Ah, time to resurrect my good old Implicit tagging hierarchy suggestion: While a question about visual-studio-2010 is obviously about that specific version of visual-studio, using the latter tag additionally is nonsense to me - it wastes space for a tag that is already implicitly present, but everyone has to use a visual-studio* wildcard (which fails to render correctly when typing [tag:visual-studio*] by the way...) and this is not possible for other tags where the implied hierarchy is not visible in the name, e.g. class in oop. That's why I suggested an implicit tagging hierarchy, where adding a tag for which unambiguous parent tags exist (a class-members question in c++ should require the c++ tag explicitly since it could also be e.g. python or java, while both class and oop are implicit parents) those tags should be treated as present on search/ignore/favorite queries but not be explicitly waste one of the five tag slots.

Ah, time to resurrect my good old Implicit tagging hierarchy suggestion: While a question about visual-studio-2010 is obviously about that specific version of visual-studio, using the latter tag additionally is nonsense to me - it wastes space for a tag that is already implicitly present, but everyone has to use a visual-studio* wildcard (which fails to render correctly when typing [tag:visual-studio*] by the way...) and this is not possible for other tags where the implied hierarchy is not visible in the name, e.g. class in oop. That's why I suggested an implicit tagging hierarchy, where adding a tag for which unambiguous parent tags exist (a class-members question in c++ should require the c++ tag explicitly since it could also be e.g. python or java, while both class and oop are implicit parents) those tags should be treated as present on search/ignore/favorite queries but not be explicitly waste one of the five tag slots.

Ah, time to resurrect my good old Implicit tagging hierarchy suggestion: While a question about visual-studio-2010 is obviously about that specific version of visual-studio, using the latter tag additionally is nonsense to me - it wastes space for a tag that is already implicitly present, but everyone has to use a visual-studio* wildcard (which fails to render correctly when typing [tag:visual-studio*] by the way...) and this is not possible for other tags where the implied hierarchy is not visible in the name, e.g. class in oop. That's why I suggested an implicit tagging hierarchy, where adding a tag for which unambiguous parent tags exist (a class-members question in c++ should require the c++ tag explicitly since it could also be e.g. python or java, while both class and oop are implicit parents) those tags should be treated as present on search/ignore/favorite queries but not be explicitly waste one of the five tag slots.

Ah, time to resurrect my good old Implicit tagging hierarchy suggestion: While a question about visual-studio-2010 is obviously about that specific version of visual-studio, using the latter tag additionally is nonsense to me - it wastes space for a tag that is already implicitly present, but everyone has to use a visual-studio* wildcard (which fails to render correctly when typing [tag:visual-studio*] by the way...) and this is not possible for other tags where the implied hierarchy is not visible in the name, e.g. class in oop. That's why I suggested an implicit tagging hierarchy, where adding a tag for which unambiguous parent tags exist (a class-members question in c++ should require the c++ tag explicitly since it could also be e.g. python or java, while both class and oop are implicit parents) those tags should be treated as present on search/ignore/favorite queries but not be explicitly waste one of the five tag slots.