Timeline for How should questions dealing with playing cards be tagged, or should they? [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 23, 2018 at 18:23 | history | closed |
ale Monica Cellio Cai Nathan Tuggy Ward - Trying Codidact |
Not suitable for this site | |
| Feb 23, 2018 at 16:59 | review | Close votes | |||
| Feb 23, 2018 at 18:23 | |||||
| Feb 23, 2018 at 16:30 | history | edited | Donald Duck |
edited tags
|
|
| May 23, 2017 at 12:35 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| S Jan 16, 2014 at 17:23 | history | edited | Undo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed spelling, improved the last question readability
|
| S Jan 16, 2014 at 17:23 | history | suggested | CRABOLO | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed spelling, improved the last question readability
|
| Jan 16, 2014 at 17:06 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Jan 16, 2014 at 17:23 | |||||
| Oct 9, 2012 at 21:05 | answer | added | blahdiblah | timeline score: -1 | |
| Oct 8, 2012 at 18:52 | comment | added | HostileFork says dont trust SE | @ajax333221 Hmmm...you're probably right, though it wasn't something that had anything to do with a discussion of the original question (mostly about synonyms). I agree with the comment on that question from Gilles that doing too many of these in one post is not good...limits the discussion and prevents establishing a solid reasoned precedent. | |
| Oct 8, 2012 at 18:41 | comment | added | ajax333221 |
I think there are only 27 questions because the tags card-game and card-games were removed
|
|
| Oct 8, 2012 at 6:32 | history | edited | HostileFork says dont trust SE | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Further arguments on discoverability
|
| Oct 8, 2012 at 6:03 | comment | added | HostileFork says dont trust SE | @RobertHarvey I understand your larger point (though [shuffle] refers to algorithmic shuffling in the Fisher-Yates-sort-of-way.) How important this "discoverability" concept I speak of is sort of a heuristic. It depends on how common an entry point is...if it's common and there's a good angle on it, then it should be enabled. (If it's common and bad, it should be filtered or force refinement.) Maybe there's some evolution here...like a special category of tag called a "problem domain tag" and you only can use one per each question? | |
| Oct 8, 2012 at 5:50 | comment | added | user102937 | Alright. But don't blame me when a year from now the next "Great Tag Cleanup" post shows up on Meta to clear out [card-games], [playing-cards], [poker], [mille-bornes], [blackjack], [shuffle], [hangman], [codebreaker], blah blah blah blah. | |
| Oct 8, 2012 at 5:47 | comment | added | HostileFork says dont trust SE | @RobertHarvey If you don't think that using tags as a discoverability tool is as important as a subsetting tool, then whatever. But I like it when a tag on a question comes in and nails the abstract category...let's say [undefined-behavior] or [sequence-points] in C++. Even if the original questioner didn't know that's what their question was about or didn't use those words, adding it after the fact clusters the questions into a related set. Stripping out fairly meaningless tags like "string" or "array" and replacing it with these more meaningful semantic tags is in my view a good thing. | |
| Oct 8, 2012 at 5:42 | comment | added | user102937 | You're making a very good case for not having these kinds of tags. If someone can put it in a title, they're also going to try and make a tag out of it. | |
| Oct 8, 2012 at 5:42 | comment | added | HostileFork says dont trust SE | @RobertHarvey Even with tic-tac-toe the tag equivalence issues matter, in Britain it's naughts-and-crosses... but it's more of an issue with cards. Questions could say "card game", "playing cards", "shuffle a deck" "deck of cards" and then you've got questions about "stack of index cards" or remarks about "punch cards". If you want to survey the set of issues that someone writing a card game in java might face then [playing-cards] [java] would open that door right up...opening that door and preventing redundant questions is why I like tic-tac-toe as a tag. | |
| Oct 8, 2012 at 5:36 | comment | added | user102937 | Yeah, I'm not wild about [tic-tac-toe] either. Couldn't you just put that kind of information in the title of the question? | |
| Oct 8, 2012 at 5:34 | comment | added | HostileFork says dont trust SE | @RobertHarvey That doesn't address my question about tic-tac-toe, though. Do you feel it shouldn't be a tag either? I think that when problem spaces are retread so repeatedly then the discoverability matters a great deal. | |
| Oct 8, 2012 at 5:31 | comment | added | user102937 | Eh, it doesn't seem compelling. The tag is basically about a very specific application of programming discipline; we favor technology tags more than we do use cases. | |
| Oct 8, 2012 at 5:20 | comment | added | HostileFork says dont trust SE | @JeffMercado No problem, I just linked to the question... | |
| Oct 8, 2012 at 5:19 | history | edited | HostileFork says dont trust SE | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
comment deleted, link to question instead
|
| Oct 8, 2012 at 5:18 | comment | added | Jeff Mercado | Ah nuts, I lost that comment... I was planning on copying that over to here and delete it from there to remove the noise. Copy fail. | |
| Oct 8, 2012 at 5:11 | history | asked | HostileFork says dont trust SE | CC BY-SA 3.0 |