13

Create the tag, don't mass-retag - retag slowly, one question at a time, not too many all at once, so we don't bump-flood the landing page.


12

This seems fine to me. Here are a couple of points: When you create the tag, be sure to create a tag wiki excerpt that states what it stands for, and provides some guidance on how to use the tag. You may want to create a full tag wiki with more in-depth information as well. Don't add the tag to all the relevant threads at once. Do a few at a time ...


10

I don't see why not. That is a perfectly valid topic. We have other, similar tags for methods used to infer causality from observational data, including: causality (387 threads) granger-causality (137 threads) instrumental-variables (292 threads) propensity-scores (201 threads) difference-in-difference (187 threads) fixed-effects-model (511 ...


9

If you have the reputation to reach the correct level of privilege (which you do), then you can create tags. However, with a mature site like this one, you're encouraged to think carefully about creating new tags (almost any tag of lasting value will either already exist or there will be a similar one which will compete with a new tag). If there's any doubt ...


9

There is was an existing tag named [nnt] (used in two questions). I made it a synonym of new tag number-needed-to-treat and merged them. I also created an excerpt and a wiki for it.


9

Since there is no answers and not much comments, while the question and pro-tag comments received several up-votes I would consider creating the tag. Let's wait for few more days if anyone disagrees (please comment and/or down-vote this answer if you do). If there would be no disagreement about it I'll create the tag and add it to the already existing ...


8

Rather not. While I agree that such a tag could be useful, it seems that the combination of bayesian and frequentist tags serves more or less the same purpose. There are 95 threads tagged with these two tags together, see https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/bayesian+frequentist, and looking through them it seems that most could in principle ...


8

I went ahead and made the tag (cf., misspecification). I retagged some, many more are needed. Have a look at my proposed tag wiki. I don't have any posts so far in the tag, so I cannot propose synonyms. Please go ahead and propose synonyms, if you have enough upvoted posts in the tag.


8

It seems to me that this will lead to potential problems because: 1 - it might encourage people to ask questions about set theory which are better on another site 2 - the proposed scope is too broad as the analysis of groups of categorical variables might cover many different techniques like item response theory, various forms of principal component ...


6

You can create new tags yourself if you have at least 300 reputation. For now, I searched for questions containing "PSPP" and added a pspp tag. (More precisely, Kjetil seems to have been doing the work while I was talking about it.) I also created a rudimentary tag wiki. Any improvement would be most welcome.


6

With no meaningful opposition to this, I'm going to go ahead and create a bias-variance-tradeoff tag and begin the process of retagging.


6

For the record: our tag description for pdf has always said that one should use it for PMFs too. When you created pmf tag yesterday to replace [pdf] on one of the questions, I rolled your edit back because I thought you are clearly going against our established usage. When you immediately replaced it back, I got a bit annoyed and flagged the post for mod ...


6

At the moment we have a number of possibly relevant tags leverage which has 27 entries but no wiki excerpt diagnostic which has 162 entries a wiki excerpt but no extended wiki regression-diagnostic which is a synonym of diagnostic schoenfeld-residuals which has 10 entries and no wiki excerpt As @Pere remarks we have no tag for Cook's distance. There ...


5

I came across the analysis tag and was going to write a Meta post suggesting deleting this tag on the grounds that it is a meta tag (the only meta tag that we are tolerating here on CV is [self-study]) that moreover is inconsistently used and does not seem to serve any useful purpose. One could in principle put [analysis] tag, as it is defined in its wiki ...


5

There are multiple good reasons mentioned in the comments, but let me add my five cents, especially as you pinged me on my own question So, we promote the identity function for convolution to tag status, but not the identity meta.stats.stackexchange.com/questions/4440/…. So, we name individual leaves, and ignore their tree. What, I muse, would we do ...


4

Wait a couple of days to see if anybody protests against your new tag, and if nobody raises any concerns, then you can go ahead and put this tag on some older questions. I don't recommend hunting down all questions possibly related to this tag. Rather, I would suggest to find a dozen or two most prominent (most upvoted or otherwise most important) threads ...


4

I created the kpss-test tag. All questions which I consider relevant for the tag are already retagged.


4

I am providing an answer so to bump the question and close it with some conclusion. Personally I'd considered [dirac-delta] tag useful. The question already got eight upvotes and one negative (?) comment by Carl. I'd say that the response to this idea is positive, so I'd consider creating it. So to close this issue: is there anyone who does not agree with ...


4

Thank you for the good discussion so far, and thanks to @amoeba for pointing me to it! I agree with many points raised so far and just want to share a few personal experiences with this topic. General scope: I always interpreted the tag [zero-inflation] as being about the phenomenon along with various models for it. Hence, I didn't expect only questions ...


4

I usually agree with @gung on tag issues, but this time I am not convinced by his answer. I want to make two points. I don't see how we can meaningfully separate tags for zero-inflated count models, hurdle count models, and zero-inflated-aka-hurdle continuous models. Because: (A) Zero-inflated and hurdle count models are clearly distinct but very similar ...


3

Label [laplace-smoothing] created. Accompanying wiki-lemma created. Label added to ~20 questions. Instances of [add-one-smoothing] relabelled with [laplace-smoothing].


3

Maybe, I think it depends on whether it would successfully group enough threads to usefully contribute to the organization of the material on the site (see below). We have several "mixed-" tags already, which naturally creates the potential for confusion. My preference would be for the name to be as distinct as possible, and the excerpt to delineate its ...


3

I see value in this suggestion, and have created the absolute-value tag, and invite you to improve upon both my quick and dirty précis and the info page. I also invite anyone critical of the tag to motivate its reform or removal in a separate answer.


2

I just created the boruta tag. Feel free to propose a more detailled wiki as I just have superficial knowledge of the algorithm.


1

The tag graph-neural-network has been created.


1

The tag already exists: humor


1

There is "zero-inflation" the phenomenon, and there are zero-inflated-(Poisson / negative binomial / etc.) models as one strategy to deal with that phenomenon (in addition to hurdle models and possibly other strategies). I interpret the tag to be about the phenomenon. The excerpt should be clarified to eliminate the conflation of phenomenon with ...


1

Maybe let's add [cronbach-alpha] (without 's) as a synonym..? I guess it will make searching easier since people may drop "s" in their queries. What do you think?


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible