Now here’s a funny thing. I can post an image on T.A.G., get a bunch of kudos, then switch it out at the last minute to something totally inappropriate….

I love that you’re playing this game here. It reminds me of these hipbone games. I have a question about the play – can you load up an image from anywhere, or is it limited to images already within the Open Museum? Sorry if it’s an obvious one, but I’ve been pootling around and can’t figure it out.
Cath

Perhaps I’m out of line with this post. I hope Ole doesn’t get to it before everyone can read it. I’m inviting all of you lend your smart and creative minds to a question posed by Lauri on the curator resources forum regarding the criteria for museums to use Open Museum Fund raising. The broader question lurking behind the fundraising inquiry is what are the criteria of a successful Open Museum museum.

Another interesting version of t.a.g would be a garden of branching paths association game that grew out in all directions from one starting image like a tree, every possibility proposed being a candidate in turn for a proliferation of sub-possibilities… If people could vote, then you could compute and compare the “interestingness” of the various paths. This version of the game has the interesting quality of being scalable to hundreds or even thousands of players.

Would it be worth a flag on TAG pages to always show all comments? Or perhaps make the “load all X comments” stand out more?

Loading the current game and only seeing 2 comment images made me look for the rest (since I knew from Jeff’s tweet that there were 20 entries). If I didn’t know to look I’m not sure it would jump out at me.

In any case, very cool that this one hit some sort of critical mass.

I’ve noticed that when a new day starts you can give kudos/vote for images you already voted for the day before…Not that I’m loading Jerry up with extra points…

One other thing to consider, you can invite the participants to create an image in reference to the selected image. This could be an interesting angle on how the game is played…

Maybe I’m slow and you’ve already thought of this, but it just occurred to me that….

The Association Game can be initialized as “TAG.” This is pretty interesting from a marketing POV:

“Come Play TAG at OpenMuseum”

“TAG #7: Inukshuks on the Sacandaga River”

Tweet: “New TAG at OpenMuseum: [URL]. Please RT.”

Promotions: “Can you TAG?” / “Are you a TAGger?” / etc.

It also creates a lightweight insider/outsider dynamic, primarily for the insiders. (People who don’t know what it means can easily find out.) “Big” in/out dynamics are bad, but I think lightweight ones can increase participation and attraction.

It’s convenient that ‘tag’ is sort of what the game IS, as well.

Down the road, could also celebrate “TAGgers” who are frequent participants, or frequent kudo collectors. Again, a strong status hierarchy seems undesirable, but a light one may increase participation and ‘stick.’

(To separate this from other “tagging” (i.e. objects) I would capitalize TAG.)

When the programming dust settles, it would be cool to display the number of players along with the winning image.

Perhaps there should be a separate display of game objects (rather than mixed in with new objects), something like “Current Game Object” or “Game of the Day Object”.

Also, occurs to me that we need to revise splash page text to include invitation to play.