We have the optimisation tag, but char-op questions are not appearing in char-op searches.

(see Evaluating your own site - a check for quality )

Should we create optimisation tag synonyms for char-op, charop and character-optimization? Or a new tag? or?

  • \$\begingroup\$ Point of order. Is there a difference between charOp, theoretical charOp, pratical CharOp, and monsterOp? (I know these differences appear in the wizards forums... but..) \$\endgroup\$ – Brian Ballsun-Stanton Apr 6 '12 at 2:03

Optimization != CharOp.

I think that instead of making a synonym, we find the questions that reference the cb and tag them with CharOp. Same with 3.5 questions. This leaves optimization as a general-case "optimize my X" and char-op reflecting current WotC forum usage. The trivial search for CB strings should provide most of our questions.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I don't know that anyone knows what these Wizards forum definitions are, nor am I all that inclined to care since this isn't a 4e site... \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk Apr 6 '12 at 8:46
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Brian Could you elaborate on what current WotC forum usage is? And I assume CB means character builder? When you say "Same with 3.5 questions" do you mean "tag them all as CharOp/char-op" or "do the same to them as is done with 4e?" \$\endgroup\$ – AceCalhoon Apr 6 '12 at 18:34
  • \$\begingroup\$ There's a strong differentiation between theoretical opt and practical optimziation. CB means character builder, and we should all tag them charOp or theoreticalCharOp//practicalCharOp \$\endgroup\$ – Brian Ballsun-Stanton Apr 6 '12 at 19:12

The real problem: SEO for char-op. Let's add a synonym and tag wiki and that'll help that.

Not a real problem: differentiating between different kinds of op. So far all the optimization questions have been fine with the poster stating their parameters, and frankly a lot of "theoretical" charop will get closed as not a real problem on a SE.

I've added charop, char-op, and optimisation as synonyms for optimization and filled out the tag wiki.

  • \$\begingroup\$ Does the tag synonym actually help SEO? I searched the page source of a random optimization question for charop and didn't get any hits. \$\endgroup\$ – Simon Withers Apr 7 '12 at 2:25
  • \$\begingroup\$ To follow up on that: google does not find rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/11575/… with a search for "warlock theivery charop" but does find that question with a search for "warlock theivery optimization" ... though perhaps the newness of the "charop" addition plays into this. \$\endgroup\$ – Simon Withers Apr 7 '12 at 2:31
  • \$\begingroup\$ I don't know how you figure search works, but yes, a change here doesn't automatically propagate to Google immediately. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk Apr 7 '12 at 19:12
  • \$\begingroup\$ But I'm not sure if these things help SEO or not. We have a little of the same problem with things labeled D&D - we can't go nuts and label everything 20 ways for SEO purposes but I didn't get a good answer from Management on what works - I forget the question number, but we brought it up.. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk Apr 7 '12 at 19:14
  • \$\begingroup\$ Looks like tag synonyms have little to no google SEO impact - rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/11575/… is found by google.ca/search?q=warlock+theivery+optimization but not by google.ca/search?q=warlock+theivery+char-op (and looking at the HTML source of the question, the synonymous tags are not present) \$\endgroup\$ – Simon Withers Jan 8 '13 at 4:14
  • \$\begingroup\$ And it looks like the question you asked the Stack Overloads is meta.stackexchange.com/questions/72372/… \$\endgroup\$ – Simon Withers Jan 8 '13 at 4:15
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yeah they totally ignored me \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk Jan 8 '13 at 4:29

You must log in to answer this question.

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