Interesting. I don't feel as anxious about it as you, though I have had thoughts about "what does this say about me? Who do I want to 'be' online?" In my case, I think my interests span my fannish and RL interests, without much regard for what it says--in the end, I want a rounded picture of me to present itself to the visitor, not just the sort of fanfic I write.
As a cataloger, I'm a very non-anal one. Many library catalogers have a "cataloging personality," or at least they're rumored to, and that means being a stickler for details. I sometimes wonder at my laziness in my online organization structures: does it mean I'm tired of organizing once I get off work, or am I actually an anti-cataloger? At work, I am not stuck on the rules very much; I'm much more concerned with patron accessibility. But there's a measure of subjectivity there. And online, I find myself interested in del.icio.us and LibraryThing and in my interest list--but I'm not sure I have as much drive to be complete about it all as maybe I should. Or one would think I should.
The interests we two share are fairly limited and general: battlestar galactica, bisexuality, buffy, erik/persian, fanfiction, firefly, joss whedon, neil young, phantom of the opera, spike, v for vendetta, writing. Nothing cute. I would agree that I'm interested in a few others of yours as well, but the ones I'd consider adding to my list are: fluid sexuality, jane austen, robin mckinley, wolverine/rogue. Especially the first one, and I might steal it.
I definitely look at peoples' interest list, and I am suspicious of those who have very few. I wonder what that means for their journal; what their criteria are for inclusion.
Also, I don't remember if I have any now, but I know I've doubled interests for those little variations in useage, like "Dorothy Sayers" vs. "Dorothy L. Sayers." Or vagaries in spacing T.E. Lawrence. That does annoy me--it's why libraries have a controlled vocabulary. In the metadata world, we're sort of against controlled vocabulary, because it would impose a centralized attitude on the interests/tags/whatever. It's one of those things we're rejecting that will most likely come back around again: at some point, we need to be able to find the data.
I am afraid I'm not making much sense, but I don't think I will.
no subject
As a cataloger, I'm a very non-anal one. Many library catalogers have a "cataloging personality," or at least they're rumored to, and that means being a stickler for details. I sometimes wonder at my laziness in my online organization structures: does it mean I'm tired of organizing once I get off work, or am I actually an anti-cataloger? At work, I am not stuck on the rules very much; I'm much more concerned with patron accessibility. But there's a measure of subjectivity there. And online, I find myself interested in del.icio.us and LibraryThing and in my interest list--but I'm not sure I have as much drive to be complete about it all as maybe I should. Or one would think I should.
The interests we two share are fairly limited and general: battlestar galactica, bisexuality, buffy, erik/persian, fanfiction, firefly, joss whedon, neil young, phantom of the opera, spike, v for vendetta, writing. Nothing cute. I would agree that I'm interested in a few others of yours as well, but the ones I'd consider adding to my list are: fluid sexuality, jane austen, robin mckinley, wolverine/rogue. Especially the first one, and I might steal it.
I definitely look at peoples' interest list, and I am suspicious of those who have very few. I wonder what that means for their journal; what their criteria are for inclusion.
Also, I don't remember if I have any now, but I know I've doubled interests for those little variations in useage, like "Dorothy Sayers" vs. "Dorothy L. Sayers." Or vagaries in spacing T.E. Lawrence. That does annoy me--it's why libraries have a controlled vocabulary. In the metadata world, we're sort of against controlled vocabulary, because it would impose a centralized attitude on the interests/tags/whatever. It's one of those things we're rejecting that will most likely come back around again: at some point, we need to be able to find the data.
I am afraid I'm not making much sense, but I don't think I will.