Following my remarks about the 'amplified conference' the other day, I was interested to read this from Andy Powell:
A large part of your event's impact will come from the collective writing, images and videos by the people who attended. The only effective way of tying all this material together after the event is via the event tag.
It's easy to forget, but I'd go as far as saying that the tag is almost as important as the venue. In fact, in a sense, the tag becomes the virtual venue for the event's digital legacy.[eFoundations: Tags as virtual venues]
This makes sense. However, what struck me more than the nature of the advice was a thought about its reception. I think that a lot of people would immediately see the pragmatic sense of doing what Andy suggests. However, I know that some of the folks I deal with (and I go to a lot of events ;-) would be puzzled at the suggestion, or not really feel that the type of network amplification that an agreed tag would facilitate is all that important.
We all have ways of thinking about how events are different. This reminds me that recently I have been struck by the fact that one of the most important ways in which events now feel different to me relates to the extent to which they are in fact 'amplified' by participant bloggers and picture-takers.