3

In this question, after the story had been identified someone added the tag of the correct answer to the question.

This story-identification did not have a title OR author attached originally. The author was not in the new tags, just the story title. It is not the same question.

I don't see the point of adding the correct answer tag in an identify-this question after-the-fact. Sometimes I search by tag and if something like this popped up it wouldn't seem to add anything to the information base or help with any knowledge or trivia I'd be potentially seeking (other than someone didn't know what it was). I was going to vote against it, but took too long thinking about it and it was voted through.

Are there any benefits for this edit? Does anyone have an example of how this helps this site or its base of information? I don't glean any enjoyment of denying reputation points, but don't see any good in this either; only "filler" on a search with that tag. (If you were looking for the question, you'd still be able to find it using the title so that's a dead-end.)

This edit is merely to differentiate a story from an author. This was about identifying a story, and when I first read the question, it had been answered and had the answer as a tag. You have to check the edit history to find out if that tag was from the OP or an editor after-the-fact. It is not so much detrimental to the site as ambiguous, clogging and unnecessary. When the question is answered it seems like nothing more than to get a couple rep points for an edit while adding nothing to the question or answer, and possibly bogging down the search using tags with info that is of no use. How is knowing user9374 did not know the story, but remembered details, going to be a useful trait of this site when we try to discourage fluff and over-commenting and other things that deviate from a pure and trust-worthy Q&A site? We need to monitor tagging as much as commenting and spamming. /end rant

||||||
  • 1
    I do not think it is a duplicate. The question was already answered so the qualm about leaving it as a trivia question is negated. It won't be trivia. Right now a search using the old-kindom tag turns up 2 results. One is a valid question, and one is identify-this. 50% of this tag seems useless for people seeking information or community activity because of a misused tag. Tag what you know, but adding tags to identify q's afterwards seems less than helpful. It can also look like the person tagged it themselves which is what I first thought when encountering this question. Seems to not help. – Meat Trademark Feb 18 '14 at 21:08
3

For the records, I approved the tag edit. My thinking was that there was no good reason to deny it, given that it was a correct tag.

I do agree though, that in principle retro-actively adding tags to (answered) 'story-ident' questions is a bit pointless.

||||||
  • 5
    Tags aren't there to have a complete taxonomy of a question. They're there to help people filter and search. "Correct" doesn't equal "useful". – Avner Shahar-Kashtan Feb 18 '14 at 19:56
  • Dang it Richard! Still, glad you see my point. +1 even if it's shooting myself in the foot. This Q bugs me. Muddies the question when you stumble upon it and the answer is right there tagged on the question. – Meat Trademark Feb 18 '14 at 21:23
  • 1
    Please either get my back on this or explain why reading a question for the first time that seems to have a definitive answer in the question is good? Seems like, if nothing else, it makes the OP look stupid because on normal view they answered their own question and there's no resolution unless you know to click through the edit history. So many people don't even have the "tour" badge. They don't really understand the workings and protocol. I vote no on this kind of after-the-IDing tagging for the question. Serves searches none and can make OP's look ignorant or stupid. – Meat Trademark Feb 18 '14 at 21:32

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