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 ?

[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>

Why tags?

[keitosama]

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.

A replacement for "folder"

[Inyu]

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.

label makes more sense

[theStorminMormon]

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

Does it really matter?

[DinZy]

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.

Re:label makes more sense

[Enderandrew]

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?

Tagged, I mean labelled "whocares"

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite frankly, who cares?

Re:what is a tag ?

[Anonymous Coward]

If we're being pedantic then "tags" aren't used in markup either, "elements" are. The xml/html related definitions of "tag" at the google link are wrong! Widespread (mis-)use of the word "tag" to mean "arbitrary label" is also wrong however language develops through misuse of words by common people.

I hope people settle on "label"

[kirun]

"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

[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?).

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

[pla]

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.

Re:label makes more sense

[theStorminMormon]

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

Another good use for labels..

[B5_geek]

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.

Re:A replacement for "folder"

[Inyu]

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.

Keywords?

[SteveHeadroom]

Tags? Labels? Um, weren't these things just called "keywords" back in the Web 1.0 days?

Why?

[Vexorian]

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]

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

Because it's not an important term.

Re:label makes more sense

[rednip]

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:Why tags?

[bentley79]

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.

connotations of label vs tag

[loonicks]

When I hear the word 'tag' outside of the computing domain, all I think of is 'price tag'. When I own something and want to set it apart from other things, I don't say "I'll put a tag on this," I say "I'll put a label on this." Label sounds like a more appropriate word for marking any particular object. I think it makes slightly more sense to non-techie folks.

The difference is...

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the main difference is tags are public and labels are private. E.g. nobody looks at your Gmail inbox except you (unless you have a stalker spouse). Labels there are only for YOU.

Tags are (usually) adjectives, including the infamous 'itsatrap'.

Labels are more like a form of categorisation, you might have labels in your Gmail entitled 'forwards' or 'household bills', things you'd rarely see in a tag.

Re:label makes more sense

[mstone]

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. Neither of those definitions is appropriate to unordered, non-hierarchical metadata, which is what people mean when they say 'tagging'.

Re:A replacement for "folder"

[Bluesman]

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"

[FooAtWFU]

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 and crazy and tag things a zillion different ways if you really want to.

Tags make sense with the "tag cloud" metaphor. Google's labels don't.

Re:what is a tag ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny thing is that you're the one treating women as second class citizens that need to be "protected."

I think most women don't need to be protected from a career choice. They're empowered. They're equals. They're in charge of their own destiny. We have a woman with a very real chance of being the next President. We have women in space. Women in the board room. Women in the kitchen. And women in the reverse cowboy. These are all choices that they alone get to make.

"Exploiting" women is getting them hooked on Meth and pimping them out for $30 blowjobs. But the same would be true if someone pimped out a man.

So get off your high horse and let your over-exercised sense of morality rest for a while. This is the 21st century.

I don't care

[sulli]

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

Re:Why tags?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

I would extend that logic much further: Just because those in the web 2.0 world do ANY THING doesn't mean it's the right thing for the mainstream!

I am so tierd of the religious zealot movement that is web 2.0. It's not a technology, it's not a language, it's not a platform, it's really just a cult of web designers who think Tim O'Reilly is some kind of god. They take common sense and "duh" level ideas, come up with cute names for them, and pat them selves on the back like they actually accomplished something unique. At first I thought web 2.0 was just going to be a misleading marketing term that hip web companies would throw around for venture capitol. But now I see what it has really become is the church of O'Reilly, and how dare thou blaspheme by calling a tag a "label"!!

I can't wait until ten years from now, when we all look back and laugh about ever having used the stupid phrase "web 2.0", as it ends up in the dust bin with other great ideas like MS Bob...

Re:A replacement for "folder"

[a.d.trick]

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 such, but don't dismiss hierarchical directories. They're actually fairly powerful and scalable.