2

I noticed that you guys have a tag for s, which I saw on a recent HNQ.

I also noticed that this tag has only three questions, and I thought that it certainly should have some more. So I searched for time turner questions that didn't have the tag, and found that there are about 50 questions that mention time turners but don't have the tag.

I don't have edit privileges here, but even if I did, I'd probably post this here to check before editing that many questions. I know you recently had a big edit event, but the title of that post says that it's over.

Should these posts be edited? If so, quickly or slowly?

Just bringing this to your attention; it's up to you.

  • 3
    Quickly, slowly, or not at all. Never underestimate the power of not doing anything – Valorum Mar 22 '17 at 20:19
  • 1
    Fair enough, @Valorum. Although "not at all" isn't really the third option; that's really "destroy [time-turner]s." (I think we can get the Ministry to support that option ;-). – Shokhet Mar 22 '17 at 20:21
  • 1
    No comment on whether these tag edits are necessary, but if you do do them, slowly is preferable to quickly. We have a rule of thumb that no more than 5 of the top 15 posts on the active questions list should be last edited by the same user. If you do too many edits in too short a period (outside of a scheduled edit event), you'll probably be asked to slow down. – Rand al'Thor Mar 22 '17 at 20:34
  • 2
    Also, not all questions that mention Time-Turners should have the tag - only (at most) those which are intrinsically about Time-Turners. – Rand al'Thor Mar 22 '17 at 20:35
  • Thanks for the feedback about speed, @Randal'Thor – Shokhet Mar 22 '17 at 20:36
  • Yeah, I agree that not everything in the search deserves the tag, @Randal'Thor. I'm not invested enough in the site to read through 50 questions and judge how many of them are actually about time turners. I worded this question carefully for that reason. – Shokhet Mar 22 '17 at 20:37
  • 1
    Do we need that tag to begin with? – Möoz Mar 22 '17 at 21:35
  • @Mooz That's part of the question, I guess. – Shokhet Mar 22 '17 at 21:35
  • @Mooz I'd rather the tag didn't exist, but that's me. – user31178 Mar 24 '17 at 17:27
  • I say we burninate it! Bring out your pitchforks people, we're going tag hunting!! – Möoz Mar 24 '17 at 21:37
  • 2
    @Mooz Put that up as an answer and see how people vote on it. Again, I don't particularly care either way, but for the good of the site I think you might wanna get consensus first – Shokhet Mar 24 '17 at 22:13
  • 1
    @Mooz: burnination is too good for them. I say we travel back in time and kill their grandfathers before they were born. – b_jonas Mar 29 '17 at 10:16
-1

The tag was on four questions when I removed them from all four. (The tags were added by four different users.)

There are already too many pointless tags associated with Harry Potter. Most of them don't help the site in any way. Most of them ([voldemort] and [magic-theory] being the exceptions) are associated with a single word that is easy to search for even without tags. Most of them don't help attract specific experts over. Many of them are very broad and apply to a large quantity of [harry-potter] questions.

It's not easy to get rid of these. I can't just remove all the [voldemort], [hogwarts], [albus-dumbledore], [sirius-black] tags, because there's too many of them. (Maybe I'll do so the next time we have a Big Edit event. Rand and the rest of you did wonders with the Tolkien tags.) Nor can I remove the [hermione-granger] and [ron-weasley] and [dementors] tags anymore: these didn't use to exist, and got removed a few times when there were only a few, but then multiplied like weeds when I wasn't looking for a while. I do at least try to remove newly created pointless Harry Potter tags that pop up, like [time-turner].

As for [time-turner] specifically, please avoid that tag, but if you really want to tag these questions, please reuse the already established tag.

  • It strikes me that there should be a more community-centred process for tag creation. The current cycle seems to be: random user creates tag > tag is used by a handful of questions > meta post suggesting the removal of the tag > tag gets killed > same tag is created afresh by some different user. If tags which are perceived to be low-value tags are being created routinely then would seem to be the problem. The consensus should be sought when the tag is created (e.g. by voting) rather than when it's destroyed. – The Dark Lord Mar 29 '17 at 10:55
  • 1
    For what it's worth, I mostly think 'the more tags the merrier' but that doesn't seem to be the consensus. I once sought (and kinda gained) permission to put sparsely used tags on older questions but couldn't be arsed to actually implement it. – The Dark Lord Mar 29 '17 at 10:58
  • @TheDarkLord: Yes, but community-centered process for creation doesn't work either. We tried it on a non-SE site, and it just ends up with no new tags getting created, even when they're useful, because nobody will care about the proposals for new tags enough to react, and by the time they would react, the people who proposed the tags will lose interest. – b_jonas Mar 29 '17 at 11:29
  • Seems like a lose-lose situation. Unless you like lots of disorganised tags. I see your point, though. Vote to create would have its downsides too. – The Dark Lord Mar 29 '17 at 12:07
  • Not all SE sites have the tag creation privilege set at the same amount. I thought SFF was one of them, but I think it's just SO. Do you think that the threshold needs to be raised? – Shokhet Mar 29 '17 at 13:14
  • 2
    I agree with axing time-turner but the majority of your answer involves scope creep, including several tags I don't see any problem with, so I can't upvote it. – user31178 Mar 29 '17 at 13:48
  • @CreationEdge That's ok. Even if you don't agree with my reasoning, I didn't want an answer that just says "I deleted this tag because I felt like it". – b_jonas Mar 29 '17 at 15:36
  • 2
    @Shokhet The limit is currently 300, and no, I don't think it should be raised. That would make it too hard for people to ask about fiction works we haven't covered yet, and IMO that would be much more damage than some superfluous Harry Potter tags. – b_jonas Mar 29 '17 at 15:37

You must log in to answer this question.

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