Possible Duplicate:
Could we make tags imply other tags?

I am going to define the problem by providing a quick example: Let's say I am developing a Rails application (v 3.2.1) and have a problem. So, naturally after almost giving up on Google, I began to post the question on StackOverflow. The problem comes when I am choosing the tags - The following all accurately define my application environment to some degree of precision:

: More than 70k questions (77 asked today)
: More than 25k questions (36 asked today)
: Around 370 questions (7 asked today)
: Around 55 questions (8 asked this month)

Ideally, I should choose just , but a quick glance at the number of questions asked with that tag (recently) makes me act otherwise. While, I understand that is meant to signify Rails 1.0, I doubt many people are still on that version. Looking at some recent rails questions confirms this belief as it seems that most people include two-three tags related to the question such as: ; ... (and so on).

There is usually no way for them to include all the four above tags without adequately defining the problem they have in tags - and thus often leave out (the most precise tag).

The solution I propose is tag-subsets - such that choosing would automatically select the other three tags (and they don't count towards the five-tag limit). Note, that these are different from tag-synonyms.

For the sake of a discussion - there is another solution I thought of (although I like the idea of tag-subsets):

The major problem I see with this is the issue of backward compatibility. As mentioned earlier, there are a lot of questions with the tag that don't really pertain to Rails 3.0.

The other concern with forcing version numbers is that only few of the questions are actually version specific and if someone wants to ask a generic Rails related question, then, having to choose the version number may not be the best idea.

Note, while I use Ruby-on-Rails as an example - I see similar problems in other areas as well where tag-subsets would be useful. For instance: ; ; .

  • Ahhh.. my bad. I didn't see that! Now I see plenty of other people have asked similar questions (using all sorts of different terminology!) and they have all been linked to: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2781/… I am wondering if there's any scope of re-opening the discussion given that most attempts have simply been closed as duplicate with a link to the post from 2009! – Aayush Kumar May 6 '12 at 23:12
  • ruby-on-rails doesn't mean RoR 1.0, it means RoR without specifying a version. If there are questions that are specific to RoR 1 and do not apply to other versions of RoR, they should be tagged ruby-on-rails-1. For RoR, Python or anything else, use the generic tag; only use a tag with a version number if your question is absolutely specific to this version and is irrelevant to people using other versions. – Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' May 7 '12 at 0:04
  • @Gilles Interestingly, there is no tag Ruby-on-Rails-1, just like there is no tag Ruby-on-Rails-3.0 (just Ruby-on-Rails-3). I always figured that the first version of release of a specific version did not have the number after it (just like the first movie in any series usually isn't called <MovieName> 1 - its just <MovieName> and then <MovieName> 2) – Aayush Kumar May 7 '12 at 0:56

Browse other questions tagged .