Isn't the reason tagging works better than rigor categorization because of the sheer number and variety of terms people can comes up with?
Are people scrutinizing tags a little too much? I've seen people stripping out various (IMO good) tags to enforce their own sense of what's SO tags should be like ...
I think the SO engine should be a little more cunning in how it deals with tags re-orging, if too many people becomes a "tags dictator" then it reduces/defeats the purpose of having a tagging system in the first place.
I've read a few crowdsourcing book, including Clay Shirky's and that's what I think about when I see people scrutinizing tags.
What do you think?
I propose that what tags a question should have be calculated the same way an ownership of a CW question is calculated, i.e. in relative percentage to the overall efforts.
Here's my opinion on these cases:
Case 1: "pyton3.0" and "python3" ... If there are people who use "python3.0" to tag questions in the first place, why wouldn't there be people searching for python 3.0 using the tag "python3.0" as well? Removing all the "python3.0" and replacing it with "python3" defeats the purpose of having many eyeballs tagging questions in the first place.
Case 2: Removing a tag does not equal more search hits! For example, imagine a case where a benevolent dictator comes and retags all the career-related tags as "subjective" would that increase search hits? No, of course! Having a variety of tags to describe a question is what make it "better" for search.