Hello
I just want to echo the thanks for sharing about Tagger too.
I'm really enjoying using it. I even refused to turn off my laptop to
chat with my family because I found it addictive. I found it became
much more compelling when I was assigned expert status because it led
me to do more web research to check that the dates, events and
movements I was assigning to the paintings are correct.
It is, in this respect, very different from any previous tagger system
I've used, as it's so much more structured. I think this structure is
much more compelling for users than being asked only to provide random
tags, and it provides more scaffolding for them to get better at the
job. I also like the more informal motivators, such as pop-up quotes
from museum staff thanking us for tagging, and the progress through
coloured brushes as we tag more and more.
It took a while to get used to the Oxford dictionary definitions, when
they would appear, with what categories, to what extent you could
ignore them, and so on. But I found they contributed to my learning.
I only have two suggestion for improvement, for now. (I may have more
suggestions if I was to look more concertedly.)
The main thing is the that there is a missing category for type of
painting (landscape, portrait, still life etc). Most of the paintings
I've tagged I have had to denote them as 'Other' but they nearly all
fall under the heading of 'figurative narrative'. A painting can only
be a portrait if it is an individuated depiction.
The other thing is that I would quite like a 'I think...' or 'it
feels' box. I want to be able to tag with my own associations, if I
feel they are appropriate. If these don't pollute the more objective
categorical tags, it would be a very engaging addition. This would be
a good entry point for those users who don't have art knowledge or a
geeky desire to categorise everything (like me and Janet).
Not meant as criticism at all. Congratulations on a job well done.
Bridget McKenzie
www.flowassociates.com
Quoting J DAVIS <[log in to unmask]>:
> Hi Cristiano,
> Thank you very much for telling us more about the project.
> I know that the public can provide helpful data because I was
> involved in a project to encourage volunteers to provide data, enter
> descriptive metadata, alongside professionals.
> I was so intrigued by the Your Paintings Tagger that, naturally, I
> had to register to try it out myself. It's very easy to use, apart
> from when there are multiple choices offered which include 2 or more
> with essentially the same basic information, but one could be 'more
> right' than the other. I'm also curious to see how people are
> encouraged to continue tagging. It began to feel like work to me
> after a while - but I have spent a lot of time adding metadata
> describing images to databases over the past 10 years.
> I would be extremely interested to see samples, any other info in
> the future about the project. Cultural heritage image databases are
> a special interest of mine. I'd love to see how this approach could
> work with other types of collections.
> It looks lovely, seems to work very smoothly, and I really like the
> connection between objects, public and experts that it makes possible.
>
> Best wishes,
> Janet
>
>
>>
>
> ****************************************************************
> website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
> [un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
> ****************************************************************
>
****************************************************************
website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
[un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
****************************************************************
|