Tags, everyone who blogs knows what they are, but for those of you who don’t, a quick summary: tags are in a simple term, keywords which have relevance to your post in order to help better organise your blog and to allow readers to discover your posts.
An example of that would be that if I did a review of a video game, then the tags in that post might be “Video Games, Games, Reviews, Name Of The Game, Name Of The Console,” etc., each comma within the example given is a separate tag. Generally, unless there is a limit, the more tags you have and the more relevant the tags, the better.
I’ve been wondering when you should use certain tags, what is the right tag to use for this post? What tag would sum up all or a part of this post? What tag could be called correct for this post?
A friend of mine read a post of mine. After he said it was deeper than he was expecting. I didn’t think it was. So, will I put “Deep” as a tag? I tried to make it funny; will I put “Funny” as a tag as well?
I always found it a little arrogant of someone to tag their own work as funny. Even if I found the post funny, to say your own work is funny always came off a little egotistical, the same as if they called their own post deep or scary, as these are subjective things.
Since they are subjective, maybe tagging it as funny isn’t you calling your own work funny; if I found the post funny then I’d agree with the tag, if I found the post unfunny then I’d think that the tag is wrong. So do you use it when you think it’s funny or when you think your audience might think it’s funny?
This leaves me with the question of genre. Say you write a comedy, you’d tag it as “Comedy” even if you didn’t tag it as “Funny,” but wouldn’t it being a comedy in itself mean it was funny? I’m not sure as you can find a comedy unfunny, just like you can find a horror not scary. The genre of the film can be considered objective; for example if the writers want to write a horror and wrote one but it was so bad that no one found it scary but funny, it would still objectively be a horror film but subjectively seen as a comedy; it’s just a bad horror movie. However, some might argue that it is objectively a comedy since they found it so funny, despite it being written as a horror. So what would the people who don’t find the bad horror funny say it was? Would they say it’s just a bad horror, not a comedy since they didn’t find it funny? It depends on how you view it, you can argue both objective and subjective.
So with my post, I could tag it as “Deep” if I found it deep myself, doing it despite myself finding it a little arrogant. If I didn’t find it deep, could I tag it as such because my friend found it so? Tagging it as deep without knowing how my audience will find it is assuming they would find it deep whether I thought it was or not. If something is tagged as “Deep” and you didn’t find it deep, would you feel like you’ve been lied to or would you assume that it was the author who found it deep?
I find myself hanging up over this sometimes, if I write a comedy then I should also use tags like “Funny, Laugh, Hilarious,” etc., to get the maximum amount of readers. Maybe people who tag their own work as “Deep, Funny, Scary,” etc., aren’t being arrogant but just trying to get the most readers they can. It can go both ways and I guess like the tags themselves, this topic is objective and subjective.
I’m wondering if I should use the tag “Funny” in this post. Nothing is funny about it to me, but because it’s a big example of my point, should I use it despite there being nothing funny in this post to me?
What do you think? I’d like to have a discussion.