7
\$\begingroup\$

I recently stumbled across .

The tag has:

  • 77 questions
  • no tag wiki

  • the following tag excerpt:

    This tag is for questions about site-policy. Any question that is about how the website should be used should use this.

It was created 4 years ago, and in the 900 - 1000 questions since then, it has only gotten 77 uses and 6 views.

In addition to that, I believe it's a meta-meta tag. is all about , so any question could be tagged with it, which makes the tag utterly useless for categorizing meta questions.

I say we do away with . Who's with me?

\$\endgroup\$

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
11
\$\begingroup\$

Yes, we should keep it

Fixables

First up, the following issues you have pointed out can be fixed (and I am in the process of doing that):

  • it will have a tag wiki soon
  • the excerpt will be clarified to express what the tag has really been used for.

Note: I have gone ahead and corrected the above issues. Feel free to revise my suggested wiki page: view it here.

Tag correlation - a misdirect

So, what issues are left? Well, you have this:

I ask: "So what?" - those numbers are just numbers, and I can't see what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that if 10% of the questions are tagged "specific question" that we don't need "site-policy"? Well, about 15% of is tagged with - so I suppose we should throw out too?

View-count - another misdirect

Now, about the view-count of the info page. It has been viewed 7 times. Yes, that's true, but, the purpose of the tag is, in my mind, so clear that I have never needed to visit the info page. Also, the numbers are not useful either... has been viewed 6 times and has more questions.... should we throw out because of that? has been viewed 5 times, also with more questions....

The opinion

What's left after we remove the red-herring discussion about the quantity of tagged questions and the view-count of the info page?

I believe it's a meta-meta tag. meta is all about site-policy, so any question could be tagged with it, which makes the tag utterly useless for categorizing meta questions.

Well, let's see. Here are two lists of top-voted questions: One contains questions tagged "site policy", the second does not. Can you spot a difference?

With helpful search:

Without helpful search:

I would say it is clear that the tag is quite useful, it clearly distinguishes between questions that set site policy and processes, and other questions which are not.

Keep the tag!

Your arguments for throwing out the tag are not relevant.

  • The things that could be (easily) fixed have been fixed.
  • The numbers you presented to suggest there was an issue with the tag, do not support your argument.
  • The 'belief' that there's no discernable difference between site-policy questions and other questions, is also quite clear that makes a useful distinction between questions that add to site policies, rules, and procedures, and those questions which are about other aspects of the site.
\$\endgroup\$
5
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Your arguments for throwing out the tag are not relevant The ones you provide for keeping it are foggy at best. Elaborate them further and you may have finished this problem for once and for all. \$\endgroup\$
    – Mast Mod
    Oct 12, 2015 at 17:09
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Mast - The original question made an assertion based on information that was either outdated, or not relevant. It is enough for that to be pointed out, making the assertion untenable. I don't need to justify a reason to keep the tags when there is no reason given to remove them. You seem to have some notion that every argument needs equal "proof" of the opposite, but that's not true. There is no valid reason given to remove the tag, so let it stay, that's enough \$\endgroup\$
    – rolfl
    Oct 12, 2015 at 22:24
  • \$\begingroup\$ I agree there's no 'need' for an opposite proof, but it would settle this case once and for all, as stated. I assume this case will arise once more in the near future otherwise. \$\endgroup\$
    – Mast Mod
    Oct 12, 2015 at 22:57
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Mast - actually, I strongly disagree with this question, and was very surprised to see it. I am amazed it was raised the first time, and feel site-policy is very obvious, and easy to use to classify questions, and has been for the most part, used well. In other words, I don't see it needing to come up again in the future (or this time in the present either). \$\endgroup\$
    – rolfl
    Oct 12, 2015 at 23:06
  • \$\begingroup\$ Don't provide a search excluding all questions tagged site-policy. Just don't include it in the search. After all, those questions have still been asked. \$\endgroup\$
    – Nic
    Oct 21, 2015 at 22:36
7
\$\begingroup\$

I agree.

This tag is redundant in it's current state. If it had a different purpose originally, I suggest we restore that purpose. If it didn't, we should possibly get rid of it.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ I disagree, I'm with monkey on this one. \$\endgroup\$
    – Simon Forsberg
    Oct 12, 2015 at 16:45

You must log in to answer this question.

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