Lets discuss tags, again

I would just like to point out, I did not mean "grandstanding" in a negative way, in my opinion that's what that post is and I see no difference in tagging it as that over "rant". But if "rant" is the more widely accepted vernacular I get that. I was not meaning it to be offensive.

Sorry I'm late to the topic.

I'm one that added "rant" to a topic.
As other have stated, rant is not necessarily a negative adjective.

I added the tag to a topic that was criticising some Reddit things and honestly "critique" wasn't sitting right with me because a critique is something you make to the direct criticised entity.

If you do it somewhere else, it's a rant in my book.

And again, it is not negative, it's just a more colloquial term than "complain".

I wonder if its worth thinking about some kind of automatic system/AI that shows you commonly used variables of your tag on Tilde while you're typing it, so you can add the others?

What about game.dev ?

One thing we can do to help with consolidation is to have a type-ahead when entering tags. That way someone will type out gam and see the most common tags that begin with that string, perhaps gamedev, gametes and... gamergate.

I really like the hierarchical ask.x tags, because they're an attempt towards standardization and make sense for my brain. Deimos changing that example throws me for a bit of a loop, I'll admit.

Deimos himself suggested and uses the "long read" tag i. I think that makes it a standard tag. :)

I'd say that any article which takes more than about 5 minutes to read should be classed as a long read.

I can see benefits and drawbacks of having tags for the length of articles.

Benefits would be because not everyone has time to read a long article and it could be useful to know that it's going to be a time commitment before opening the page.

Some drawbacks that come to mind is that length can be arbitrary and entirely dependent on the OPs opinion, and I don't think that's a very useful tag if that's the case. Another consequence it could have is that it can encourage laziness or the posting of lower quality articles if it becomes popular to filter out posts with a long read tag.

I don't have any actual evidence for the latter fear, so it might not be as big a deal as I'm making it seem.

I think this would be the same scenario as an article tag, which Deimos commented on here. When advanced link scraping is implemented, article length is probably something could be automatically detected.

I guess the obvious way it would be helpful is if someone only has a bit of time to read something. The downside is if people start filtering it out in favour of shorter, potentially low quality articles.

you already have word count after the post title, so the tag is a little bit redundant, also the tag can be a author view, what the OP considers long i might not consider or vice versa

I personally like tagging the publication/source and make it a habit to do so. "The Atlantic" is the name of the publication, if it were to just be tagged "Atlantic" then that would refer to the region/ocean. That way if you want to see all topics posted from a specific publication you can.

I usually use the abbreviated name of publications when tagging them (NPR, CNN, BBC, CSM, ect ect) but it's kinda hard when the publication does not have an abbreviated name.

Although I do agree with the point you are making.

I agree: tags are search terms, and should be treated as such. They should tend to be more general and collective rather than particular and specific.

While we'll probably never come to a consensus on whether or not such a tag is necessary, I feel trigger is enough for filtering and situational awareness purposes for those who care for it. It's short and to the point.

I could very well be misunderstanding the intent between tagging and the creation of new sub~'s, but I feel like tech.support makes more sense. A future sub could very well be ~tech.support. I suppose the tag support could be used then, but there's an ambiguity there.

I had used meta on one or two topics in ~tildes, because I had felt that there ought to be a distinction between topics that involve the sites' functionality and those that involve the sites' functionality. You are right though, 'meta' as a tag in ~tildes is redundant -- a 'community' tag might be more suited to that purpose.

A bit of info here about how I've been thinking about plurals: https://docs.tildes.net/topic-tagging#general-tagging-guidance

It's not always clear though, and also won't really matter much a lot of the time, as long as it's consistent. Eventually it may even be simplest to just have "tag synonyms" where either works the same.

I changed the request and suggestion tags in accordance with the tagging guidelines Deimos linked.

We need a way to leave notes explaining the actions we take. I'm thinking a meta page for each topic like wikipedia's talk page, where we can discuss what mod actions the topic needs.

Whoops, yeah that's my bad on the trial/trials tags. I saw trial was used more commonly (it also sounded a bit better in my head) so I switched over the couple of stories I saw with trials, forgetting about the specific tagging guidelines. My mistake!