If you'd like to upload plug-ins, please create an account below. Otherwise (e.g. for download or commenting) you do not need one! Enjoy :-)
User login
Syndicate
Lets come up with a better categorization!
October 8, 2009 - 07:21 — ingo
I don't know whether the categorization through tags as currently used helps anybody -- there seem to be an awful lot of tags and even reading through the list takes ages.
As far as I can tell, we have tags of the following sorts:
Tags for the old menu categories or sub-categories such as "filter", "blur", "blend", "color" and so on
Various functional tags such as "grain removal", "generate", "stereoscopic", "resize", etc. This is what I personally would have expected as tags and it is quite a large category unto itself.
Version numbers, such as 2.4 or "gimp 2.x". I am not sure whether these are meant to apply to the plugin or the gimp version. In the latter case, they are a duplicate of whats already available in another category. If they are meant for the plugin, that is quite confusion.
Type tags such as "script", "script-fu", "plugin", etc. Again, these are a duplicate of something that is explicitly given before. I wonder why people add these?
Language tags such as "python" and "perl". More duplication, as this is already implied by the "scripting engine" category.
Wrongly separated tags such as "2.6 tiles generate wallpaper desktop" or "dvdauthor spumux dvd menu Python-fu titles" (all as one tag). These seem to be the result of user error, caused by the inconsistent usage of spaces vs. commas as separators on the various tag-supporting sites.
Tags that duplicate the plug-ins name or effect, e.g "Che Guevara", "Lightsaber" or
Pure numbers, e.g. "4444" or "5551". These appear to be used by just one plugin, the RAWTex plugin, which uses them to mark RGBA formats.
Well, I may have missed a few types of tags but even so, a picture emerges.
A thing I truly wonder about is this: Why do people add tags for things that have their own categories, such as the license, language and gimp version? I have no explanation for that. For the other things, what I would have liked to do for some of them is to add explicit categories which users can select from. However, if users would still add the same things as tags, that doesn't make sense.
Opinions? Additions?
- Log in or create a user account to post comments
I guess that a viable
I guess that a viable approach - maybe even the only approach that is possible - it to delete all the duplicated or otherwise unsuitable tags, even if this leaves plug-ins or scripts without (some) useful tags.
In the past, I've tried to edit entries and change the tags (e.g. removed "2.4" and added it to the version), but the text editor makes this very hard (it deletes line breaks).
Delete the tags proposed by default ?
If there is no way to propose to the authors only meaningful tags...better do not propose any
Just let the to authors to add tags in a totally empty "tag" input field without confusing suggestions
But there is another point
superfluous tags will NOT do any harm
...While missed tags WILL harm making search much harder
So i do not mind if someone will add a "Che Guevara" tag to a "Che Guevara "script
But i may be disappointed for a missed "Map" or Distort" tag in a map or distort filter because make search harder
Provide authors with a small example of good vs bad tag
Barring any language barriers with users who provide scripts and plug-ins, it would take little effort to provide the authors of what a good tag is vs what a bad tag is. A few lines of text is all that would take (something a little more definitive when they are uploading the scripts/plug-ins).
Giving them a quick and simple example of both will motivate and encourage many to make better tag selections. Doing nothing, changing nothing results in nothing being accomplished.
Having said that, and using myself as an example, when I uploaded two upgraded plug-ins, I came to a crossroad of thought when trying to decide what to tag them, simply because I wasn't sure what to tag them. So, I added they were Python and the plug-in name simply because I didn't know the best category for them.
Therein lies a big chunk of opportunity if we can figure out how to categorize and convey to all the users the best way to utilize tags per respective script/plug-in.
If anything, we're on the right track by addressing the issue and looking for a way to remedy it. But like others who have thought of this before me, the first step should be introducing some sort of organization/categories system for GIMP that is easy to understand and use. It might not be the easiest to implement, but would be a step in the right direction.
I'm also standing back waiting to see what 2.8 looks like menu-wise, because in my opinion, the categories will be most manageable by using the menu as a guide. People can see how the menu is structured, and for the most part, more authors tend to follow what they see when it comes to plug-ins and scripts. Now if there was a way to pull a tag from the script register, it would be a slam-dunk (providing that authors followed a set of established guidelines when writing them).
This might seem redundant to some, but I find it becoming more of a necessity.
Sticking to the menu layout
Sticking to the menu layout sounds like a good idea. Drupal allows tag hierarchies, maybe this can be used to our benefit here.
Do you think that we should limit the tags to a predefined set - all menu branches - and ask for tag suggestions in a forum instead of allowing free tagging?
If there was a way to use the register
Open (free) tagging wouldn't even be a necessity if it were possible to add a tag line into the script/plug-in register, where it could be indexed and searched directly from the site or internet, even.
However, I have to agree with Photocomix on this one. Taking that source of tagging away might make script/plug-in authors feel excluded from the physical process of freely adding their own suggestions. In this case, simply giving them examples of "how to use the most effective tags" would be the best way to go.
It might be a good idea to present GIMP developers with the idea of adding a tag indexing code for the register - or otherwise incorporating some sort of tag line that once added to a script/plug-in, will make it searchable.
That would just move free
That would just move free tagging for the website to the text editor of the author.
I agree
But it would also open the door to more tag involvement, where users would suggest to the author to use better tags to make them easier to find in a search. Having a hierarchy, like you mentioned earlier (following the GIMP menus) would be the catalyst in making those changes/improvements.
Which now makes me wonder if we shouldn't be suggesting better tag labels to the new scripts/plug-ins authors are currently adding to the Registry. We already make script change suggestions, why not suggest better tags, as well.
Free tagging is fine
For me free tagging is fine and useful
Are the tags offered by default that need to be revised
And again when searching the presence of occasional superfluous tags is not a problem,
the big problem are wrong or missed tag
People add tags because they
People add tags because they are there.
And they stay because there isn't any functionality for an admin to do changes to the tags in bulk, e.g. "everything that is tagged with 'Gimp2.6' should have this tags remvoed and a 2.6 version added instead", or "erase this tag from all plug-ins and add that one instead".
They have been hit & miss for me
Sometimes tags are beneficial, other times, not. I tend to look for the "effect" of a plug-in or script, and not an author name, or combo of both.
Someone mentioned changing the way the Registry tiers plug-ins and scripts (I can't remember who that was, Rob A. or Photocomix, perhaps?) I, more or less, agreed with the request to make things easier to find and more organized. (I think this was aimed at forming standards for how plug-ins and scripts are classified in the GIMP menu)
Then I read your comment here and felt now is as good a time as any to "make it happen" for forum categories. There is only one problem, everybody has to be on board in order for it to be successful. If tags are still going to be the factor in searches, they need to be used wisely. How do we determine what is a good or bad tag?
I guess the first thing that would need to be done in order to obtain maximum organization and efficiency is to lay out what you think the categories should be. If someone were to ask me, I would look at the GIMP menu and compare scripts/plug-ins to that hierarchy and then layout the scripts/plug-ins according to that structure. The GIMP menu fairly indicative of what script is where and it hasn't changed that much over the years. Just a few ideas to toss around and get some additional feedback.