-4
$\begingroup$

Now that we have a fair number of questions on the site, let's see if there are any additional ways that we should be organizing everything. Please post one new tag idea per answer, along with an explanation.

Related threads:

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ err, are we talking about the meta site or the stats? $\endgroup$ – Joris Meys Sep 2 '10 at 13:41
  • $\begingroup$ On the main site. $\endgroup$ – Shane Sep 2 '10 at 13:49
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Given that creating tags requires only 150 rep at present (1500 for SO -- will the same thresholds transfer once we're out of beta?) it's not entirely clear how much this issue needs independent discussion. Consistent tagging is helpful, but tags aren't worth much unless attached to pertinent questions. (Eg, I have an emotional sense that [biostatistics] would be a good tag, but can't think of a question that merits its creation.) $\endgroup$ – walkytalky Sep 3 '10 at 21:22
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ -1 because of what @walkytalky said. I think this whole Meta thread is not needed (at least not in 2016). $\endgroup$ – amoeba Apr 7 '16 at 17:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's not really "too broad" (as somebody voted to close it for), but I joined the closing vote anyway, just because this thread is better off closed. $\endgroup$ – amoeba Apr 7 '16 at 20:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @amoeba I actually think "too broad" is correct. In simple cases users can usually create their own tag, the meta discussion is necessary only for lower rep users and complex cases where discussion of pros and cons (and possibly entire alternative systems of tags - say, a topic that might be subdivided into 2 or 3 tags but it isn't obvious where to draw the lines) and "one suggestion per answer" is unsuitable for such discussion. In that sense this thread is too broad and new suggestions are best made as separate threads. $\endgroup$ – Silverfish Apr 8 '16 at 6:10
3
$\begingroup$

We might need to do a few things before adding new tags. It would help me, and perhaps others, to have guidance on tagging principles: should we aim for more generality, thereby associating each tag with more threads and enriching their semantic web, or aim for more specificity, which risks "Balkanizing" otherwise related ideas? Second, there seem to be plenty of redundant or potentially redundant tags, such as {book, books}, {computational-statistics, computing}, {discriminant, discriminative}, {distribution, distributions}, {modeling, modelling, explanatory-models}, {regression, linear-regression}, {pdf, distributions}, etc. These could use some cleaning up or at least contributions to their wikis to disambiguate them. Third, some tags seem to reference groups of ideas and perhaps should be broken up into multiple tags, like data-subjective, linear-regression, and perhaps a few others.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Regarding redundant tags, please not them on the "tag rename suggestions" question and a moderator will merge them. Or use a tag synonym. $\endgroup$ – Shane Sep 1 '10 at 17:24
  • $\begingroup$ A number of the examples you gave are already synonyms. For example, {book, books} and {modeling, modelling}. Click on the modelling tag to see. $\endgroup$ – csgillespie Sep 2 '10 at 8:13
  • $\begingroup$ @csgillespie: Thanks. I did not expect synonyms to appear in the lists, but rather to be automatically mapped to the preferred tag. $\endgroup$ – whuber Sep 2 '10 at 16:41
  • $\begingroup$ I agree - I didn't expect synonyms to appear. Initially I thought I created the synonym incorrectly. $\endgroup$ – csgillespie Sep 3 '10 at 8:13
0
$\begingroup$

[big-list]

There are a fair number of list questions (books, conferences, comics, quotes, etc.). A tag can be helpful to search for these separately.

This tag name is being used on Theoretical CS (based on MathOverflow's tags): https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/big-list.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I think this is useful, but one question will be whether it passes the "meta-tag" argument... $\endgroup$ – Shane Sep 1 '10 at 17:18
  • $\begingroup$ On tex.SE there is an explicit one-time-only "meta-tag" exemption for [big-list]. (For now, at least -- that site is in flux too.) $\endgroup$ – walkytalky Sep 2 '10 at 17:33
  • $\begingroup$ I like the idea of having a single meta-tag [big-list]. $\endgroup$ – csgillespie Sep 3 '10 at 8:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ -1. [Big-list] has been eliminated in 2015: meta.stats.stackexchange.com/questions/1846. $\endgroup$ – amoeba Apr 7 '16 at 17:36
-3
$\begingroup$

[DACE]

Design and Analysis of Computer Experiments, for that weird subset of statistics problems which deals with data which are epistemologically random, but not aleatorically (or however you would put it).

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Are there any questions that this could be applied to right now? $\endgroup$ – Shane Sep 3 '10 at 19:57
  • $\begingroup$ +1 just for the lovely vocabulary :D I've never heard of the DACE acronym, and nor it seems has Wikipedia -- did you make it up? -- but I agree that the concept is a useful one. $\endgroup$ – walkytalky Sep 3 '10 at 20:06
  • $\begingroup$ @walkytalky wish I had, but I did not. see e.g. books.google.com/… or look for e.g. Kriging in wikipedia. $\endgroup$ – shabbychef Sep 3 '10 at 20:52
  • $\begingroup$ @Shane: my own question on viewing a multivariate function might be applicable (at least that's how such visualization will be applied in my case...) $\endgroup$ – shabbychef Sep 3 '10 at 20:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ -1. Five and a half years later, there is still no such tag. Nobody felt it was really needed. $\endgroup$ – amoeba Apr 7 '16 at 17:37

You must log in to answer this question.

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