{"id":496,"date":"2013-04-06T14:39:53","date_gmt":"2013-04-06T18:39:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lemasney.com\/consulting\/?p=496"},"modified":"2020-07-11T16:32:15","modified_gmt":"2020-07-11T20:32:15","slug":"on-the-openness-of-hashtags-design","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lemasney.com\/consulting\/2013\/04\/06\/on-the-openness-of-hashtags-design\/","title":{"rendered":"On the openness of hashtags #design"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"design<\/a>

design hashtag by John LeMasney<\/a> via lemasney.com<\/p><\/div>\n

I prefer open standards<\/a> because they do not constrict their use. Hashtags are a great, very simple example of the idea. Because it is simply an understanding among people that a preceding hash (also known as a pound sign or number sign) means that I am categorizing the attached text and extended content, I can use it anywhere where the convention is known and used. It was popularized for this purpose on Twitter<\/a>, but other systems, networks, and platforms support it for this purpose including Google Plus<\/a>. When I add it to my title in this post and publish it, the Googlebot<\/a> that finds it makes sense of it as a categorization, taxonomy, and meta-information about the post, and makes it easier for people who are looking for that type of content to find it. Hashtags may have been popularized on Twitter, but because it is simply an agreed upon typographical convention, any can use it anywhere that text is used, and the system on which it is used can choose to make use of it.<\/p>\n

Related articles<\/h6>\n