7
$\begingroup$

The questions

(and there are likely other examples) that ask about a process that spins up even large 100 km asteroids near the Sun and destroys them. They are about the evolution of objects in the solar system.

They are tagged with , and because we don't have tags like "solar-system-evolution" or "asteroid-formation" or "asteroid-evolution".

Should we?

$\endgroup$
1

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
2
$\begingroup$

With +4/-0 votes on my question and no comments or answers to the contrary, I've gone ahead and created the tag. I've added 14 questions so far, and about once a week I'll add another group as I did here though I won't make a blow-by-blow list this time because this one seems more straightforward.

This will join the other evolutionary question tags:

I've added the following usage guidance:

Questions about the long term evolution of solar systems. For other questions about solar systems use the solar-system tag, for questions about star, galaxy or planet evolution use the stellar-evolution, galactic-evolution and planetary-formation tags.

I'm not yet sure what should be done about:

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Be careful about the creation of new tags without user demand.

We had a discussion about this a couple of years ago on Space Exploration:

How is our tagging situation? What can we do to improve it?

In the time since then, Space Exploration's tag count has continued to grow at a higher rate than comparable sites (albeit, slightly less than before), and not only that but Astronomy's tag count has started to grow at a similar rate. The other sites have remained relatively stable in their tag counts.

Why is this an issue? As described at the linked post, this creates a lot of poorly maintained tags. Space Exploration's singleton tags have dropped a bit, but they remain much higher than comparable sites. Astronomy's singleton tags have leapt up significantly in the past couple of years.

It's not out of control yet, but I'm just advising some extra caution here.

$\endgroup$
17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ FYI, uhoh, I put this on your post because, as with Space Exploration, you are by far the most prolific tag creator over here. You have created four times the number of tags as the next most prolific active user. $\endgroup$
    – called2voyage Mod
    Commented Jul 27, 2022 at 21:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You've also created the most singleton tags. (Didn't realize I didn't have a query on hand for that!) $\endgroup$
    – called2voyage Mod
    Commented Jul 27, 2022 at 22:22
  • $\begingroup$ Yes that's the problem with big numbers; multiply by a fraction and you still have a big number. There has to be a most prolific person; it's not like if I wasn't it there wouldn't be one, and if I hadn't created those tags none of them would otherwise have been created necessarily. I'm happy to step up do some tag maintenance if I can help in any way. I'm probably never going to get good at SEDE but if there are ways to point me at my (or anybody's) singletons I can look at situations and propose courses of action for example (or just delete). I'm just not sure how/where to start. $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Commented Jul 28, 2022 at 2:54
  • $\begingroup$ I assume that's (one of) the reason(s) you've pinged me. I'm certainly not going to be creating more tags there. $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Commented Jul 28, 2022 at 2:55
  • $\begingroup$ ...and if you divide my tag creation numbers by my question posting numbers, is the ratio still anomalous? Several stats about me may stand out at least partly because my overall level of participation during my active period also stands out. $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Commented Jul 28, 2022 at 6:14
  • $\begingroup$ @uhoh There's no doubt that your activity is higher than most, but that doesn't mean everything should be based on ratios. In this case, it's the raw tag creation stats that matter most, because it has an impact on the people who maintain them. It is unfair to create a large volume of tags and expect less active people to maintain them (not saying that's what you're doing, just saying this is why awareness of tag maintenance is important). $\endgroup$
    – called2voyage Mod
    Commented Jul 28, 2022 at 13:49
  • $\begingroup$ @uhoh SEDE is the easiest place to get a list of singleton tags, but fortunately you don't have to learn how to write your own queries. Here's one I wrote you can use: data.stackexchange.com/astronomy/query/1621298/…. Singletons are just an indicator though of how well tags are getting used after creation--that's something important to keep in mind. Just managing singletons alone is not sufficient tag management. $\endgroup$
    – called2voyage Mod
    Commented Jul 28, 2022 at 13:52
  • $\begingroup$ okay I'm eager to identify what actions I can take to best do to my part for tag management going forward. I can run that script and see a list of 3 and 4 digit integers, are those id's of tags? Singletons? Created by me? How do I convert those integers to the actual tags so I can investigate? I understand the cautions expressed here and am trying to identify what remedies exist; things that are actionable; in what ways I can help to work towards "sufficient tag management". $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Commented Jul 28, 2022 at 22:30
  • $\begingroup$ @uhoh Whoops, apparently it didn't save my last change to the query. It's updated now, and it should show the tags directly. $\endgroup$
    – called2voyage Mod
    Commented Jul 29, 2022 at 16:09
  • $\begingroup$ @uhoh What really caught my eye here was that your instinct in this instance (albeit from a year ago) was to push out a new tag that no one expressed explicit interest in. Yes, there was no opposition, and there was some positive reception expressed through a few upvotes, but it takes more than just passive receptiveness to make a successful tag. A successful tag is driven by active interest by multiple users. $\endgroup$
    – called2voyage Mod
    Commented Jul 29, 2022 at 16:12
  • $\begingroup$ It was a rational decision based on the importance of the subject, not "instinct". My interest in it should count, so I disagree with "no one", and considering that I found 14 questions right away to add it to suggested to me that it would be a useful tag. Now I see that I'd planned on coming back to finish the work and I'm not sure I've done so, though it now has 23 questions. So if those 9 were not added by me then it seems that others have also found the tag useful. $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Commented Jul 29, 2022 at 16:32
  • $\begingroup$ I think that if you would like to find fault with me (and I'm sure there's plenty that can and should be found!) the creation of this particular tag is at least a suboptimal example. It's a good tag! Now I'll go check out the singletons and start working on my 2022 version of my tag creation mea culpa which also seems to have a helpful query. $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Commented Jul 29, 2022 at 16:33
  • $\begingroup$ @uhoh This is not a fault finding exercise. It's a word of caution because of a pattern I've noticed. You're welcome to do with that what you will. $\endgroup$
    – called2voyage Mod
    Commented Jul 29, 2022 at 16:41
  • $\begingroup$ Okay a pattern requiring a caution is not the same as a fault, I can see the distinction. I'm just going off of "What really caught my eye here" as an indication that this was a good example of it. In this case, in addition to feeling that it was a good tag, my answer indicates that I'd felt the +4/-0 voting on the question plus no negative comments (users or moderators) over a period of 6 months for folks to review was at least some evidence of tacit community approval. So there may be better examples of the pattern you've noticed and the singletons are likely the right place to look. $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Commented Jul 29, 2022 at 17:10
  • $\begingroup$ If I understand correctly, your linked SEDE is a list of all singletons, not just mine. If so, the query in this answer seems to be one way to identify tags that I am likely to have created (though it's not certain) so I can use that search and just look for the tags that have not gained wide acceptance, in order to put some hard data behind the pattern you've mentioned. I wholeheartedly embrace a pattern-finding exercise as long as the patterns are demonstrable. (probably needs to be modified somewhat) $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Commented Jul 29, 2022 at 17:15

You must log in to answer this question.

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