Timeline for Can our tag-prompt nudge toward including system?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 24, 2018 at 14:39 | comment | added | GcL | Given the existing no-guess policy, might want to use an all caps "REQUIRED" in the placeholder text about the system tag. | |
| Jan 17, 2018 at 8:06 | comment | added | Please stop being evil | @fectin It's true that that's among the first comments on any question not tagged with a system. That's a problem, and, among questions that aren't a user's first question on the site, it's not usually a problem with the question. The culture that leads to that question being asked even when it makes absolutely no sense with respect to the question, sometimes as a tounge-in-cheek reprimand for asking something other than how to handle a specific in-play situation (along the lines of 'what problem are you trying to solve?' on a history question) , is not something I want to encourage. | |
| Jan 17, 2018 at 4:02 | comment | added | fectin | @thedarkwanderer I wouldn't necessarily recommend requiring a system mechanically, or enforcing that requirement through moderation (user or diamond). But that is the first question on just about every post which isn't tagged with a system. And as we are collapsing down to a single-sentence instruction on tagging, my best guess is that including "if any" will produce initial tags that need work more often than omitting it. | |
| Jan 17, 2018 at 3:50 | comment | added | Please stop being evil | @fectin that's too far for me. We already have people who think every question needs a system tag (see the downvoted answer on this question). I don't want to encourage that sort of thinking. | |
| Jan 17, 2018 at 1:15 | comment | added | fectin | I'd even drop the "if any," and generically demand a system. I suspect it would be easier to handle the exceptions where it's misleading than the ones where it's omitted. | |
| Jan 16, 2018 at 6:40 | comment | added | Please stop being evil | >.< ok, yeah, let's avoid people doing that. | |
| Jan 15, 2018 at 23:21 | comment | added | doppelgreener Mod | Also, until 2015-ish we had lots of people asking questions & deciding their game wasn't relevant & not mentioning it at all or burying it. (Revision 1 of this Q from 2014 is a great example: spoilers, the game was utterly important.) Nowadays burying that info is widely seen as counterproductive and I'm concerned "if relevant" would prompt that behaviour again. Picture: Q: "Hey how do I calculate damage for my sword? Game's not relevant I guess." // A: "It's on page X of the PHB." // Comment: "Oh, which Savage Worlds book is that?" | |
| Jan 15, 2018 at 23:20 | comment | added | doppelgreener Mod | @thedarkwanderer I'd strongly prefer "if any": almost always (like >90% of the time) if a game's being played it's substantially relevant, and an over-correction here is preferable to an under-correction. When a game is specified but not ultimately relevant, it's harmless and fine. When a game isn't specified, it impairs answer quality or is a total show-stopper. In the scope of this question and considering the potential impact, I'd be absolutely fine with the over-correction. | |
| Jan 15, 2018 at 23:05 | comment | added | Please stop being evil | I would replace 'if any' with 'if relevant', I think. | |
| Jan 15, 2018 at 17:59 | history | edited | doppelgreenerMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 283 characters in body
|
| Jan 15, 2018 at 17:21 | history | edited | doppelgreenerMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 48 characters in body; deleted 121 characters in body
|
| Jan 15, 2018 at 17:09 | history | answered | doppelgreenerMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |