Tagging Photographs

Tagging Photographs: The pros and cons of uncontrolled vs. controlled vocabularies

The purpose of a tag in archival photographs is to bring together a topic or subject of interest across a variety of images. In the Web 2.0 world a tag is like a metaphorical thread, stitching together things that may have been otherwise unconnected. I do not personally believe there is such a thing as "too much tagging," and if a picture is truly worth a thousand words, there is an incredible amount of possibility to linked associations of images. However, opening up to these seemingly endless possibilities also leaves room for completely irrelevant posts. One should not tag, for example, a picture of fruit with the word "socks". Tagging is a wonderful thing, and like most wonderful things, it can be easily abused.

Using controlled vocabularies is not necessarily the answer to avoiding irrelevance, but it is more likely those who use them are professionals, and/or knowledgeable about the subject matter. A pre-established, controlled vocabulary will also allow for greater uniformity in categorizing and searching.
The biggest problem with controlled vocabularies is the average user: S/he is not familiar with the terms information professionals use and would likely not think to search with them, let alone use them as tags. If a user does not know the proper term to search for what they want, they may miss something that could have been particularly valuable to their research.
Comparatively, if tagging is open to users and the vocabulary is uncontrolled, as seen in the LOC Commons, the odds of people finding what they need can greatly increase.
I believe the professionals should always begin by providing their own tags to images, but allow users to add to them in order to diversify the search process. Great minds do not always think alike and some people may be looking at a picture from a completely different perspective.
If socks are tagged in a picture of fruit, does it really impede access? I believe not. The original posters of the image should have supplied relevant tags, and users would have likely followed suit. If some users made inappropriate tags, whether intentional or not, they may be removed by administrators. I found a picture of a cattle ranch on the Commons that contained the tag "dive" someone had already commented that this seemed an odd tag, and I wondered if it was meant to say "drive," as in "cattle drive." However, this instance would do nothing to impede my access to a search for ranch photographs. I imagine someone searching for a "dive" might find the inclusion of this photo puzzling, but again, this is not enough to outweigh the positives of uncontrolled vocabularies.

People make mistakes, and others are intentional trouble makers. But, I believe we, as archivists and historians, should have a little more faith in the general public when it comes to accepting help with our collections. We never know what kind of information we may be given and how many new doors may be opened for us. The project of the Commons has shown that people are eager and willing to participate.