-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:

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ err, are we talking about the meta site or the stats? $\endgroup$
    – Joris Meys
    Sep 2, 2010 at 13:41
  • $\begingroup$ On the main site. $\endgroup$
    – Shane
    Sep 2, 2010 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, 2010 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, 2016 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, 2016 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, 2016 at 6:10

3 Answers 3

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.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ 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, 2010 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. $\endgroup$ Sep 2, 2010 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 Mod
    Sep 2, 2010 at 16:41
  • $\begingroup$ I agree - I didn't expect synonyms to appear. Initially I thought I created the synonym incorrectly. $\endgroup$ Sep 3, 2010 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.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I think this is useful, but one question will be whether it passes the "meta-tag" argument... $\endgroup$
    – Shane
    Sep 1, 2010 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, 2010 at 17:33
  • $\begingroup$ I like the idea of having a single meta-tag [big-list]. $\endgroup$ Sep 3, 2010 at 8:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ -1. [Big-list] has been eliminated in 2015: meta.stats.stackexchange.com/questions/1846. $\endgroup$
    – amoeba
    Apr 7, 2016 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).

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Are there any questions that this could be applied to right now? $\endgroup$
    – Shane
    Sep 3, 2010 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, 2010 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, 2010 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, 2010 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, 2016 at 17:37

You must log in to answer this question.

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