WordPress.com Forums » Topic: The new Bookmarks vs. Links functionality.

timethief on "The new Bookmarks vs. Links functionality."

timethief — Thu, 11 May 2006 17:55:21 +0000

Sheesh options - I think you may have misunderstood me. I was not labeling and dismissing this as a "crack pot theory". I was merely indicating that the proponent had a sense of humour that I appreciated. I confess that I am inclined to be far too serious when learning something new and all of this is Greek to me. I frequently ignore my intuitive inclinations and I fail to laugh at myself. Thanks for pointing me at what I needed to see.

options on "The new Bookmarks vs. Links functionality."

options — Thu, 11 May 2006 16:14:19 +0000

glad you've enjoyed this crackpot theory.

I like Cory's stories too. btw, a coupla years later that article has been published, NYT reported on bargain hunters who search eBay listings for typos.

credits for the last quotation should go to the del.icio.us/help/tags

timethief on "The new Bookmarks vs. Links functionality."

timethief — Wed, 10 May 2006 21:37:21 +0000

otpions I read the reference above and almost pmplol (the guy who wrote is a cut-up and I loved to link him, if you know what I mean). Also your wry comments were both witty and helpful as per usual so I will be keeping them on file too. WHEW I was beginning to feel myself getting "snarky" but now I'm lol. Tx.

options on "The new Bookmarks vs. Links functionality."

options — Wed, 10 May 2006 21:13:41 +0000

'roger' on: 1) -- 4), 6)

5) might want to see 'Metacrap'

very rough random trendy buzzwords er... Tags chain:

"...there is no hierarchically organized nomenclature to learn. One simply creates and applies tags on the fly."

[structuralism | category | hard | taxonomy | not at the cutting edge]

7) there are web 2.0 services described as a "social bookmarking", so 'link' is probably an outdated, anti-social term.

hope this one of my favorite quotation possibly clear up all that stuff:

What are tags good for?
Tagging can be a whole lot easier and more flexible than fitting your information into preconceived categories.

Yeah but I still don't get it
That's ok, you don't have to. It's pretty intuitive and takes a bit of practice to fully understand.

;-)

timethief on "The new Bookmarks vs. Links functionality."

timethief — Wed, 10 May 2006 17:38:25 +0000

Sheesh! I read the blog entry options provided and all the comments too. This is how my newbie notes look now.
(1) Categories tells us to which domain this class of posts belong.
(2) Tags signals what matters this special post discusses, and might very well cross domains.
(3) Categories and tags are complimentary markup systems for finding articles of interest and should be kept in separate spaces.
If they are not, tagging will be rendered unusable.
(4) Categories organize, hierarchically. Tags need not.
(5) Tags provide meta-information, Categories need not.
(6) Tags cross-connect, Categories do not.
(7) Bookmarks and links are synonymous terms.
(8) Bookmark/link categories are being integrated with post categories.
(9) Unfortunately, categories have become 'pseudo-tags' due to the lack of understanding of what their appropriate use is for.
(10) All bookmarks/links must be categorically 'tagged'.

I would like to respectfully ask you geeks [she said rubbing her temples] to confirm that my newbie notes above are a correct reflection of reality before I get hung up by learning something that's incorrect.
You see I'm lost in a tag cloud and I'm not seeing cyberlite shining through.For me this is the cutting edge between grasping comprehension and recoiling from crazymaking. :P

options on "The new Bookmarks vs. Links functionality."

options — Wed, 10 May 2006 16:20:12 +0000

(3) I'd rather say, 'tags' are new categories nowadays.

timethief on "The new Bookmarks vs. Links functionality."

timethief — Wed, 10 May 2006 03:24:19 +0000

Thanks for the clarity.
(1) Bookmarks and links are synonymous terms.
(2) Bookmark/link categories are integrated with post categories.
(3) Categories are 'tags'.
(4) All bookmarks/links must be categorically 'tagged'.
Hooray! In my case, means no adjustments are required. :D

cubbycave on "The new Bookmarks vs. Links functionality."

cubbycave — Wed, 10 May 2006 03:04:28 +0000

One moan I have about the bookmarks manager is: if I rename or move the hierarchy of a category, then all bookmarks which use it, lose it.

This means I have to edit all those bookmarks individually to put the edited category back on. It's a right royal pain.

It's one thing introducing or changing functionality but it's better to make sure it works properly first.

podz on "The new Bookmarks vs. Links functionality."

podz — Tue, 09 May 2006 23:02:38 +0000

drmike - I'm using 2.1 alpha-1 (svn)

wank on "The new Bookmarks vs. Links functionality."

wank — Tue, 09 May 2006 22:24:48 +0000

Version 2.03 won't, but version 2.1 (or 2.5, as it is more likely to wind up being) will.

There were a few problems with the links manager (notably the inability to delete more than one link at a time) but it worked fine. The reasons they've changed it are a) to integrate link categories with post categories, preliminary to rebranding all categories as 'tags' (nobody seems to have announced this, let's just say I'll be surprised if it doesn't happen) and b) 'bookmarks' sounds so much more cutting-edge than boring old 'links'.

But Marc puts it more concisely and just as accurately ;)

drmike on "The new Bookmarks vs. Links functionality."

drmike — Tue, 09 May 2006 20:30:15 +0000

Podz, are you saying that version 2.0.3 will only have the Bookmarks like we have here at WP.com?

timethief on "The new Bookmarks vs. Links functionality."

timethief — Tue, 09 May 2006 20:26:55 +0000

Guys is it possible to explain this complaint in terms that a newbie can understand?

marc on "The new Bookmarks vs. Links functionality."

marc — Tue, 09 May 2006 19:39:56 +0000

I don't quite understand WHY it was done.

Can you spell T.R.E.N.D.Y?

podz on "The new Bookmarks vs. Links functionality."

podz — Tue, 09 May 2006 17:47:24 +0000

There is no difference.
I'm running the latest code on my blog and I have bookmarks too.

wpvqs on "The new Bookmarks vs. Links functionality."

wpvqs — Tue, 09 May 2006 17:15:11 +0000

I'm a little bummed out about this change from Links to Bookmarks and the associated functionality change. It marks a major difference between a WordPress server installation and a WordPress.com account. I don't quite understand WHY it was done. There really isn't anything wrong with the old way of managing links.

Will WordPress (server version) be changing link functionality, too?

techish on "The new Bookmarks vs. Links functionality."

techish — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 19:47:05 +0000

Thanks Matt - much obliged! I will control my urges to whine for now and wait patiently!

options on "The new Bookmarks vs. Links functionality."

options — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 19:46:05 +0000

hello matt,

is there any plan to modify the 'Category' widget ('Classic' based themes) so they would recursively display non-empty nested Categories/Tags, according to the feedback with code snippets I sent on 04/20?

matt on "The new Bookmarks vs. Links functionality."

matt — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 19:22:03 +0000

There will be more configuration in the links widget.

techish on "The new Bookmarks vs. Links functionality."

techish — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 18:40:25 +0000

I'm placing this under support because if this Bookmarks thing is a permenant and rigid change, this is my plea to loosen the reigns a little and get back some of the control.

We usedtacould add links to the Links section (widget) and they showed up under the heading LINKS. Now however it seems that links *have* to be assigned to a catagory, and they show up under the heading of that catagory name. I'm not liking this improvement at all...

Can we not have the option (or am I missing the option) to simply have a widget section that is called LINKS that holds LINKS that show up as plain old LINKS without being attached to something else?