Gone Wild. I think there should be a line between this. I'm not saying get rid of the naked chicks, I'm just saying we should be able to CHOOSE if we want "everything to do with nakedness" or just either/or the two.
In the end yeah, it's a matter of opinion.
Anyway, I don't want to get off into debates on porn and junk, that's not what this Idea is about!

I definitely agree with Harry Goz's idea down there. That'd solve things.
Cheers!
Photo of ghidora

ghidora

  • 55 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
Art that has nudes in it is not the same as so-called "artful" nude photography, and those sepia-toned nude photographs are not the same as porn. They all should be separate categories.

People who want to see any one of the three should not be forced to see the others. Yeah. Choice, man.
Photo of geeknik

geeknik, Champion

  • 434 Posts
  • 48 Reply Likes
I'm sorry, but nudity does not equal porn.
Photo of

  • 32 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
It is quite annoying to stumble through "pornography" tags and find images that should be tagged as nude art, lingerie and/or babes.
Photo of Will

Will

  • 30 Posts
  • 11 Reply Likes
I'm fine with this however the problem for is a lot of these topics I'm subscribed the comics, atheism, etc and I'm at 127 already. If you split them, I may miss content I want..
Photo of Matthew Crowson

Matthew Crowson

  • 0 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Agreed they need to also expand the number of category subscriptions as well...then the spliting thing will work out great...IMHO
Photo of Miranda

Miranda

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I agree. I'm at 127 as well and itching for MORE. I wish we had a higher limit (I also wonder, why 127? That's such an odd number). But, Harry Goz's idea down there - would solve this as well. Broad topics with the CHOICE to choose smaller topics. For instance, the ability to choose COMICS as a whole, but the ability to choose the sub-topics "comic books" and "web-comics" if we only want one of em.
Photo of socialsavant

socialsavant

  • 1 Post
  • 1 Reply Like
To Miranda: 127 is a magic computer number (base 2/binary). Often you will see that number (and other base2-1) when any programming is involved. It is 127 because 2^7-1=127...why the minus 1: comp's start counting from zero, unlike us. Just an FYI.
Photo of Kevin

Kevin

  • 5 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
Please take a look at this :D
http://getsatisfaction.com/stumbleupo...
Photo of fin

fin

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I completely agree with miranda, and this is the criteria I use when tagging sites. I had to remove video games from my interests year ago, because I was sick of stumbling upon flash game sites.
Photo of Douglas

Douglas

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
Miranda's idea is a good one, and it won't disrupt the already decent flow of Stumble Upon
Photo of Harry Goz

Harry Goz

  • 2 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
I completely second Miranda's opinion on the further specification of topics, but I don't think the solution has to be one that gives rise to Will's problem. The system of "Core topics" topics with "Sub-topics" is okay, but one more layer of specificity can ONLY help. What is needed: The ability to select specific sub-divisions of sub-topics within larger (already existing) core-topics AS WELL as the ability to just select the whole sub-topic and all the sub-divisions inside it, so you don't miss anything.


If Will wants to read everything having to do with comics, that's fine, he only has to select that sub-topic "comics" under the core topic "media" (the way it is now). But if Miranda hates comic books but loves web comics, it shouldn't be a problem to select a more specific sub-division of "web-comics" within the larger "comics" so that she gets to see xkcd but not x-men.

Overall I'm glad you brought this up because I was thinking about it before, and it can only improve SU.
Photo of Miranda

Miranda

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
This is the PERFECT solution to the problem.
Photo of Michael

Michael

  • 1 Post
  • 3 Reply Likes
i 100% agree.
im so tired of having every 3ed stumble be a web comic, simply because i added comics, and thumbed up a few comic book sites.

if adding more 'topics' isn't the solution, maybe being able to set tag groups in your preferences would work... like if i choose comics, and then can choose sub topics i want to see and don't want to see (comic books, web comics, etc... (same for other things like miranda mentioned))

something like this would make my stumbling experience a whole lot better.
-
Photo of Miranda

Miranda

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Exactly. When I'm stumbling just the "comics" category, I mean for it to be about COMIC BOOKS. But 90% of the pages are web comics.
Photo of Innomen

Innomen

  • 3 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Harry Goz has it. we just need more topics clickable in the discovery list.
Photo of fin

fin

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I was talking with commerican about this, and he suggested that once a user defined tag has been used by some large number of users, such tags would automatically become stumbleupon topics/subtopics.
Photo of Intrepiddreamer

Intrepiddreamer

  • 18 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Miranda points out the general flaw in the entire categorization system. The problem is who gets to decide what categories exist in the first place.

What we are experiencing is a "Male North American Internet User Under 30yo Who Understands PHP/MySQL" perspective of the world since that is representative of SUs owners and developers.

This is why a topic like "AI" is prominent in a "Technology" list but no topic "Rhetoric" exists under the non-existent category "Language" while "Literature" and "Poetry" relegated to topics under the "Media" category.

If this is to be done right, we should consider that the most typical user on SU is probably:

1. Female
2. Over 35
3. Interested in Images of various sorts ranging from lolcats to pron
4. Literate (meaning they open books)
5. Okay, I grant you "North American" but certainly aware of other cultural perspectives.

That is, of course, a guess on my part.

But it is certain that the category system we encounter at present would is somewhat fabulous and out of synch with the majority of users.
Photo of socialsavant

socialsavant

  • 1 Post
  • 1 Reply Like
I agree wholeheartedly with IntrepidDreamer .

Also, to try and categorize EVERYTHING is futile. I personally remove all genre tags from mp3's, because I find them too limiting in my search for good music to play. I apply the same philosophy here. As far I understand; SU is a gateway for exploration of the net. If I want to see a bunch of (for argument's sake) Comic BOOK sites; I will Google/Bing/Whatever for them and will also likely have some decent knowledge of what Comic Book Portals/Fora (and yes it is Fora not Forums...) are out there from which to get recommendations/links. SU on the other hand is an analog (in my view) of last.fm or Pandora, only for webbrowsing instead of for music listening. Therefore: when I Stumble for Comic Book Sites, I may get sites not COMPLETELY related to Comic Books and yet may (or may not) find that I enjoy them anyway. Very much in the same fashion that Pandora/last.fm will at times play something you don't like, but often will play things you do like AND would never have known. I also think that it is more than a coincidence that all three services have a Thumbs Up/Down function...

So to say that the highly biased categorization (as IntrepidDreamer describes) is flawed seems to me to be an obvious fact and one that will never be thoroughly and happily resolved in all eyes. Just look at the number and variety of genre tags available in any mp3 ID tagging program. The idea of tagging genres has been around since the inception of mp3tags (longer than I would like to admit, so as not to date myself) and has provided no better solution than to (sub)categorize to such an infinite degree that it is truly possible to have only one song in an entire library qualify for a particular genre . If you want to stick to just one SPECIFIC idea/category/genre then do as others have for time infinitum: find others with similar taste and chat 'em up. I don't care what medium you are using, this WILL provide the most satisfying results. In the meantime, be adventurous!

But then again... what do I know,
--socialSavant
Photo of Serinadruid

Serinadruid

  • 180 Posts
  • 104 Reply Likes
Well since I am 4/5 of your list I guess that means I have to agree with you.. also because several of my friends are most likely 5/5.

I think this might be irreverent though... since sites are TAGGED and then put in cats and they are making it harder to use tags..less things might get tagged..less things put in their proper cat etc... =/
Photo of vikingted

vikingted

  • 1 Post
  • 1 Reply Like
atheist/agnostic is the same thing, it all comes down to whether or not god takes a part in your life and if you actively believe in one. people are just too pugnacious to accept they're similar to others and need their own title.

nude art/softcore porn are both used, in general, for auto-conjugal acts. you're not going to look at a blacknwhite photo of a 20 something 110 pound blond late at night and study the artistic qualities of camera angling and lighting.

vegetarian/vegen is similar to atheist/agnostic thing, it's only different because some people have less conviction than others.

i agree with the other stuff. in the end what i'm really trying to say is that i'm not bothered by su's current form of projection. honestly, i don't thrash my hands against the table and scream at the computer when i get repeats/wrong tags/other things i don't like. i thumb it down and click "stumble!"

censorship? no. more interesting things on the internet, yes. i forgot what i was talking about.
Photo of Miranda

Miranda

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
While an atheist may be okay stumbling agnostic pages, and an agnostic may be okay stumbling atheist pages - there are those instances where I'm sure an agnostic is going to be really annoyed to read a page saying "there is absolutely no god", and vice versa. Vegan/vegetarian is even worse. While a vegetarian may love getting vegan recipes included while Stumbling that topic, there is no way a vegan is gonna want to read page after page after page of recipes that include eggs and such. No way. Anyway, yeah. It's not the biggest deal in the world, but it's simple and fixable and it would lead to a much better Stumble (especially with the angle Stumble is pushing now, with the searching and the blah blah blah). I'm sure there are a hundred more examples of other weird topic/interests - those are just the ones I noticed in my own interests.
Photo of Miranda

Miranda

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Oh and I'd like to see something change with the "SPIRITUALITY" topic - like, more added and more clear. Non-theistic meditation, theistic meditation... non-theistic spirituality.... etc. There are a dozen entirely different realms of spirituality that shouldn't be lumped into one. I guess this is when SEARCH comes in handy, though.
Photo of Intrepiddreamer

Intrepiddreamer

  • 18 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
@Miranda

You're making suggestions based on your own perception and cultural concepts. I don't think everyone will feel that a whole new slew of non-Theistic spirituality categories will be meaningful.

In fact it's fairly useless to be making definitive requests for SU to change the category system otherwise everyone and his lolcat will be submitting what they feel is a better system of topics to SU.

What I am more interested in is a better way to determine what categories might actually be useful to stumblers.

E.G. Photography is only one topic which has so many entries it's a wonder it hasn't been subdivided, but there are plenty categories under technology.

There has to be a better way of categorizing topics than our current fabulous list.
Photo of Miranda

Miranda

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Well, this is where the idea of branching out topics would be nice. So it would be, like, choose "NON-THEISTIC" if you want, but you can go further into subtopics and ONLY choose "ATHEIST" or "AGNOSTIC" if you'd like. Or choose the broader interest "COMICS" if you'd like, or expand that and choose only either "WEB-COMICS" or "COMIC-BOOKS". (The fact that when choosing your interests it says "comic books" but on the drop-down topics list on the toolbar and elsewhere on the site it says simply "comics" instead further complicates things... same with "sewing/quilting".)
Photo of Terrerry1550

Terrerry1550

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
I don't want to sound cynical, but you're entire idea is written like a demand. You need to really take a step back. Adding more classifications complicates the entire stumbleupon experience. Imagine going through a list of topics in the range of 300+. Besides, linux/unix is fine. You're doing the equivalent of suggesting a topic for each successive version of software for os x and windows. Furthermore, architecture and home design have a lot to do with each other. I have architecture and never get home design, however. Also, you have to consider that some of these topics are really neck and neck, the difference being a pin-head.
It's not sensible at all to whine about the little differences. If it's bothering you, hit the damn stumble button again. If it really bothers you, don't complain, just don't use the god damn program. Making complaints like these doesn't advance stumbleupon.

PS, I love the fact that sometimes I'll get a trailer for Modern Warfare 2 and other times I'll stumble onto an awesome Kongregate flash game.
Photo of Miranda

Miranda

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
It's not a complaint - it's a suggestion. I feel, and many others feel, that it'd be a nice improvement if we had topic/interests that branched out - giving us the option to choose the broader or more specific topics.
I don't see it written as a "demand" at all. It's a suggestion - we're in the suggestion forums for Stumble, so, this is, kind of what you do. That's.... what this is made for.
Photo of socialsavant

socialsavant

  • 1 Post
  • 1 Reply Like
After reading all the responses so far, I have concluded for myself that adding more categories will only cause me to use StumbleUpon less.

1) If I have to define dozens of different (sub)categories in order to get "what I want," then I will likely decide that it is easier (yes, I am lazy) to find said interests via another means. Who really wants to spend an hour ACTIVELY setting up a service which is meant to PASSIVELY make browsing suggestions?

2) I have begun to think that my (and likely others') mood determines what I want to see at any given time. Whereas, this is a good reason for having categories; it is also the reason why I wouldn't want so many of them. Depending on my mood (and therefore motive) I may want to view nude art and/or soft-porn OR may choose to find vegan and/or vegetarian recipes; despite the fact that I normally only view architectural art and hard-porn as well as the fact that I am NOT vegan nor vegetarian. With such finite categories, I would be forced to update my tastes every time I want something a LITTLE different.

A point of my own ignorance: I simply don't understand how this level of inconvenience is even worth the effort already put into the subject. When at a nude beach, do you get up from your beach-towel, put on your clothes, march to the office (wherever it may be), and fill out an official suggestion to segregate the ALREADY segregated beach into further subdivisions because your eyes stumbled upon (pun intended) a fat old man that you obviously did not originally hope to see?! -- "Can you please have a beautiful peeps nude beach and an ugly peeps nude beach?" -- They are both nude and the two beaches resemble each other enough to warrant combining them into one.

If you happen upon something you disagree with or find objectionable, then maybe you should consider the means by which you did so: A FREE SERVICE MADE BY HOBBYISTS AND A COMPLETELY FREE (as in beer) COMMUNITY. You get what you pay for... Just like going out to vote in an election: do your part and know that by voting, or in this case tagging appropriately (which is another discussion entirely), you have made the world a better place.

Like the T-Shirt says: Shit (Ugly fat men in speedo's) happens,
--socialSavant
Photo of Monica

Monica

  • 59 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
Miranda, some of your suggestions are already under consideration. We marked the topic "under consideration" as a whole, and I'll give more updates as soon as I have them myself.

Best,
Monica
Photo of Charles

Charles

  • 55 Posts
  • 10 Reply Likes
when I discover a site I choose an SU core tag, and then add usually at least two of my own, which more often than not correspond to SU subtopics - rarely I'll use something entirely unique at the end just for me.
Of course monitoring and maintaining topics and tags has been next to impossible by SU's removal of the tag cloud.
Photo of ghidora

ghidora

  • 55 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
I agree with Miranda in that these topics shouldn't be lumped together. I find But I don't think there should be more categories/topics.

I think it would be helpful to have topics even more general. Tags could then mark sites more specifically within a topic. For example, instead of "knitting" or "quilting", the topic could be "crafts". Then, to get more specific stumbles, it could be tagged as "knitting/crochet", "quilting", "weaving", "ceramics", "woodworking" or whatever kind of craft you want to stumble...

I'd also like to get a topic and NOT get some tags. For example, I like the topic "photography" but I don't like "nudes", "lingerie", and "flowers", so I would like to be able to opt out of certain tags within a topic.

And I like to tag things so I can find them again, too, but maybe those tags should only show up on my reviews page, not on the "Info" page .

How do we get these consistent? I am not sure. I find it hard enough to correct a topic for a page as it is, even ones *I've* discovered and put into a topic I thought was fitting.

One thing that might help is telling new stumblers how marking sites with topics/tags works when they first start. I know I was mixing topics with tags for the longest time when I first started SU (or even not noticing/using them at all).
Photo of ghidora

ghidora

  • 55 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
I was thinking a little more about this, and I think it would be simpler to default to a general topic when you subscribe, and then opt out of subtopics somehow.
Photo of Kevin

Kevin

  • 5 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
I'm a web-developer and a HUGE fan of StumbleUpon, and will support as much I can.

I've been giving this topic quite some thought and believe the best solution is:
All tags needs to have relation to each other, not only parent/child relationships as suggested. Inspired by artificial neural networks, I believe the solution to be weights between tags. Connections in our brain that we use often are strengthened, while rare connections are weakened. In the same way tags needs to be cross related dynamically.

Technically two database-tables can be used. One table containing all tags provided by users, another with weights between these tags. This could be a value between 0.0 and 1.0, where 0 is no connection and 1 completely connected.

An example could be the tags ‘web-development’ and ‘php’. If 8 stumblers ‘vote’ php to be a subcategory of web-development and 2 stumblers disagree, php is connected to web-development with a weight of 0.8. If 6 other stumblers then ‘vote’ them to be unrelated, the weight goes down to 0.5 (8 votes against 8) making them more related, than entirely connected.

Two tags with a weight ratio of 1, are essentially the same tag. ‘Football’ and ‘American football’ could have a weight of 1, while ‘soccer’ could be related to ‘football’ (ex 0.6), but not ‘American football’. This makes it possible to split tags easily. If I find a page tagged ‘Yoga’, but also tag this ‘Pilates’ I essentially vote these to be connected. If Pilates doesn’t exist, it is created and my ‘vote’ is stored. If everyone else disagrees with this relation, the weight will go down to 0.000001 or even lower (Making the tags almost totally unrelated).

It’s not my intent to go deep into the solution details in this post, but will elaborate if needed. The main concept behind this is that it will make the tag-cloud and categories totally dynamic. Essentially making it ‘learn’ to categorize and sub-categorize an infinite number of tags and terms, in the best possible way according to the entire network (Just like our brains work).

Hope this can be of use and/or inspiration :)
Photo of geeknik

geeknik, Champion

  • 434 Posts
  • 48 Reply Likes
Why not just ditch the entire topic system and browse/recommend/stumble by tags. Like Kevin said, give tags a weight. On a Firefox page, if 8 people say it's Firefox and 2 people say it's a web browser, it gets tagged as Firefox, etc.

Maybe give stumblers a reputation based on their tags and how correct they are? Tags entered by Stumblers with a high reputation get more weight and this keeps the noise down.

I dunno. Anything is better than the current system, which sucks, imho.
Photo of Intrepiddreamer

Intrepiddreamer

  • 18 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
good suggestion. If a majority favor a particular tag then it makes more sense to "promote" that tag as primary.
Photo of tajrobe2

tajrobe2

  • 3 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Photo of tajrobe2

tajrobe2

  • 3 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I do not have specific comments and hate war and weapons
Photo of tajrobe2

tajrobe2

  • 3 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Teacher education era I did not learn to guess that this literacy was more than
Photo of notusedupyet

notusedupyet

  • 153 Posts
  • 22 Reply Likes
I would not have a problem with tags if, when I select a tag for something (whether it is one I have invented or a standard tag) that is where it is stored in MY tag list. I have a problem with SU tagging something in addition to the tag I have assigned. For example if I tag a picture as "Porn" (which I believe used to be a valid core tag) when I thumb the page SU automatically tags it as "Pornography" (a recently new tag category).If you look at peoples tags lists you will see a large number of "Porn" tags and a lesser number of "Pornography"tags.. this is because SU recently started using pornography instead of porn. This means I must go to my tags list and remove the tag assigned bu Su to eliminate a large collection of varied tags in my tag cloud. I think there should ba a core set of tag categories and users can invent or use the existing tags but have them get doubled up unless someone wants to use more than one using a comma
Photo of Gladsdotter

Gladsdotter, Champion

  • 1444 Posts
  • 672 Reply Likes
This specific issue has been addressed here: http://getsatisfaction.com/stumbleupo... and is reported as being investigated
Photo of notusedupyet

notusedupyet

  • 153 Posts
  • 22 Reply Likes
Thanx GD
Photo of Quim

Quim

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
i ahte stumbling flash games instead of videogames for "olnine games"
Photo of Intrepiddreamer

Intrepiddreamer

  • 18 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
As long as this topic has been promoted, any ideas here guys?

Topic categories and their usability lies at the heart of the SUs site discovery process. Usability issues aside, one that makes sense to users rather than the current and seemingly adhoc list, would be a good thing.

More to the point, shouldn't the category system be at least as important as interface enhancements?
Photo of

  • 32 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
What is typed below, I posted somewhere else. This this thread is similar, I figured that I'd post it here too because it is relevant to this thread at-hand:

When making a discovery, I've noticed when I click on a tag that I want to choose, it gives me something different. Here are some examples:

- I click on 'food' and it gives me 'cooking'
- I click on 'beverages' and it gives me 'drinks'
- I click on 'pornography' and it gives me 'porn'
- I click on 'aviation' and it gives me 'aerospace'
- I click on 'piercing' and it gives me 'tattoos'
- I click on 'photos' and it gives me 'photography'
- I click on 'bizarre' and it gives me 'bizarre/oddities'
- I click on 'blogs' and it gives me 'weblogs'
- I click on 'chaos/complexity' and it gives me 'complex-systems'
- I click on 'society' and there is no tag for it

Those should be addressed and fixed, IMO.