I just noticed that we have tag -- what is it about? It does not have description. It's content is pretty chaotic: from Good books/papers on credit scoring (my initial guess for what is it about), to Scoring new observations after cross-validation, or Cut Score Determination in IRT ...

It probably needs some cleaning-up but it is hard to start as it is pretty ambiguous...

| |
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ There is also scores. I came across these tags before and find them very confusing. $\endgroup$ – amoeba Apr 5 '16 at 9:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @amoeba "scores" is almost like "numbers"... $\endgroup$ – Tim Apr 5 '16 at 9:45
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ If we can't figure out a reasonable use for it, we might add it to the burninate list. There are too many garbage tags on the site now for optimal organization, IMO. $\endgroup$ – gung - Reinstate Monica Apr 5 '16 at 14:49
  • $\begingroup$ I would think procedures like Kemeny-Young method would be the focus of this topic. This appears to disagree with most of the other votes I have seen so far, which implies it would not have the highest score as dictated by the Kemeny Young method. $\endgroup$ – Cliff AB Apr 5 '16 at 23:17
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The answer of @amoeba can be accepted to close this thread now. $\endgroup$ – mdewey Nov 19 '17 at 12:24

Both ×40 and ×78 are ambiguous and should be eliminated. We have a variety of other more specific tags that could be used instead:

, , , , ,

(all of them have clear scope and wiki excerpts).

Apart from that,

======= edit 15 Nov 2017 =============

The is now empty. For most of them deletion was sufficient but there were a handful of each of the suggestions given above. I (@mdewey) voted to close a few too as unclear.

======= further edit 19 Nov 2017 ==========

The is now empty too

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @mdewey Thanks a lot for taking care of this issue! $\endgroup$ – amoeba Nov 14 '17 at 20:18

You must log in to answer this question.

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