Timeline for Should I use function name or behavior for tagging?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:52 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://emacs.stackexchange.com/ with https://emacs.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Oct 8, 2014 at 9:11 | comment | added | Malabarba | I agree with everything you said before the last paragraph. We do have to come up with general principles now, so that later we can perform retagging without having to resort to a meta question every single time. General principles are not Rules. They guide our choices, they're not absolute nor irrevokable. | |
| Sep 28, 2014 at 15:49 | comment | added | Drew | @Vamsi: I agree, particularly about "not trivializing tags by assigning all functions their own tags". My main point is that this kind of thing requires not just rules but judgment, and often case-by-case judgment. And it's OK that judgments differ and any of us can judge poorly sometimes. There is no silver bullet for this kind of thing. Any rules here can only be rough guidelines, IMO. | |
| Sep 28, 2014 at 4:23 | comment | added | Vamsi |
@Drew My question was intended to get a clarification on what is considered best policy (making it easy for users to search) rather than stipulating rules on potential tags. I do agree that having require and autoload should be independent tags for the same reason popular/specific packages should have their own tags-Create a taxonomy of relevant questions on important topics. But there seems to also be a consensus in not trivializing tags by assigning all functions their own tags which was what I wanted to clarify.
|
|
| Sep 28, 2014 at 3:32 | comment | added | Drew | @Gilles: And raise those issues in meta refers, IMO (I hope) to raising issues about specific tags, not just to abstract discussion of principles. Lead-by-example activity is right on, IMO. | |
| Sep 28, 2014 at 3:28 | comment | added | Drew | @Gilles: Again, it is not about applying a general principle in a blanket way. This is the most important part of that goal you cite: "The best way to identify tagging problems is to watch new posts closely, and try to build tag wiki excerpts that explain what the tags are for. When tags become ambiguous, too specific (or not specific enough), or just somehow off, raise those issues in meta, and quickly. Proper tagging is very much a lead-by-example activity." That was exactly my point: "Some time and experience should help determine which tags are most useful." Build tag wiki excerpts. | |
| Sep 28, 2014 at 3:22 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | On the other hand, I strongly disagree with your “tag police” remarks. Now is very much the time to worry about tags. Establishing key tags and tagging policies is a goal for the early beta. It's easier to enforce consistent tags when there are 3 questions to retag than when there are 300. Tags need to be consistent and discoverable, not inventive. | |
| Sep 28, 2014 at 3:19 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | I think I agree with having require and autoload as tags — they're important sub-topics of libraries, and so worth a tag in their own right, to distinguish them in searches from incidental use in code snippets. | |
| Sep 28, 2014 at 3:15 | history | edited | Drew | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 64 characters in body
|
| Sep 28, 2014 at 3:06 | history | answered | Drew | CC BY-SA 3.0 |