Huh? It's true Gmail calls it's filters 'labels' (not 'tags'), but how does that mean *I'm* doing anything wrong? I was the one making the point that this is where we commonly see tags today - on the web, not in file systems like you brought up.
I won't argue that tags may be the future. My other point though had to do with the hassle of having to *manually* tag items. I really don't see why your spending time adding tags to your emails is going to help you recall a post or thread from history. Why can't Gmail et all _automatically_ add tags depending on the content of the post/email? But then, it wouldn't be 'tags' it would be 'keywords'? On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Tom Piwowar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>But *today*, the term 'tags' and 'tagging' refers to posts and >>pictures on the web. > > And this is sent by Tony from a GMail account? > > TONY, YOU ARE DOING I ALL WRONG!!!! > > One of the best examples of tagging is GMail. You can easily define rules > to process incoming mail with some rough tags and then apply specific > tags manually based on the content. > - Everything from CGuys gets auto tagged "CGuys" and "DiscussionList" > - I tag Mac stuff "Mac" and Windows stuff "Other." > - I tag stuff about photography "Photo" > Etc. Etc. > > I can then more easily track down something I read in some discussion > list on photography and Macs. Without tags I would be hunting through > every folder where I stored discussion list posts. > > Tags are the future. ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
