3
$\begingroup$

Related to this question

Right now we have and , which has [near-earth-object] as a synonym. This is potentially confusing to users, and if there's any other NEO acronyms out there, people might misuse the tag.

I would like to suggest we reverse the synonym and make [near-earth-object] the tag, which keeps with existing nomenclature.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I've implemented the change. $\endgroup$ – called2voyage Feb 21 at 14:42
4
$\begingroup$

I agree with this change, and I've now implemented it!

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Will the desired result be the single [near-earth-object] tag on all 47 questions? $\endgroup$ – uhoh Feb 21 at 2:49
  • $\begingroup$ @uhoh No, this would just be flipping neo and near-earth-objects. $\endgroup$ – called2voyage Feb 21 at 3:50
  • $\begingroup$ I see, since the asteroids subset is probably 99% the size of the catch-all objects category I still think that one tag (what Astronomy has) will be in practice better than two for search and migration reasons, unless there are other objects besides asteroids and comets that I don't know about. $\endgroup$ – uhoh Feb 21 at 4:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @uhoh There are three questions in near-earth-object that are not about asteroids. Though not much, I think that is just enough to justify maintaining two tags. $\endgroup$ – called2voyage Feb 21 at 14:50
  • $\begingroup$ If my arithmetic is correct (it's late here) I think that means that there are about 15 questions about near-earth-asteroids that don't have a near-earth-asteroid tag. The status quo seems sub-optimal. $\endgroup$ – uhoh Feb 21 at 14:54
  • $\begingroup$ @uhoh We maintain separate superset/subset tags all the time. I wish the system had a more standard way of linking tags with that relationship, but I think it makes sense to keep them separate, even if it's mostly redundant. If you already have four tags and you want to add one more, it's nice to have a more specific tag to add. $\endgroup$ – called2voyage Feb 21 at 14:59
  • $\begingroup$ Sub/super tagging as a concept is fine with me, 1) would me slowly adding the near-earth-asteroids tag to all of the near-earth-asteroids questions that don't have it be okay then? 2) should they all keep their near-earth-object tag as well? $\endgroup$ – uhoh Feb 21 at 15:09
  • $\begingroup$ @uhoh Any question that can support both tags (i.e. it's about asteroids and doesn't already have four/five tags) can (and probably should) have both, yes. $\endgroup$ – called2voyage Feb 21 at 15:12
  • $\begingroup$ I once got a superset tag removed: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/453460/… $\endgroup$ – uhoh Feb 21 at 15:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @uhoh Yeah, that's "general guidance", but I'm not as strict about that as they are on Physics. There's a good reason to allow using both: making sure people monitoring a certain tag see your question and making sure those answering get credit toward that tag (this allows them to build up toward their tag badges, which incentivizes answering). $\endgroup$ – called2voyage Feb 21 at 15:17
  • $\begingroup$ @uhoh Also, tag badges are a better indicator of someone's knowledge in a certain area if they can include as many of their relevant answers as possible. $\endgroup$ – called2voyage Feb 21 at 15:18
  • $\begingroup$ Okay I see. I know badges exist and are important to some people (gamification isn't evil), but I'm primarily concerned with tags as an indexing method; if I want to quickly get all the questions and answers about say near-earth-asteroids, then I want the near-earth-asteroid to do that. Okay thanks $\endgroup$ – uhoh Feb 21 at 15:23

You must log in to answer this question.

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