The issue of tags comes down to one of my deeply held beliefs, which is tags are useful to users. All users, this means the group, and the individual. Just because a tag doesn’t seem relevant to another user, doesn’t mean that the tag won’t help the user who used it find that piece of content again.

It may be possible that a particular tag is offensive and needs to be removed, or at least hidden from view. However I don’t think it can vandalise or sabotage a library’s reputation. If anything it is increasing the reputation of the library because it is making the catalogue more relevant to users.

The other issue I have is that people make direct comparisons between subject headings and tags. The basis of the typical argument is that subject headings are more relevant because they’re more specific.

My issue with this argument is that it is typically made by experts in the fields that know what the headings mean. I’m particularly thinking of those specialised subject headings for areas such as medicine.

I would argue that they may be more specific, but that they’re not necessarily more relevant because they’re not related to the users. They’re developed by bodies of people as a what they see as a best fit for the overall group.

If anything there specificity makes them less relevant to some users because they’re words and phrases that they aren’t familiar with.

I guess this is a long way of saying, and bordering on a rant, that tags are there for the users, by the users, and I think libraries should be congratulated for employing technologies such as tags and embracing user contributed content.

Then we’ll just refer users to the FAQ when they question why particular tags are there.

The comments we’ve had about LibraryThing are not online – but so far they’re things like:
Why is that tag there? It doesn’t seem to be relevant
Why are there tags on some editions and not others?
Those tags are very generic and not as good as our subject headings (from a librarian)

I’d be interested to hear what other libraries have done in these cases. Have they gone to the trouble of spelling it out clearly that the tags are created by users and are “not necessarily the views of the institution” (to capture some policy speak). Are we talking about ‘vandalisation’ or ‘sabotage’ of the library’s reputation by anonymous Librarything users?