Timeline for Are our implicit-information tagging practices becoming a problem?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 23, 2014 at 19:20 | comment | added | KRyan | I tend to assume that when an asker accepts an answer, they have been satisfied with the answer. It might be enlightening to go through all [rules-as-written] questions asked by people with low rep and see how many have RAW answers that aren't accepted. That would be the sort of evidence that would give credence to the case. But I have yet to see anyone ask a question tagged [rules-as-written], and complain that the answers are RAW-based and/or remove the tag. | |
| Nov 23, 2014 at 19:11 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | @KRyan The core point I make though is that we cannot tell the difference between a question that is merely asking something related to rules and a question that wants our particular treatment of the RAW tag, just based on reading the body. Identical questions could be asked, one with the tag and one without, and they'd both seem correctly tagged. If a misuse happens, it is stealth. I don't think it's possible to notice a mistag now (an interrogation of asker intent is required, and they may not know what we're on about to meaningfully answer), so I don't disagree you've never seen one. | |
| Nov 23, 2014 at 19:07 | comment | added | KRyan | I do not know why; I can only state that I have not seen them making that mistake. Apparently, even to novices, they are not synonyms. | |
| Nov 23, 2014 at 18:50 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | @Kryan Why would they react differently to the two tags? To a novice, they are synonyms. | |
| Nov 23, 2014 at 15:17 | comment | added | KRyan | (I don't get notified of your responses if you don't @) No, the over-use/misuse of [rules] is well-documented. That this misuse transfers to [rules-as-written] is not, that I can see. You claim people start to write "rules" and see "rules-as-written" and just go with that, but I see no evidence that they do. | |
| Nov 21, 2014 at 18:15 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | Look, it's all documented on meta already. Go read it. | |
| Nov 21, 2014 at 18:11 | comment | added | KRyan | You are making conclusions and assuming problems without specific evidence backing that up. I agree it’s a potential problem, but until you demonstrate that it’s actually happening, it remains only that, a possibility that appears to be unrealized. | |
| Nov 20, 2014 at 21:38 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | Based on observations since 2010, yes, naïve/new askers type "rules" into the tag box frequently, enough that it was a problem—it's why we had to blacklist [rules]. Now they see [rules-as-written] pop up, and a segment of them will inevitably roll with it, without intending our meaning for the tag. The RAW tag carries a very specific, intentional meaning on the part of the asker that is not valid to default to, so any accidental use, especially undetectable ones, is a problem. | |
| Nov 20, 2014 at 18:13 | comment | added | KRyan | Do you have any evidence to support your claim that new users are applying [rules-as-written] incorrectly/without intending the meaning that is associated with it? I cannot recall having seen any cases like that, and I follow the tag. I mostly see answerers having issues with the tag -- which is also validly an issue, but I haven't seen any cases where it seemed likely to me that a querent used the tag but didn't mean it. | |
| Nov 20, 2014 at 1:42 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | Deliberately putting meta-questions on Main is a line I know we're not going to cross. | |
| Nov 15, 2014 at 0:13 | comment | added | Please stop being evil | @doppelgreener We could still have a meta question somewhere on the site like "Why does the rules tag on my question keep getting deleted?" that just points to the meta site as the place to ask about those kinds of questions and is locked or closed or something so the tag is preserved by wiki. | |
| Nov 13, 2014 at 1:07 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | @doppelgreener Interesting. Synonyms never disappear, but if they point to a deleted tag, I wonder—do the synonyms disappear too, or stick around and re-create the other tag when they're used? Hm. | |
| Nov 13, 2014 at 0:05 | comment | added | doppelgreener | @SevenSidedDie Tags not associated with any questions still get deleted, even if they have a wiki. The wiki protection thing was only for single-use tags. | |
| Nov 12, 2014 at 16:13 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | @thedarkwanderer Wikis do provide indefinite protection. | |
| Nov 12, 2014 at 11:52 | comment | added | Please stop being evil | Wont you have issues once the tag is removed from all questions with automated deletion? A tag wiki can protect against that, but I'm not sure that protection is indefinite. | |
| Nov 12, 2014 at 8:49 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | @Grubermensch Between "might be useful more broadly" and "definitely helps to narrow it to the system you're actually using", the 'definitely' beats the 'maybe' and our general policy is to lean toward being narrow and specific. People frequently overestimate how broadly useful a question arising from a specific system is because they underestimate the breadth and diversity of RPGs. | |
| Nov 12, 2014 at 6:21 | comment | added | Grubermensch | "Lots of people just assume that every RPG works like the RPG they're playing but with different dice for the same thing." I think the problem here is a little more nuanced, in that there are a lot of systems that are broadly similar which might benefit from a general answer, but there is also a set of systems for which this answer will be invalid (or worse, harmful). I'm not sure that there is a good way to capture this nuance in the tagging framework, though. | |
| Nov 12, 2014 at 3:08 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | @Wibbs Tags are for whatever we find them useful for. People want to add useless tags all the time, and we clean them up. We only blacklisted [rules] because it was causing problems (it was being added to near everything). But, as we now see, blacklisting it didn't fully solve the problem, because people still try to use it but now we can't clean up after them—we can't tell a real [rules-as-written] question from a "couldn't find the [rules] tag" question. This proposal is a middle way that more fully solves the original problem, and the new problem with [rules-as-written]. Everyone wins! | |
| Nov 12, 2014 at 1:09 | comment | added | AgentPaper | Perhaps the tag could be changed to "strictly-rules-as-written" or something along those lines? That would make it more explicit in what it's meant to mean. | |
| Nov 11, 2014 at 21:45 | comment | added | doppelgreener | I'm not sure we should be bringing back a bad tag for that purpose either. I think those are fair statements about the problems behind the usages of those tags though, especially system agnostic. | |
| Nov 11, 2014 at 20:44 | comment | added | Wibbs | Not sure why, but your suggested solution feels like almost an abuse of the site mechanics. Are synonyms really supposed to be used that way? | |
| Nov 11, 2014 at 17:40 | history | answered | SevenSidedDie | CC BY-SA 3.0 |