For original content
Let's name our baby
As pointed out by b_jonas in chat, TvTropes calls those "web-original stories". Five people, including the self-declared "Head Tag Nerd", seemed to back up the idea of the brand-new web-original tag, suggesting the wiki excerpt:
For questions about works originally published on the Internet, such as stories from personal websites, web magazines, podcasts, animations or videos. For webcomics, use webcomics
To which I'd add
For fanfiction, use [tag:fan-fiction], as well as something along the lines of
Do not use the tag for specific works; use a work tag instead, the same way we don't tag each the-wheel-of-time question with books for instance.
Aw, now that we've named it we can't abandon it. Can it be useful, though?
When is a tag needed? Let's look at the four points detailed in main Meta.
Does it describe the contents of the questions to which it is applied? and is it unambiguous?
Check. We're talking story-identification here, so it's always good to narrow the scope. I'm a big fan of Valorum's most awesome short story1. However, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't find it on ISFDb - scope narrowed.
Is the concept described even on-topic for the site?
No, it is not. But it doesn't have to be, it's a media tag. We have a movies tag and not every movie is SFF. So I just think this bullet point is not relevant due to the nature of SFF.SE. (it's more relevant for SO for instance - see the kittens example in the main meta post above)
Does the tag add any meaningful information to the post?
Check. Redundant with point 1, though: the meaningful info added is the narrowing of the scope, potential sites to search on, word combinations, Google-Fu tricks, etc.
Apart from story-ID, I could imagine history-of questions about the first SFF book published online or something.
Does it mean the same thing in all common contexts?
Check. It's content that was originally published on the Web. As far as I'm concerned, I don't see anything ambiguous with that, but of course all feedback is welcome.
And the unofficial one: are there experts on web-original works? Those would be people who are interested in what other people post online, about various topics, or even write/draw/film it themselves - you've made it to the Meta of a Q/A site about worlds that don't exist, and you're asking me if there are people who fit the above description? :^)
We already have several tags related to online works. It would seem consistent to have a "mother tag".
- as said in the question, we have a fan-fiction tag. No need to prove that most fanfiction is located online;
- we have a webcomics tag, which is obviously also encountered online;
- we have a scp-foundation tag. SCP is entirely written online.
- we have an online-resources tag, which is pretty murky but rather deals with databases of summaries, archives, etc. Distinct from what we're talking about, I reckon.
Authors aren't only Bob McGee. There are well-known authors of printed books who also released web-original content - Andy Weir, for instance.
It happens! Sometimes, the stuff you've read/watched online was originally a full-fledged printed book/movie, but you don't really know for sure - it was ages ago, on your Kindle.
If you know it was a digitalization, no need to use web-original. Use the usual, relevant books, comics or whatever. Mention that you did read it online, of course.
If you're rather confident it could have been an original work, sure, go ahead and use web-original, as well as another relevant media tag, if there is one (novel, movie...). You might be wrong. It happens. We've had anime story-ids that turned out to be games, movies which were actually TV shows - the story-ID question is how you remember something you'e partially forgotten. It's not a big deal if you were wrong on one point.
1 Originally posted here. Can't wait for the sequel!