Timeline for On tags and time periods
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 8, 2017 at 10:05 | comment | added | user104 | To whoever downvoted, can you explain whether you downvoted because (1) it wasn't a fair summary of what had been said before (in which case please let me know how to correct it) or (2) you disagree with the proposals. | |
| May 3, 2017 at 11:28 | comment | added | user104 | @PolyGeo, I also agree about being overly prescriptive, but I'd like to balance it with providng clarity and simplicity for non-experts. Of course there are mechanisms (the blacklist as well as synonyms) that we can use to enforce tagging decisions if we wish but I haven't propsed those. | |
| May 3, 2017 at 11:17 | comment | added | user104 | @PolyGeo, the last thing I want is edit wars, which is why I've said all along I've wait for a community decision before I do anything, and hope that everyone works to what we agree. | |
| May 3, 2017 at 11:08 | comment | added | PolyGeo Mod | I've never seen this as a debate. I just don't see tags as something that we need to be prescriptive about. If you wish to tag them the way that you describe I don't have a problem with you using the time that you volunteer to do so. When I think a decade tag is useful on a particular question I like to use the time that I volunteer to apply it. I've seen no sign of edit wars on time tagging so far, and see no reason why any should emerge from this Q&A which I am glad @JanMurphy initiated. | |
| May 3, 2017 at 10:55 | comment | added | user104 | @PolyGeo I'm going to stop debating this with you and wait for voting to determine an outcome.One or both of us falls into this category xkcd.com/386 and I'll let others judge. | |
| May 3, 2017 at 10:48 | comment | added | user104 | @PolyGeo I guess it depends on whether you'd prefer false positives or false negatives in your result. IMO, it's easier to disregard something you know exists than take into account something you don't know exists. I've never said your views are invalid, just that they don't represent a majority view. And you still havent' convinced me that the difference between two decades is that significant. | |
| May 3, 2017 at 10:39 | comment | added | PolyGeo Mod | Both my answers here are at -2 so clearly they do not represent the majority view but that does not make those views invalid to hold. I tried your search and cannot see how this question (for example) relates to Cornwall in the 1890s: genealogy.stackexchange.com/questions/11998/… The case I am making is not about how to search on raw content, it is about how to filter on content curated using tags that are relevant to finding questions (and answers) of interest. | |
| May 3, 2017 at 9:52 | comment | added | user104 | @PolyGeo if there weren't other ways to achieve the end you seek, I'd have more sympathy for your case. But sometimes we all have to step back and go: OK, others don't agree with me. I did it on this question genealogy.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3243/… even though I violently disagree with the majority view. | |
| May 3, 2017 at 9:47 | comment | added | user104 | You filter on cornwall plus is:question if you want to restrict the results to questions and then search those results for 189*. 5 results. If you filter on cornwall1890s you get zero results and don't have the option to see answers that mightbe relevant. Which is most useful? | |
| May 3, 2017 at 9:42 | comment | added | PolyGeo Mod | So how do you filter questions on Cornwall in the 1890s within G&FH SE? | |
| May 3, 2017 at 9:40 | comment | added | user104 | @PolyGeo "I don't want to jump out to Google..." And I won't want to clutter up questions with decade tags that add litlle value apart from meeting your search preferences. I'd mind less if they actually yielded reliable search results (they don't) and didnt clutter up Goodgle search results that hopefully bring others to this site (they do). | |
| May 3, 2017 at 9:28 | comment | added | PolyGeo Mod | I don't want to jump out to Google to perform searching when the granularity of decade tags coupled with century tags for earlier eras allows me to filter using time within G&FH SE. I do not see tags as something that need to be perfect; to me they are simply an aid for potential answerers to find questions that they may be interested in answering. | |
| May 3, 2017 at 9:16 | comment | added | user104 | @HarryVervet I think there's sufficient difference between (say) US genealogy in the eighteenth century and nineteenth century (ditto for England and Wales) for century tags to provide an imperfect but useful goupring of questions.I can't say the same for the differences between the 1850 and 1860 decades in those same countries. Perhaps decade tags only would be a perfect solution, but not while we're limited to 5 tags. | |
| May 3, 2017 at 9:06 | comment | added | user104 | . The history.stackexchange website has largely given up on them except for a small number on 20th centurydecade tags that are predominantly used alongside a century tag. | |
| May 3, 2017 at 9:06 | comment | added | user104 | @PolyGeo, we all understand you wish to retain decade tags, but you haven't articulated a reason for doing so that has attracted ANY support. Your case seems to rest on using them for searching, but that isn't reliable (because of the limint on the number of tags a question has); nor have I seen any agreement with you that the value of searching by decade-tag (when there are other search techniques that will give more reliable results) outweighs other disadvantages. contd... | |
| May 3, 2017 at 0:36 | comment | added | Harry V. Mod | @PolyGeo I personally am not dead set against decade tags, but if we keep them I think we should consider getting rid of the century tags. Perhaps that is the answer: if you can't decide which decade to tag, then there's probably no real useful need for a date tag at all. It's the mismash of some questions getting century tags and some questions getting decades that is the most problematic point for me, with no clear usage guidances. | |
| May 2, 2017 at 20:23 | comment | added | PolyGeo Mod | I think removal of decade tags in totality is unwarranted. For recent events, 21st, 20th, and even 19th century I think the granularity that they provide is useful. | |
| May 2, 2017 at 14:55 | comment | added | user104 | @HarryVervet I've got enough reputation to suggest tag synonyms (oh for the days when I could just do it :) but that puts a worlkoad on the mods. Great if the mods want to do it, otherwise I'm happy to slog through. | |
| May 2, 2017 at 14:48 | comment | added | user104 | @HarryVervet Or very sure it isn't wanted :) | |
| May 2, 2017 at 13:55 | comment | added | Harry V. Mod | The process of merging decade tags into century tags is straightforward and can be done by mods. It would not necessarily require editing of every decade-tagged question. Questions would still need to be reviewed to ensure they are correctly tagged with centuries. However, once decade tags are gone there is no going back, no way to get back that granularity; we just need to be very sure this is wanted. | |
| May 2, 2017 at 13:26 | history | answered | user104 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |