Timeline for Are our implicit-information tagging practices becoming a problem?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:45 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://rpg.stackexchange.com/ with https://rpg.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Dec 4, 2014 at 22:59 | history | undeleted | doppelgreener | ||
| Nov 13, 2014 at 0:51 | history | deleted | doppelgreener | via Vote | |
| Nov 13, 2014 at 0:50 | comment | added | doppelgreener | Why is this getting so downvoted, if it's just a request that we generally take more action asking these people to clarify their stuff? (Which is pretty close to what other people are saying) | |
| Nov 12, 2014 at 3:20 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | I think we already do that often enough though, with the notable exception of the case you outline around [rules-as-written]. | |
| Nov 12, 2014 at 3:18 | comment | added | doppelgreener | Like, I'm not asking someone to explain why the wizard tag is on a question. That makes sense if they're talking about a wizard. But if they're using two system tags, and their post doesn't make it clear how they're sourcing each one in their game, I'll be requesting clarification. (But as you can see from the example of two system tags, nobody asked.) Am I really failing to communicate this somehow? | |
| Nov 12, 2014 at 3:14 | comment | added | doppelgreener | @SevenSidedDie please re-read it. I am not trying to suggest that. I'm trying to suggest that we should request clarification when tags are used with ambiguous meaning. Not every case, not single system tags, pretty much just the three cases above. | |
| Nov 12, 2014 at 3:11 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | But this proposal is to explain every tag, not just the ones that cause ambiguity, so that does include questions with just one system tag. If every question-asker knew when tags needed explanation and when they didn't, we wouldn't be here now. | |
| Nov 11, 2014 at 23:08 | history | edited | doppelgreener | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 57 characters in body
|
| Nov 11, 2014 at 23:02 | history | edited | doppelgreener | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 57 characters in body
|
| Nov 11, 2014 at 22:11 | history | edited | doppelgreener | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 468 characters in body
|
| Nov 11, 2014 at 21:48 | comment | added | doppelgreener | @SevenSidedDie that's the simple case of one system tag though. Explanations for why you're using tags in the other situations are not boilerplate, they're disambiguation for why you're using those tags. Or rather: they're basic explanation of what you want, which is not always the same for those situations, and then the tags come next but are not relied upon. | |
| Nov 11, 2014 at 17:13 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | The problem with this is that it results in things like this, where questions have hand-written boilerplate at the end just to duplicate the meaning of the tags. More often than not, the tags are perfectly clear. It's only when they're not that there are problems; and requiring in-body repetition of the tag semantics would be more often adding junk than not. | |
| Nov 11, 2014 at 4:00 | history | edited | doppelgreener | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 417 characters in body
|
| Nov 11, 2014 at 2:10 | history | answered | doppelgreener | CC BY-SA 3.0 |