Labels Not Tags, Says Google

Ashraf Al Shafaki writes "The word 'tags' is the one in common use on the Web today and is one of the distinctive features of Web 2.0. Ever since Gmail came out, Google has decided to use the term 'label' instead of the term 'tag' despite they are basically the exact same thing and have the exact same function. Why is Google using inconsistent terminology in its products for such an important term? Is there a real difference between a tag and a label?"

what is a tag ?

[by Anonymous Coward]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define%3A+tag [google.co.uk]

it certainly isnt what we see on blogs and web2.0 sites (except in the source code)

</endtag>

Re:what is a tag ?

[GoofyBoy (44399)]

Must ... fight ... Google monopoly....

http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=define%3A+ta g [live.com]

Re:

[theStorminMormon (883615)]

Stupid commoners.

-stormin

It depends....

[Da Fokka (94074)]

If the service is in the Beta phase it's Label. If it's in Alpha, it would be tag.

And if it's in production... well... how would we know?

Re:

[pnewhook (788591)]

If the service is in the Beta phase it's Label. If it's in Alpha, it would be tag.

No, a 'Label' is a piece of paper or some other tangible medium with information on it that is firmly affixed to an item (like the Dell label on my monitor). A tag is the same thing, but instead of being attached directly on the product it it only partially attached such that it 'hangs off', such as the tag on my matress, or on the ear of the deer in my backyard that the environmentalist relased..

Re:

[kfg (145172)]

Because in Alpha we might want to change things quite a bit, so we tie them on with a bit of string. By the Beta phase we're more certain and willing to risk adhesive backing.

And if it's in production...

It'll be glossies with "Hello. My Name is" preprinted on them; with your choice of butterflies or ponies.

KFG

Why tags?

[keitosama (990483)]

I wouldn't say Google are inconsistent, how come they should call it tags if they think it should be labels? I have never heard of any W3C recommendation of the word 'tag' either, so anyone implenting this feature should be able to decide for themselves.

Re:Why tags?

[bentley79 (1053828)]

There was an interesting panel at CHI (ACM Conference on Computer-Human Interaction) last spring that looked at tagging. They had a video where they walked around Berkeley and asked people what a tag was, if they had ever heard of flickr, etc. etc. Most people had no clue at all. I'm sure if you asked people what a "label" is, anyone could give you a pretty accurate definition that goes along the lines of a web 2.0 "tag"

Just because those in the web 2.0 world are using a word doesn't mean it's the right word for the mainstream.

Re:

[mporcheron (897755)]

actually, Google Reader only refers to them as tags on the Settings page, on the rest of the site they're called folders

A replacement for "folder"

[Inyu (919458)]

I think they do so intending it to be a replacement of an obsolete term "folder" or "directory". I myself was also fed up with directories on my PC. I hope in the future there will be no such thing as directories in the filesystem at all, and there will be labels instead.

Re:A replacement for "folder"

[kusanagi374 (776658)]

Yeah, pretty much like the Motorola phones. When you create a folder on a MicroSD card (photos, videos, music, etc) it'll consider the folder name a "category", and the whole UI is based on that concept.

I believe its much more logical to consider folders as categories and subcategories instead of just directories. That's what I do when I store my data, and that's the logic behind my folder names.

Re:A replacement for "folder"

[Inyu (919458)]

I agree. For example, say I have a friend Jack Wilton in Australia, and I took a photo while visiting him. I may want to put the photo both into the folder named "Australia", and into the folder "Jack Wilton" at the same time. Being intended as a replacement for folders, I consider labels are tags for files.

Re:

[Chabil Ha' (875116)]

...Which has been done before too. What you're saying is that the relationships between your photos and the meta data is *not* hierarchical, it's relational. As the founding fathers of the RDBMS discovered, relationships between data need to allow for more than one parental relationship, as in a many to many relation.

Re:

[FooAtWFU (699187)]

I disagree. In fact, I'll say that Google's use of "labels" is somewhat unlike the traditional "Web 2.0" buzzwordish use of tags. Why? Normal tags, you type in, or maybe (in the case of del.icio.us) type them in and add some from your 'tag cloud' that's floating around on the bottom of your screen. Gmail is different. With Gmail, you create the label beforehand, and select it from a drop-down menu. It encourages a much more selective sort of "labelling", whereas with tags, you can feel more free to go wild

Re:

[Wildfire Darkstar (208356)]

To be fair, there's been hard linking functionality in NTFS since the first version of XP. It may even have been there in Win2000, but I can't remember for sure. The problem, of course, is that Explorer itself offers no support for the concept, and Microsoft doesn't even ship command-line tools with the OS itself. But they do exist, and can be exploited, if somewhat awkwardly, with various tools.

Re:

[drsmithy (35869)]

Hard links anyone? They've been around for nearly 40 years.

Hard links don't work across filesystems (or drives, in Windows-speak. or Volumes, in Mac-speak).

Re:A replacement for "folder"

[Jeff DeMaagd (2015)]

I've thought about it but I think the idea needs a lot of work that's not being done.

For one, tagging needs to be a lot easier, it's easy to make a folder to drop files into, but there's nothing I've used yet where I can drop items into a "tag folder" to automatically tag them. I think a hybrid system is the way to go, I might have two groups of files that are in folders of the same folder name, but they have different parent folders for a reason, to exclude them from each other, and searching systems usually don't let me take that into account.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that I've had too many circumstances that spelunking folders was easier to do than performing a search and adding the correct exclusions to get what I want, to justify getting rid of the folder system. Maybe what is needed is a nested tagging system, subtags, I don't know, because sometimes a heirarchical system is the most effective way to find something.

Re:A replacement for "folder"

[asuffield (111848)]

Hardware is the easy part. The hard part is looking at a pile of a million things and trying to figure out what the tags are on that document you were writing last month.

It's a stupid idea. Filing is not about searching blindly in the style of google. Filing is about having a SYSTEM for categorising things, so that you can figure out what categories any given thing belongs in. Once you have such a system, the easiest way to implement that in software? Directories.

Sloppy labels only look good to people who have never had anything resembling a filing system, and instead just lose their documents.

Re:A replacement for "folder"

[Bluesman (104513)]

So why do directories have to be hierarchical?

Let's say I make my folder as follows: /pictures/trip/2006/Christmas/pic001.jpg

Why shouldn't I be able to type in: /trip/2006/Christmas/pictures/pic001.jpg

And get the same result?

Hierarchies are a horrible way to manage data, because no one "category" is always a subset of another. Pick the more general term here:

Pictures
2006
Christmas
Trip

You can't. Or else it depends on a number of things. Do I take a lot of trips? How many pictures do I take on those trips? Do I only take pictures at Christmas or on trips? And so on.

The only reason hierarchies seem like a good idea is because we've been using them since the birth of file systems, because computers at the time couldn't handle anything more expressive. It's time to move on.

Re:A replacement for "folder"

[Teresita (982888)]

"The only reason hierarchies seem like a good idea is because we've been using them since the birth of file systems, because computers at the time couldn't handle anything more expressive. It's time to move on."

The heirarchal structure of the file system was imposed by the Patriarchy. The new paradigm promoted by feminists is to group files and file "containers" into an equal but interconnected web of dependencies where they all sit around in a circle and any user (no scratch that, it sounds so oppressive), a participant, if she feels like it, can learn the community consensus reached by all the other background processes.

Re:

[a.d.trick (894813)]

So why do directories have to be hierarchical?

I can think of two reasons.

1. It's more consistent. A file has one location, the location is always represented in the same way. Magic is evil.
2. It's easier to manage. Under my home directory I have a dozen other directories (and many subdirectories). As it is, it's fairly easy to navigate; but if I didn't have this hierarchy, it would be a complete mess trying to organize the thousands of 'tags' or whatever.

I'm sure there are better ways to organize files and

Re:

[spitzak (4019)]

Actually that is a restricion in Unix, it refuses to create such hard links long before the file system sees the attempt. This was done to make it impossible to create circular dependencies. I don't know why they felt this restricion was necessary, it does not really match the Unix design philosophy. Underlying file systems certainly do support hard links to directories, as this is how the "." and ".." files work.

google, internet (tagging beta)

[RobotRunAmok (595286)]

LABELLING beta!

Get it Right, Dammit!

label makes more sense

[theStorminMormon (883615)]

It makes more sense to call them "labels" because the word "tag" generally refers to html/xml tags. Since you can use these tags (although you don't have to) to create the label type of tags, it's especially confusing.

In any case, it's closer to plain English to call them labels. That's what you're doing. If I'm in GMail and I want to indicate that an email is work related it is closer to plain English to say that I labelled it work than to say that I tagged it work.

Is this what a slow news day really looks like?

-stormin

Re:label makes more sense

[Enderandrew (866215)]

I couldn't agree more. I sense the article is just another attempt to bash Google for anything and everything.

There is no web standard to use the term "tag" and label is more appropriate. And does it really matter either way?

Re:

[MP3Chuck (652277)]

"html/xml tags"

For which I'm pretty sure the proper term is "element [w3.org]."

Re:label makes more sense

[theStorminMormon (883615)]

Why on earth would we revert to an obscure technical term rather than a common vernacular term when the objective is to make something easily understood to the masses?

-stormin

Re:label makes more sense

[rednip (186217)]

Why on earth would we revert to an obscure technical term rather than a common vernacular term when... ?

How on earth did you get the impression that " the objective is to make something easily understood to the masses". Perhaps it is 'your objective', but I find that I get paid better when they don't quite understand :)

Re:

[JFMulder (59706)]

Two words : job security.

Thought, I read once that the surest way to get yourself fired is being irreplaceable, at least when you are a programmer.

Re:

[mstone (8523)]

Actually, no. The W3C specs clearly distinguish between 'tags' and 'elements'.

A tag is a token -- a sequence of characters that tell the parser a new element is about to start or end.

An element is a logical unit composed of a start tag, and end tag, and optional PCDATA content. Or if the element doesn't take content, it can be expressed with an empty element tag.

When you talk about a tag, you're talking about markup. When you talk about an element, you're (hopefully) talking about semantic structure. Ne

Does it really matter?

[DinZy (513280)]

I'm not sure if they use labels outside of gmail, but even so it is their interface and they should be able to decide what names they give to the features. I do think that in gmail labels are different than tags in the sense that only you apply them and that they are done by rules you create. Regular tags are usually added by people in the online community.

You say

[ewhenn (647989)]

You say Tomato (tah-mah-tow), I say Tomato (toe-may-toe).

Plain English

[TwelveInches (976724)]

Tag sounds like it is a temporary attachment, to be removed on arrival at its destination. Label sound as if it is a permanent attachment. At least, that is how it sounds to me who doesn't work with html etc.

Re:

[gEvil (beta) (945888)]

Tag sounds like it is a temporary attachment, to be removed on arrival at its destination.

And even then it can only be removed by the consumer. Anyone else who does so risks doing so under penalty of law. ; )

Desktop email clients use term labels

[grag (597728)]

Eudora and Thunderbird use the term labels. MS Entourage and MS Outlook use the term categories. By the way, is there some standards document like RFC saying any web app, especially webmail, has to use the term tags?

future patenting and copyright claims?

[fantomas (94850)]

Are they preparing for some sort of application which will include a future copyrighting/patenting claim on a word containing "label" because they can't do it with the word "tag"?

A bit like the "iPhone" fuss?

(sorry, not a lawyer so probably mixing up patenting and copyrighting, you know, something that people would think of as just a fun word in most places but will lead to somebody sueing somebody else for multiple trillions of dollars in the the USA ;-) )

Which sounds less evil?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Label makes it sound as if you're just applying a name to it for sorting. Tagging sounds as if you're trying to track it for nefarious evil purposes. If you wanted to sound less evil what would you use? It's all in marketing your product folks.

Graffiti...

[Bazman (4849)]

'Tagging' is when you put a mark on someone else's property... Hence maybe tagging is what other people do to your content (as here on slashdot) whereas labelling is what you do to your gmail messages... uh, maybe.

Maybe google just think tagging sounds like graffiti-talk...

Tagged, I mean labelled "whocares"

[by Anonymous Coward]

Quite frankly, who cares?

For Fucks Sake

[Colin Smith (2679)]

That's it I'm off. You've driven me out of the house into the pissing rain where I'm going to get soaking wet... I hope you're happy with yourselves. I'll have to mingle with... "people"... I may catch something, if I do, I'll blame you.

 

I hope people settle on "label"

[kirun (658684)]

"Tagging" is often used to refer to graffiti, as well as the more positive meanings. Label almost always refers to the concept of "Something carrying identifying information". So, I think that "label" is clearer. Also, I wish everywhere would stick to comma separation, as this more closely fits with how lists are usually written, but that's another story (that was posted the other day).

Slashdot tags

[by Anonymous Coward]

This kind of discussion obscures the real point: that tags (or labels) are only as good as the userbase that creates them. For example, the OS X Vs. Vista story a little while ago - the tags were "yes", "no", "FUD" etc., which are worthless when you come to sort stories out (seriously, what kind of person uses "yes" as a search term?).

Not "yes" by itself, but "yes, Yes, YEs YESSSSSS"

[pem (1013437)]

...can be an invaluable search term.

Perhaps because... It really doesn't matter?

[pla (258480)]

Why is Google using inconsistent terminology in its products for such an important term?

Important term?

Puh-lease.

You have a bunch of websites, many of which call themselves the buzzword-2.0 of the week, that have implemented a feature that has zero standardization or between-site meaning. Most of these sites actually allow users to post comments, making one-word comments completely pointless. Though someone will probably point me to a counterexample, I have yet to see a site that lets you meaningfully search or filter by tags.

On that point, note the key word, "meaningfully". Check out Amazon's tags for the best I've seen yet, and it still sucks so hard that you have a dozen words all describing (almost) the same thing - "Almost", except that you'd have to check every single one of them to find the 1% that they don't overlap. Example: "green", "environment", "environmental", "conservation", "sustainability", and a handful of similar words all mean the same thing, yet point to slightly different lists; And on those lists, do you find environmentally-friendly products? No. You find nothing but books of pseudoscience written by and for zealots.



I'll worry about what to call these things if (not "when") they actually take on some usefulness. Until then, you can call them "snergs" for all I care.

The Difference Is Obvious

[WrongSizeGlass (838941)]

For anyone who has ever purchased clothing before, the difference between 'label' and 'tag' is obvious.

The 'label' is where the size and washing instructions are.
The 'tag' is where the price is.

Another good use for labels..

[B5_geek (638928)]

I have made extensive use of the 'label' feature in gmail like I am sure many others here have too and I have found it very handy. Another aspect of my computing life that I found DESPERATELY needed labels was my music collection.

I have always organized my music in Genre - Artist - Album - song format, but I have found that too many songs would be multi-genre.
(ie. most modern Top40 songs today are also Rap/Dance/Hip-Hop)

So as a result my collection became mass-sorted into one of four major directories:

Rock/Alternative
Pop/Top 40/Rap/Hip Hop/Dance/Techno
Blues/R & B
Other

The ability to 'quickly find' a desired song became impossible.

Along came iTunes and it was awesome, but lacking.
Along came Amarok and it was better, but lacking.
Now Amarok has added a new feature called Labels, and I am in love (but it is still lacking).

Now I can ignore the Genre headache, and just use labels to identify what Genres of music that apply to the song.

This works only as long as I use Amarok for my music player. I am still SOL if i want to just browse the filesystem and grab a couple of songs on the spur of the moment.

What we need is a file system label structure that can/will apply to all files that we use.
Where to store Aunt Betty's cookie recipe? ~/docs/recipes ~/docs/aunt betty/ ~/docs/cookies

A bad solution is to create sym-links everywhere. A better solution would be to have labels appear as virtual directories.

Why?

[Vexorian (959249)]

Why is Google using inconsistent terminology in its products for such an important term? Is there a real difference between a tag and a label?

Does anyone else find this sentence utterly ridiculous? I do. I for one don't really care about whether google calls them tags or labels and I am unable to see how it is an important term.

What you're missing

[jdavidb (449077)]

Why is Google using inconsistent terminology in its products for such an important term?

Because it's not an important term.

I don't care

[sulli (195030)]

so long as they leave out those awful tag table things with the different text sizes. How I HATE those awful things!

Re:Distinctive features?

[MustardMan (52102)]

And how, exactly, are people going to abuse the labels you use to organize your own email?