We have a tag, which is actually one of our top tags. That said, it's entirely an umbrella tag for our tags describing specific kinds of questions that have to do with social dynamics. We have etc. It seems to me that any question just tagged social and to which a more specific tag didn't apply would garner close votes as 'too broad' quite quickly.

While there is certainly some value in being able to favorite all those tags at once rather than doing so individually, that relies on people consistently tagging questions with the social tag, which is a waste of tag space and also conforms not only this site's particular definition of meta-tagging but actually the network-wide one as well.

Thus it seems to me the tag should be disused. Is there a reason we shouldn't burn it?


3 Answers 3


It passes all the tests for a tag and it's not causing any problems. Of the 145 questions, 69 of them (almost half) aren't tagged with any of group-dynamics, problem-players/gm, or gm-techniques. Nearly all of those are open. There doesn't seem to be a problem here.

Is there a reason we should burn it? Tags are in when someone feels like adding one, and removed only once they demonstrably are causing problems by existing or have no reason to exist. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

  • 8
    \$\begingroup\$ I believe this answer is missing the word Folksonomyyyyyyy!!! \$\endgroup\$
    – nitsua60 Mod
    Commented May 21, 2018 at 21:02
  • \$\begingroup\$ It takes up space on questions that would really benefit from a more specific tag, and it misleads people into asking too-broad questions was what I was thinking, but if that's not the case then that's fine. \$\endgroup\$ Commented May 21, 2018 at 22:13
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @thedark It’s often useful to replace a broad tag with a more specific one that fits the question, so that issue can be fixed when it crops up. (I see this most often with [gm-techniques]; I think the most recent replacement I did if that one was [encounter-design].) \$\endgroup\$ Commented May 22, 2018 at 15:09
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ To that end, [social] has merit as a useful catch-all for social stuff for which there isn't a more specific tag. \$\endgroup\$ Commented May 22, 2018 at 15:18
  • \$\begingroup\$ Which are the tests for a tag? \$\endgroup\$
    – Masclins
    Commented Jun 6, 2018 at 18:01
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Masclins In saying that, I mean it does everything a tag should do (as described in the tagging privilege or on the tagging help page) and is not a type of tag recognised as a bad tag (such as being a meta-tag, which is a type of tag that does not describe the content of the question). \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jun 6, 2018 at 18:55

I feel like the tag is not particularly useful or consistently used, but it’s also not sticking up as a nail that seems to need to be hammered down. I can’t think of any damaging snags it’s causing; the only problem it seems to have is inconsistent use, which isn’t much of a problem.


There is no need to fix what isn't broken.

What problem are you trying to solve? The question as presented does not move me to believe that there is a problem.

It takes up space on questions that would really benefit from a more specific tag

What? There is a limit of five tags and they all occupy the same row/text line. No space management problem is in evidence.

That people often may use tags badly (I have done so myself) is not something a policy or a burnination can fix. We have a sizable body of community-moderation-motivated members who can clear off, discuss in comments, or change tags as needed to get the tags to match the question in instances where tag usage seems a bad fit for the topic/question.

Last point: not everyone is a native English speaker, so now and again a tag selection may be an honest error in that aspect.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ The space issue is precisely that you only get 5 on a question. We don't have a 'rules' tag and the idea was that this was like that only also vague and encouraging vagueness. It's clear my impression is not that of the larger community's though so it is in fact appropriate to do nothing. But if we have a tag that doesn't convey information and encourages bad questions and stuff then it would be appropriate to remove it, I think. \$\endgroup\$ Commented May 22, 2018 at 5:27
  • \$\begingroup\$ @thedarkwanderer I don't see how the tag is encouraging bad questions. I guess that's a matter of 'where you sit determines what you see.' \$\endgroup\$ Commented May 22, 2018 at 11:05

You must log in to answer this question.

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