Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts | Stitcher | TuneIn | RSS
Bob KasenchakBob Kasenchak is an expert on taxonomy for web publishers. He’s one of a handful of information architects who focuses on this powerful practice.
A good taxonomy helps people find and navigate your content. It helps search engines index and list your content. It helps connect your content to similar content on the web.
The process of building a taxonomy can help align different business units in your organization around a central knowledge model that can power a number of different information systems.
People like Bob devote their careers to the practice of taxonomy. But you don’t have become a professional to benefit from well-organized content.
Bob and I talked about:
- his role at Synaptica, a company that sells taxonomy and ontology software
- what taxonomy is, and its origins in the worlds of science and librarianship
- the differences between taxonomy use in the analog and digital worlds
- the inferiority of simple text search and how taxonomy can help deliver better search results
- how the concept of social media hashtags illustrates the benefits of creating controlled taxonomies
- how taxonomy creation can help align stakeholders across an organization
- how taxonomists can use an enterprise’s content to create a central knowledge model to power a number of internal information systems
- how to embed taxonomy practices in your organization
- how “a taxonomy is a living document or data structure that has to be fed and watered” to account for change – Pluto as a planet, or COVID-19 as a disease, e.g.
- how the differences between structured content in a format like XML versus content stored in a database affect your ability to retrieve certain kinds of content information
- taxonomies that show organizational structure
- the difference between a content tagging taxonomy and web navigation taxonomy
- how taxonomies often exist in many different places and formats in an organization – “taxonomies are like teapots – everyone has a couple of them lying around, even if you’re not sure where they are or how you got them”
- some of the tools available for taxonomists
- how to use existing taxonomies to jump-start your taxonomy project
- how to enlist taxonomy fans in your organization to support ongoing taxonomy work
- the natural human propensity to categorize things, and how taxonomy can help
Bob’s Bio
Bob Kasenchak is a taxonomist and Senior Manager of Client Solutions at Synaptica living in Albuquerque, New Mexico. After early training in philosophy and a decade studying and teaching music, Bob spent eight years designing and developing information projects at a leading taxonomy firm before joining Synaptica in 2019. His current interests include knowledge graphs, gamelan, and soup.
Connect with Bob on Social Media
Links to Resources Mentioned in the Podcast
Video
Here’s the video version of our conversation:
Podcast Intro Transcript
Whether you’re classifying biological organisms, organizing books in a library, or categorizing your company’s website content, you need a taxonomy. A good taxonomy makes your content accessible to people, findable by search engines, and connectable to other content. People like Bob Kasenchak devote their careers to the practice of taxonomy. But you don’t have become a professional like Bob to benefit from well-organized content. Keep listening to learn more about this powerful information architecture practice.
Interview Transcript
Larry:
Hi, everyone. Welcome to episode number 77 of the Content Strategy Insights podcast. I’m really happy today to have with us Bob Kasenchak. Bob is a taxonomist at Synaptica. He’s also his actual job title there is Senior Manager of Client Solutions. So Bob, welcome. Tell the folks a little bit more about what you do there at Synaptica and what a senior manager of client solutions does.
Bob:
Hi, Larry, thanks for having me. Happy to be here. So I work for a small software company called Synaptica and we build and deploy semantic solutions for big and small enterprises of all kinds, which means taxonomy and ontology management software, which I’m sure we’re going to talk a little bit more about. So my job as a taxonomist and senior manager at Synaptica involves sort of three things that is things like this, which are marketing things, interviews, blog posts, writing copy, and doing various marketing activities, going to conferences back in the before times when we had conferences. And then sales, responding to inquiries and giving demos and providing information to clients and helping with some light taxonomy and modeling tasks to get them up and running.
Bob:
And then the third thing I get to do is help with the software. So we have two major software products that we maintain and are continually improving based on client feedback. And I get to help since I’m also a consumer of these products to help with designs. I’m not a coder, but I speak coder a little bit. So I get to help translate requirements into specifications for product improvement. And so those are sort of the three main hats that I wear at Synaptica.
Larry:
Cool. Well, I’d love to circle back to that, about the tools, what you do there at Synaptica, but I want to back out and make it as agnostic and just conceptual as possible to start with and talk just about like, what is taxonomy and how is it beneficial to web publishers?
Bob:
So we talk in general terms for a minute about taxonomy and then we can bring it back around to content. So taxonomy is any hierarchically organized group of concepts that’s used for things like web navigation, tagging content or organizing books in the library. So everyone who’s online at all has encountered taxonomies. If you go to a shopping website and you see a list of topics at the top: men’s, women’s, children shoes or whatever that is, furniture, and then you click on that and the menu drops down and it has some subcategories and perhaps if you mouse over that it has some further subcategories. That’s a taxonomy, specifically a product taxonomy. If you go on eBay and you find the list of categories on the side, that’s a taxonomy.
Bob:
So this concept comes from Linnaeus and his biological classification of beings, which is hierarchical, but has been adopted into the information science world for a long time as an offshoot of library science. So many people are familiar with things like the Library of Congress’ subject headings, which is a kind of taxonomy or the Dewey Decimal System. So the problem in a physical library is that you have one copy of a book and you need to figure out where to put it on a shelf so people can find it. So you decide what its main topic is, and then you shove it there and then it’s by author and so on and so forth.
Bob:
Well in the digital world, we don’t have this problem. We don’t have one copy of a thing we can put in one place. What we need to do instead of applying a Library of Congress, or Dewey Decimal Classification number to it, is we want to assign it subject tags so that people can find it when they search for content online. And the reason that this is helpful is because frankly speaking language is ambiguous. So if you are a publisher and you have a million documents on your website. Let’s say you’re a science publisher, you have 37 journals and you have 987,000 articles dating back 100 years. And I subscribed to your website and I come to do a search and I just start typing in words. And the search engine matches words to words and documents.
Bob:
This is a very unsatisfactory approach to searching a million documents because first of all, I’m going to get tens of thousands of search results, no matter what I look for, and that’s not helpful. Second of all, language is ambiguous, which is a theme that I always keep hammering on so I’ll keep coming back to it. So if I’m on your science website and I look for, and I type in the type of string mercury, and it goes out and it finds all the documents that have the word “mercury” in it, and it brings them back to me, what am I going to get?
Bob:
Well, I’m going to get articles about planets and articles about cars, perhaps, and articles about chemical, silvery metallic chemical, liquid elements. And maybe if someone was feeling particularly fanciful articles about Roman gods, but I’m an astronomer. All I want is Mercury the planet. So the goal of this kind of search application and the content world is to deliver to the searcher, all of the articles on Mercury, the planet and only the articles on Mercury the planet.
Bob:
Now there are ways to do advanced keyword searches to try and include other things. But the idea is that if we tag documents with the relevant concepts that they’re about, it makes it easier for the retrieval engine to bring them back to me. And the way that I like to explain this to people who don’t understand what it is that I do is to try and explain it in terms of metadata tags in their experience.
Bob:
So everyone, again, everyone online has experience with social media and they understand this concept that you can hashtag a social media post. I can put a hashtag on my Twitter post, or I can hashtag a video that I watch on YouTube. So if you and I both watch videos about horses and we can hashtag the videos and I tag it, hashtag equestrian because I’m a jerk and you take it hashtag horseys. If I go to search for hashtag horses, I’m not going to get either the videos that you and I tagged because we didn’t use the tag horses.
Bob:
So the idea generically is that you have a huge body of content or products or other things, but let’s talk about content. And then you have a controlled set of hashtags that are the only tags that are allowed to be used. So when someone sees a video of a horse, they can’t use equestrians or horses or ponies or OMG look at the pretty white horsey 111. They have to use hashtag horses or whatever the appropriate term is. So these vocabularies can range in size from dozens to tens of thousands of terms. And I guess that in a nutshell is sort of the content view of of what taxonomy is about.
Larry:
Well, that gets into it. For me, I love that explanation. That was great. But sort of the end there, I was thinking about your kind of set, making the case for your profession because doing that going from horses and magical white critters to common taxonomy that everybody agrees on. Well, I guess one thing about that, there’s this common issue in content strategy practice of aligning folks who work in different departments like getting the marketing folks and the technical folks and the legal people and whoever else to all speak the same language sounds like a… You know, when you make a taxonomy, like for an organization, are you typically working across departments and with people from all over the organization?
Bob:
Absolutely. In an enterprise type situation, a taxonomy is going to be used to tag content as metadata for retrieval both on a public-facing website, so people can find stuff and for internal knowledge management or KM. Something like 18% of knowledge worker’s time, and knowledge worker is a very broad white-collar group of workers that encompasses tons and tons of people. 18% of knowledge workers’ time is spent looking for documents that they know exists, but can’t find so they recreate them. And this just creates a glut of, and I’m an ex-academic. So I have studies and quotes for this. I can send you the references, but this is an incredible waste of time and an incredible glut, further glut of information.
Bob:
So when you, in an enterprise setting, especially when you’re doing internal KM, there are several extremely important inputs into the language that we’re going to try and codify and standardize so that we can use the same abbreviations and tags. Even I’ve been to places where they don’t even call the departments the same thing across departments. So it’s very important to get stakeholders from across the organization, whether that’s marketing, sales, web dev content in whatever else exists. It’s also important to get subject matter expertise, which may or may not come from internal departments to come in and help validate because in many fields, no one reads the journals except for the PhDs in their field. And they know what current practices and what the new things in research are.
Bob:
And the other important source of material for building a taxonomy is the content itself, text mining the content to see what words are in it, pulling them out, and then starting to arrange them into hierarchies and merge things that are the same and do a record so you have different versions of the same term. And all those inputs are crucial for the taxonomist, because what essentially we’re doing is trying to create an enterprise-wide knowledge model that sits at the hub of all the other information systems, so that it can inform a content creation system, a search system, and SEO system, product organization systems, and whatever else is being used that applies metadata, which as we know, should be everyone at this point, whether that’s manual or automatic, so that you have a single hub in a hub and spoke system that that taxonomy structures are going out and informing all of those other departments and systems.
Larry:
The way you just put that too it makes me think about sort of the process of it. That this is not a one-and-done project where you just say, well, there’s our taxonomy. We’re good to go. These subject matter experts are continually making new discoveries and adopting new practices, wherever. There’s new terminology coming along.
Bob:
Well new content is being created constantly.
Larry:
Right. And to the extent that you’re just discovering it from your content, right? So is taxonomy like an expertise that, because a lot of places probably don’t have a full-time taxonomist around doing this. Is taxonomy sort of a skill set that like whoever the information architect or the chief content strategist or somebody like that should have in their toolkit?
Bob:
Absolutely. At least some familiarity. There are big construction problems when you’re getting started, that you might want to bring an expert. There are individual practitioners, as well as some small consultancies, maybe a half a dozen or so around that can be engaged for this. But then it has to get turned over to the enterprise, unless they’re going to hire a full-time taxonomist, which does happen. Places like Amazon have hundreds and hundreds of taxonomists on staff. Large corporations, your job websites, places like this have teams of taxonomists working. E-commerce sites, at least forward-thinking e-commerce sites have teams of taxonomists because new information is always happening.
Bob:
So let’s take a recent example. I’m not going to name any names, but let’s say we have a big e-commerce platform connecting buyers and sellers of goods. And so for every kind of good, you have to have a different shape of metadata. A shirt has a color and a size, but the size of a shirt is not the same as the size of a hammer or the size of a ladder or the size of a mattress. So those size fields aren’t all the same thing. We’re wandering into ontology a little bit. We don’t have to talk about that today.
Bob:
So as new areas emerge, you have to, if you have, let’s say two kinds of face masks on your site, you don’t need a whole bunch of crazy metadata fields. But when all of a sudden, everyone in the world needs to buy face masks. Now you have to have an internal team that identifies that people are buying this thing, identifies that this is growing as a category of people selling it. And now you have to have. Now, if you do a search, you don’t have two items, you have thousands of items. So now I have to be able to sort by size, by color, by design, by pattern, by rock band or whatever it is that you anything else that you have on your face mask. So forward-thinking e-commerce type platforms have teams of dedicated taxonomists that are constantly looking at it.
Bob:
Now let’s go back to the thing that you asked about, which was an enterprise situation, where they may have one part-time or full-time person that acts as the taxonomy manager. Maybe they have other duties. Maybe it’s a librarian. Maybe it’s a content person, information architect. They have to constantly be getting feedback from all the other departments. A taxonomy is a living document or data structure that has to be fed and watered. If I have a taxonomy about astronomy that I built 10 years ago, Pluto is still a planet, right? If I have a medical taxonomy that I built one year ago, COVID is not a term that I have in my taxonomy.
Bob:
So taxonomies have to be maintained. You have to look at content. You have to constantly be gathering input from stakeholders and experts to update things. Everyone was calling it this until Dr. Brown publishes now famous paper last year in the June article of the journal of whatever, whatever. And now everyone’s calling it Y. So we have to capture that new preferred term and change the other one to a subsidiary, synonym term, and look at what terms are being used. What kinds of content aren’t getting any tags, what tags are overused and need more granularity to have more specificity for information retrieval because really, really that’s the name of the game it is information retrieval.
Bob:
Now there are other possible uses, again, product things, e-commerce, ontological things like data analysis, because one of the things you want to be able to do is ask questions about your content. Again, let’s say you’re a publisher. You have a million articles on science. What topics are trending? How do you know what topics are trending? Because XML, which is a very common document, structured document format, as you know, is a great way to store and transmit and display content. What it’s not is a database, a million XML articles is a terrible database.
Bob:
So if I want to query my XML articles, and I want to say, how many articles did I publish in the last two years in these three of my journals on any topic in mathematics by authors from Harvard? Which is a very sensible thing to want to be able to ask content, right? XML is a terrible way to be able to ask. The names aren’t normalized. You know those fields aren’t controlled. It’s not a database. So subject tagging at least gets you closer to being able to make queries like that. And then again, we’ll probably have to do another episode or something, but you’re going to extract all that information and put it in a graph. And now we can query that data, but taxonomy, metadata, subject tagging is still going to be an important way to do that.
Bob:
And the other thing I want to say about that real quick is that many enterprises, in addition to taxonomies of subjects that they use to tag documents with their aboutness, which is a term of art that I don’t like, but it is what it is, their aboutness have, and maybe authority files of proper names, organizations, people, places, things like that, viruses, whatever. Also, have what they call organizational taxonomies in which literally they have a structured vocabulary that describes the departments and committees and sub-departments and the way those things interact and how the chains of command run.
Bob:
So they actually build taxonomies of their organizational structure because these things are always in flux. The digital department is now moved from IT to content or more likely content to IT and whatever. Now they report to this and this is the acronym they use for that. And so you see taxonomies that are literally of the organizational structure that someone keeps and maintains because as things get reorganized, it’s a good way to keep track of who reports to whom and stuff like that.
Larry:
That’s so interesting. And just stitching that together, is this true as an information architecture on website design that your org chart should not be the website navigation. So you just want to be careful what you do with that information. I’m thinking of Andy Fitzgerald’s recent article on that, that your information architecture is not your site navigation, but-
Bob:
No, and that’s a very important point. And one of the first talks I gave about taxonomy at the Information Architecture Conference, which used to be The Summit, was about different kinds of taxonomies because when I first got to that meeting, it was much more of a UX-ey space than it is now where it’s gotten a lot more data-driven 10 years later, but people would ask me, “What do you do?” “I’m an AI, I’m a UI, I’m a UXer. What do you do?” “I’m a taxonomist.” And they go, “Really?” I felt like I should get a big fuzzy trucker hat that’s says taxonomist. And since then it’s become a lot more widespread. But as I was talking to people in the community about taxonomy, I quickly got very confused because we weren’t talking about the same thing.
Bob:
When I talked about taxonomy, I meant a big information structure used to tag things with metadata and what they meant was the thing that people see on the website navigation. Now those things might be tied together, but that’s not the same thing. Your web navigation taxonomy has to be smaller than your content tagging taxonomy. Content tagging taxonomies as I said, can run tens of thousands of terms and be dozens of levels deep. Web navigation taxonomies have sort of stripped like psychology-driven cognitive science rules about how many items, how deep they have to be. You have to be able to display it on a screen and navigate around. So maybe you have a deep taxonomy that’s used to tag things and a shallower taxonomy that’s used to navigate that’s tied to those things to retrieve them in groups or bundles.
Bob:
So I had to negotiate that we were both talking about hierarchical structures, but somehow there was this disconnect. And so I gave a talk there that was a lot of fun about the different kinds of taxonomies, a taxonomy of taxonomies, if you will, where a web navigation taxonomy and a product taxonomy and a document classification taxonomy, all share some characteristics, but they’re also very different animals in terms of size, structure, strategy, approach, deployment, maintenance, and things like that.
Larry:
Right. And to that, I’m curious, like all of a sudden I’m thinking like, what do you do with a taxonomy? You’ve just alluded to a lot of different places. So a taxonomy can show up as like fields, essentially in an XML document, as a database entry or as… And I guess, and also like we talked to, I can’t remember if this was on the air before we talked about how all this stuff always starts in spreadsheets. It’s like you sit down and you start these projects by just kind of listing everything you got and then organizing it. This probably gets back around to the tools and stuff we were talking about a little bit earlier. How are taxonomies kind of gathered, figured out, stored, later used? What is the typical? Is it CMSs most of the time or is it knowledge graphs or how’s it happening?
Bob:
So some CMS type applications have baked in taxonomy modules. For example, SharePoint has the thing called the Term Store that’s sort of a half-baked taxonomy application. Those things will get you a little ways down the road and are definitely a step up from spreadsheets. So the first answer is that everyone starts in spreadsheets. Almost, almost every client I’ve ever worked with has spreadsheets lying around and probably different ones in different departments. I like to say that taxonomies are like teapots. Everyone has a couple of them lying around, even if you’re not sure where they are or how you got them.
Bob:
So you first, you need to find those and gather them up and definitely spreadsheets. But the thing about complex taxonomies is they’re large and they have lots of relationships. So things might live in more than one branch in a polyhierarchy. And so now when you make a change, you have to make sure you’re enforcing changes in reciprocals. And that quickly becomes untenable, especially when you start moving towards ontological structures, link data, adding fields to terms.
Bob:
So if all you have is a list of words in a grid, the spreadsheet’s okay. But as soon as you start having attributes and definitions, scope notes, other metadata, different kinds of term relations, you really need some kind of dedicated tool. And there’s probably not a dozen-ish out there ranging from sort of simple freeware, which we’ll definitely get you out of the spreadsheet and into a dedicated tool, but doesn’t give you enterprise scale support of customization, systems integration, dedicated RESTful APIs to connect to other systems and stuff like that. All the way up to the enterprise scale tools like the company I worked for publishes and a handful of other. So it’s very specialized software meeting the need of a very dedicated user base.
Larry:
If folks express it, I can picture some folks listening to this podcast wanting to learn more about that. Is there a good place, like a website that lists taxonomy tools that I could refer people to?
Bob:
The one that I can think of off hand, and I don’t know if it’s complete, but Heather Hedden who’s I guess, sort of what passes for a famous taxonomist who wrote a book called The Accidental Taxonomist, published by Information Today has a blog. And I’m pretty sure she keeps some kind of a running list of taxonomy tools on her website. I don’t know if it’s comprehensive.
Larry:
I’ll find that. Well, I guess in terms of like the shade tree taxonomists like somebody like me, who’s like working on a project and sees the benefit of doing this. Sounds like you could get pretty far along with a spreadsheet, but are any of those tools geared for like either small enterprises or non-enterprise, for small and medium-sized businesses that-
Bob:
I think one called I think it’s called TemaTres. We can look it up real quick. And I’ll send you a link when we’re done. Publishes I think it’s still a free controlled vocabulary server. Yep. It’s still there. TemaTres it’s vocabularyserver.com and it’s called TemaTres. And I believe it’s either free or it’s super nominal. I want to say it’s free. Now again, it’s going to be what it is, but you can go to really have a free hosted vocabulary server there that’ll get you out of a spreadsheet into something that understands term relations and reciprocals and stuff like that.
Larry:
And one thing that I wonder we haven’t talked about this yet, but I know that there are sort of vocabularies and taxonomies that you can adopt. You don’t have to start from scratch often.
Bob:
Absolutely.
Larry:
Yeah. Can you talk a little bit about that?
Bob:
Yeah. So there’s a couple and you’d be crazy to just start from scratch if you don’t have to. There are taxonomies all over the place, some of which are available for free use. Anything the US government publishes is free to use. Now, you can’t resell it, but you can adopt it and use in your enterprise. So the Labor Department, the NIH, MeSH is extremely well-adopted taxonomy, and it’s called Medical Subject Headings that the National Institute of Health publishes energies to tag all the content in Medline. So all the major medical journals. And it’s comprehensive and covers diseases conditions, the hospital stuff, and all that stuff. Anything that US government publishes, you can use. Other organizations, so if you’re building a science taxonomy, you would want to go to some science publishers and see if they’ll give you permission, or if they publish them open source.
Bob:
So the main resource at this point is called BARTOC.org. And it’s spelled like the composer except with a C B-A-R-T-O-C.org, which is run out of the University of Basel in Switzerland. And it’s the Basel registry of taxonomies, ontologies and controlled vocabularies. And I think it started out as this guy’s, I’d met him, a grad student project, and now it’s a permanent website and anyone can register their vocabulary there. So if you need a vocabulary about whatever pianos or answer space or whatever it is, pizza, you can go to BARTOC, search for it and find a listing. Now then you might have to check for licensing requirements. Some things are free to use, basically published in a CC0 type environment, some require permission, but you can resell them all the way to licensable.
Bob:
So the Getty used to license their vocabulary. It’s it costs you a couple of grand. The Getty Museum in California publishes three very famous taxonomies, the Arts and Architecture Thesaurus, the Getty Unified List of Artists Names and the Getty Geography. And about, I don’t know, seven or eight years ago they’re like, you know what? Well, linked open data. Now anyone can go get linked open data versions of the Getty and ingest them and using them in their own things. So there are lots of resources out there to get started. There’s certainly, I’ve built lots of taxonomies from scratch, but there’s easier ways to do it, including text mining content, using existing sources and looking in the cupboards for the teapot taxonomies that every organization has lying around.
Larry:
Nice. Well, I see a lot of good starter ideas here for people doing this. Like if you go out and gather the teapots in your organization, get one big spreadsheet, take it from there, something like that.
Bob:
Yeah. And when you’re doing that, and you’re going to enlist help from stakeholders to review stuff, okay. I’ve put together what I think the marketing thing is, I need to bring the marketing people in to review it. I need to have this department, that department come in and review them. Plus subject matter experts. Again, that’s more for technical fields, but it does happen. When you’re going through this process. And I call all those people subject matter experts. That’s all SME review to me. When you’re going through this process, you’re inevitably going to find somebody who’s like, “This is so cool. I had no idea this was a thing. This is what you do for a living? This is great. I want to help. How can I help?”
Bob:
Identify those people and don’t let them go. You’re going to need that person. Because as the project gets implemented, the first stage of it and you get into governance, it still needs funding, it’s still needs institutional support. And you need those backers, those superstars of advocacy for your taxonomy or vocabulary projects internally. So that when it comes time to buy a more expensive tool, hire a taxonomist, just continue the funding for the metadata program as it exists. You’re going to need those people. Not only to keep doing continual review, but to advocate for you because the hard parts of this is that everyone agrees that it needs to be done, but making the case for it and the expense that’s required, like all other parts of content strategy is a constant struggle.
Larry:
So finding that highest level taxonomy, enthusiastist and enlisting them as your champion, sounds like a good thing. Hey, Bob, I noticed we’re coming up on time. These conversations always go so quickly, but I never get out of here. I always like to make sure that you get the last word in. Is there anything last, anything that we’ve talked about that you want to elaborate on, or that just is on your mind about taxonomy or structured data or metadata that you’d like to share with the folks?
Bob:
Well, I guess a couple of things. I mean, the other place that I see people running into taxonomy is people making shade-tree, off-the-cuff taxonomies on Twitter and other social media places like these are the kinds of nurses. And as you mentioned that the one that went around that I built to talk on is what constitutes a sandwich or things. So I feel like, I mean, the notion of categorization and putting things into categories for quick cognition and decision-making is a very essential part of human cognition. We put things into categories.
Bob:
Now, sometimes it’s not fair. Sometimes those are bad generalizations, but we have to do it. We have to have a category in our mind called the door so that every time we encounter a door, we’re not like, well, what’s this thing about? We have doors as a general shape and size and interface and use case that we can use to quickly sort things. So we have to be careful about how we put things into categories, but people are very used to this idea about categorizing things. And so I think once they get used to the topic of taxonomy, everyone finds a way to interact with it and have fun with it, which I think is really cool.
Larry:
Nice. Hey, and one last thing, Bob, what’s the best place for people to follow you? Do you have social media, like Twitter or someplace you’d like to connect to folks?
Bob:
Yeah, I’m @taxobob on Twitter and I mostly do professional Twitter. I mean, information science and taxonomy stuff there in addition to some other hobbies and interests that I have, but it’s almost more of a professional account than a personal account. And I retweet other cool taxonomy things when I find them.
Larry:
Great. Bob, I’ll link to that in the show notes as well. Well, thanks so much, Bob. I really enjoyed this. Great conversation. Thank you.
Bob:
Thanks Larry. It was fun. Let’s do it again.
Larry:
Will do.
Leave a Reply