-4

Looking at the questions under the and I think that we could be a lot more specific.

There are two ways to do it, either the identify-this- convention or to keep going with what we have.

Indentify-this

There is a post about the naming convention for the identification tags here,

These tags are called 'identify-this' tags, so I would suggest following the same naming conventions as the rest of the network... This avoids any surprises when folks folks visit here from other sites. Plus, folks can easily 'favorite' or 'ignore' these tags by entering, Ignored Tags: [identify-this-*].

This naming convention can also be expanded to include other areas of identification as needed:

but it looks like it was never implemented. I would like to suggest fully implementing the solution to bring this site up to speed with the other stackexchange sites.

Basically, can we rename

and can we create,

I would like a mod to handle the renames, but would be perfectly willing if everyone thinks this is a good idea, to hand creating the new tags and then tag the questions.

Keep going with what we have

The second would be to continue what we have and make more specific tags in line with the

I this case I could just create the new tags and apply them.

None of these tags would be artificial as I know of specific questions that could use them.

  • My first reaction is why? I don't really see a problem that needs solving. It does seem that at some point Robert suggested a convention, it seems no one listened. But I also don't really see why this is too big a deal – user2766 Sep 27 '17 at 9:56
  • @Liam Mostly because I think that we could be a lot more specific in the tags, see my updated question. – Charlie Brumbaugh Sep 27 '17 at 12:58
  • How does more specific tags help though? and help with what? – user2766 Sep 27 '17 at 13:05
  • @Liam For example we could have a plant identification tag instead of having just the one identification tag. Same reason we have bear and cougar tags instead of just a dangerous animal tag. – Charlie Brumbaugh Sep 27 '17 at 13:10
  • Oh hold I I see what your getting at. I think I misread the first sentence. – user2766 Sep 27 '17 at 13:15
  • 2
    Incidentally there is no way to create new tags. Tags only exist if they have questions tagged. If you remove a tag off all the questions it's tagged in, it ceases to exist. So your can't create new tags before the questions for them exist – user2766 Sep 27 '17 at 14:26
2

I think that we could be a lot more specific

So tags main role is to group similar questions together, mainly for SEO purposes. Search engine bots like a way to group pages together so that they can understand that their related. This also aids with the good questions bubble to the top ethos, i.e. bubble to the top of what.

Now with the above in mind, how does being more specific help? at the moment the has 46 questions and has 30. Making this grouping more specific is just going to scatter the information and likely lower the SEO value. If we had a lot more questions in these subjects and they needed further sub dividing then this would make sense. As it stands I don't think it does. So we shouldn't change these tags or re-tag the questions tagged by them.

  • To follow this argument to the conclusion, should we get rid of the mountain-identification tag since there aren't very many questions tagged with it? – Charlie Brumbaugh Sep 27 '17 at 13:37
  • 3
    No. I don't really see why we're messing with the tags at all. Is my point – user2766 Sep 27 '17 at 13:49
2

I like "something-identification" much better - in my opinion "this" is purely noise. According to the linked Q&A the "identify-this-something" pattern is a network thing, but e.g. biology.SE doesn't adhere to it. So I wouldn't change anything unless there is some requirement imposed.

I don't think we need or should create new tags "artificially in advance", that should happen naturally with questions coming up about the topic.

EDIT: My main point is about it being unnecessary to decide on a big tag change. I do not oppose these tags. They seem totally reasonable. So if there is a question that comes up and fits into such a category, just create the tag. If it is useful, it will be used again, if it is useless, it wont be used - either way, no harm done.

  • None of the tags would be artificial, see my updated post since I could also see us creating more tags to be more specific but in the same way what we have. – Charlie Brumbaugh Sep 27 '17 at 12:57
  • 1
    @CharlieBrumbaugh Ok - do tag questions with tags you deem appropriate, that's in my opinion perfectly reasonable. What I mean is that I don't understand the need to decide on this let alone put a mod on it. And I don't remember what it is, but I once went on a tag editing spree, that was in principle accepted by most, but flooding the main page with tag edits met with really strong opposition. That's my one data point against retrospective action. – imsodin Sep 27 '17 at 19:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .