February 19, 2015 by rjordan10
I really enjoyed selecting and reading ten or so articles under the ‘archives’ tag on publichistorycommons.org. Under the tag ‘archives,’ I looked at ‘digital history’ and ‘ethics’ as subtags, and both pulled up a lot of articles. However, I think the subtags ‘profession’ and ‘public engagement’ probably had the most articles; or at least they were used as tags the most. I had never heard of the website before, but after this assignment, I really got to like it, and I think that I will be re-visiting it in the future, especially the archives tag, since that is one of my main interests in the public history field.
After looking at several articles, under both subtags, I think that whoever chose the tags for the articles (I’m guessing it was the individual authors) did a good job with it. Sometimes, when posts are tagged, the person tagging them tags almost everything that they mention in the post, even if it is just mentioned in passing, which can really be a nuisance for people who are reading the blog, or doing research and have to comb through a long article to find one sentence (an example) on what they are looking for. The way the posts are tagged under ‘archives’ on the publichistorycommons.org site does a good job a getting rid of that hassle.
As I said earlier, the subtags ‘profession’ and ‘public engagement’ seemed to be the most commonly used tags under the main ‘archives’ tag.It seemed like (to me, at least) that the ‘profession’ tag was used kind of loosely; there were some articles under it that didn’t seem to fit that well. For example, I thought the article ‘Public History Resources on Ferguson’ might have fit better under another category, like ‘human rights,’ or ‘digital media,’ etc. However, I think this cluster of tags fits really well with the articles that are listed under ‘archives,’ and are accurate. After thinking about it, I don’t think I would change how it is currently.