12
$\begingroup$

Reading this question How is empirical bayes valid? I thought it needed an empirical-bayes tag and so I came across the tag .

It has 98 questions tagged in really diverse topics and no excerpt or wiki.

So I ask: what's the intended usage for ?

$\endgroup$
4
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Because tags are almost always originated by people posting questions, the only reliable way I know of figuring out the meaning of a generic-sounding tag like this is to visit numerous posts with the tag and attempt to identify what they might mean by it. $\endgroup$
    – whuber Mod
    Jul 26, 2017 at 13:13
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ (+1) We have plenty of ambiguous, unclear, and generally useless tags. This seems to be one of them. Sorting them out is an annoying, time consuming, and thankless task. $\endgroup$
    – amoeba
    Jul 26, 2017 at 14:05
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ @amoeba Well, it's certainly annoying and time consuming, but I really want to convey my thanks to you for all your efforts on improving tags -- it definitely improves the site. Often the benefits aren't clear to a casual user, but anyone who searches regularly or looks at what shows up in "Related" in the sidebar will appreciate the great importance of clear, consistent tags. $\endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    Jul 26, 2017 at 23:00
  • $\begingroup$ I added an answer with a proposal, please discuss under it and add criticism. Also, if anyone got a better plan altogether please add another answer. $\endgroup$
    – Firebug
    Jul 27, 2017 at 11:48

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
11
$\begingroup$

Given the ambiguity of , I propose we get an [empirical-bayes] tag, and then we can retag all those questions pertaining the subject (which I volunteer to do as well).

The other questions tagged would have it removed.

EDIT (4th August): We also have a tag . Some questions deserve this one, so let's try to keep it in mind.

$\endgroup$
8
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ +1 for both suggestions. I had a quick glance and could not discern any useful meaning of [empirical] apart from empirical Bayes. $\endgroup$
    – amoeba
    Jul 27, 2017 at 11:58
  • $\begingroup$ @amoeba I'm doing changes 10 at a time, mostly adding the tag empirical-bayes. I'm refraining from removing empirical from unrelated questions for now, so if someone else brings a good reason to not proceed we can merge empirical-bayes back into it without much loss. As you're more experienced with re-tagging, how many edits you feel start to pollute the questions field? Is 10 at a time too much? $\endgroup$
    – Firebug
    Jul 28, 2017 at 16:10
  • $\begingroup$ See stats.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4285 - the consensus opinion seems to be 5-10. $\endgroup$
    – amoeba
    Jul 28, 2017 at 18:13
  • $\begingroup$ In principle there is a way to delete a tag (e.g. [empirical] after you are done tagging with empirical-bayes) but it requires mods to contact SE admins who would eradicate the tag. In practice this is never done, see stats.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3147. $\endgroup$
    – amoeba
    Jul 28, 2017 at 18:15
  • $\begingroup$ Re edit: There is no [inverse-ecdf] tag. There is [inverse-cdf]. And [cdf]. $\endgroup$
    – amoeba
    Aug 4, 2017 at 11:58
  • $\begingroup$ @amoeba Oops, I got confused because they appear together when you type ecdf (i.e. "inverse-cdf"). Thanks for the correction! $\endgroup$
    – Firebug
    Aug 4, 2017 at 12:01
  • $\begingroup$ I noticed that the tag is gone by now. Would you self-accept this answer? $\endgroup$
    – amoeba
    Oct 12, 2017 at 21:55
  • $\begingroup$ Oh yeah, sure! Also, thanks for the help @amoeba! $\endgroup$
    – Firebug
    Oct 12, 2017 at 22:10

You must log in to answer this question.

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