10
\$\begingroup\$

I created the tag and retagged a question from to . However, my edits, which had been accepted at first, were rolled back.

The reason why I created the tag is that binary search is an algorithm that works on arrays, while a binary search tree (BST) is a completely different data structure, and an important one, at that. Could you please explain to me why this new tag is not appropriate ?

Should there be a tag?

History:

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ A week has passed since the question was asked. What happens now ? \$\endgroup\$ – Zoyd May 9 '14 at 12:18
9
\$\begingroup\$

While he may not have done it the "correct" way, Zoyd is correct that these two things are completely different and should have different tags.

A binary search can be accomplished using many data structures (such as a sorted array), while a binary search tree is a very specific data structure which has it's own set of algorithms that apply to it, some of which do not actually relate to searching.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ +1 A binary search tree is a data-structure; a binary search is an algorithm. \$\endgroup\$ – jliv902 May 2 '14 at 21:20
8
\$\begingroup\$

I agree that binary-search-tree is not the same thing as binary-search. There is, however, another tag that should be considered: - or, as that tag apparently doesn't exist at the moment, simply .

I think is a bit overly specific, but I'm in favor of creating the tag . Considering the current questions in , I feel that the tree tag is a bit 'underly' specific.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'm good with this too. \$\endgroup\$ – Donald.McLean May 3 '14 at 4:43
1
\$\begingroup\$

This is a two stage question/answer and process.

I rejected your suggested edits (by the way, they were never 'accepted and then rolled back'), so that a more formal discussion could happen regarding the tag. (EDIT, I did roll-back your edit to another post - when I rolled it back I was unaware that it was you who had made that edit....)

I see that 200_success beat me to an answer.

My answer would be the same/similar, that I am uncertain the splitting of the tags makes sense, and that it should be a meta discussion, which we now have.

Note, that if a new tag is introduced, then a clean up process has to be undertaken to ensure that all previously tagged questions are modified according to the new tag... this is not an easy thing to do.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ A search for "binary search tree" yields 60 results and a search for BST yields 33 results, so I really don't think that the retagging work is an issue here. \$\endgroup\$ – Zoyd May 2 '14 at 16:16
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ @Zoyd - let's be clear, the basic issue is whether the tag will help structure Code Review, not whether the work is hard or not. Unilaterally adding the tag and moving questions is not the right way to begin that process. The right way is to start in Meta. We are now at square 1.... where the discussion starts. \$\endgroup\$ – rolfl May 2 '14 at 16:20
1
\$\begingroup\$

I consider binary search to be a general technique of converging on a desired item by making too-high / too-low decisions. A tag would therefore be unnecessarily restricted and redundant with .

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ What are your references for this ? Googling for "binary search" and looking up to page 5, I only find results related to 1) the algorithm applied on a sorted array, 2) binary search trees. Can you show an example of "binary search" applied to something that is not a sorted array ? \$\endgroup\$ – Zoyd May 2 '14 at 16:13

You must log in to answer this question.

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