[tlug] using [TAGGING] in email subjects

["emiddleton@example.com" <emiddleton@example.com>]

Niels Kobschätzki wrote:
> On Aug 8, 2007, at 8:03 AM, emiddleton@example.com wrote:
>>> I think that tags are mostly for searching or browsing the archives
>>> for general information about a specific problem.  Online, they're
>>> somewhat useful to follow the progress of a technical thread (eg,
>>> SOLVED or SUMMARY tags), and to save Josh expenditure on keitai and
>>> keyboards (not to mention his coffee costs).
>>>
>>
>> We are talking about something very different.  Think flickr tags, or a
>> folksonomy[1]. As Josh suggested I will put something more concrete on
>> the wiki.
>
> But things like flickr-tags are meant for search (in my understanding
> of the concept). Therefore wouldn't it be better to put the tags
> regarding a message into the message-body? Those are searched anyway
> if you search the archives or when you are doing a full-text search on
> your mails and the readability of the subject keeps the same.

The problem is that the meaning of the tags becomes unclear.  If the
message is not about the GPL license but contains a reference to it
should this be tagged or not?  In the subject it is clear that the tags
refer to the content of the message.  There is another issue which is
being ignored with these examples.  If you are asking about an
application why isn't it mentioned in your subject field?  The
difference should really just be whether it is in [] or not.

> I "scan" my mails via the subject if there's something interesting
> (read) or not (right to the archive) - if there are a bunch of tags at
> first and I can't read the actual subject anymore, it would waste more
> time (because I would have to adjust my three-pane-layout for fitting
> the whole subject or at least the beginning of it) than it would save.

Obviously reasonable limits need to be placed on the method of tagging. 
If you take

[message type][user level] the usual subject line with [tags] embedded.

as the maximal form.  They are going to be about the same as they are
now with Re: [tlug] Re: [tlug] ... etc.

Edward