I was just reviewing some suggested edits, and then a lot of edits that were just meant to add the tag came in for review. Because of that, I decided to check what was the deal with this tag, and from what it seems, it's a tag that doesn't really seem to be necessary at all. I then saw that all of these tags were added by the same user, who seems to have been suggesting a lot of these kinds of tags. Here's a list of the tags I'm talking about in particular:

Some of which seem to have more than one follower, but I do think all of these are quite unnecessary.

These are just the tags I could easily find up to page 25 of this particular user's suggested edits, but I'm quite sure there are a lot more (including ones I might have missed on the first 25 pages). Important to note is that these tags are not accidental creations, since this user also adds the tags he makes onto seemingly every question he finds related.

I've seen in this bunch of edit reviews that most of his suggestions have been rejected, but in his suggested edit history a lot of really minor edits still went through, without anybody rejecting it as a too-minor edit (which is perhaps another thing to worry about - perhaps more too-minor edit suggestion review audits?).

So in conclusion, a lot of very minor edits that added quite unnecessary tags have been accepted recently, and I'd like to request some action against these tags. I don't believe these tags should have been created in the first place, but the huge amount of edits that were this minor yet were still approved so easily does seem a bit worrying.

Edit: I've removed 5 tags from my list, per Robert Harvey's reply. The other ones are either quite unclear or ambiguous (force-layout for example could refer to the chart, but it could as well be what a "How to force div below paragraph" question could be tagged with). The ones I removed are not as much 'Meta Tags' by Jeff Atwood's blog post's definition "If the tag can’t work as the only tag on a question, it’s probably a meta-tag." as the other ones, but the ones from highlight to label just fail miserably for either that requirement, or the one below that.

  • 6
    This is becoming an epidemic. I see this kind of garbage all the time in reviews. See also Where do we draw the line on esoteric tag additions? and tags of mundanity that are gratuitously applied to posts – Pëkka Feb 3 '14 at 22:04
  • The user you named in your earlier revision is a good citizen, though, compared to others who do nothing else but search for any question they can slap their crappy tags on. – Pëkka Feb 3 '14 at 22:08
  • @Pëkka are there any running feature-requests that you know of that happen to have any solutions to this problem suggested? – joeytje50 Feb 3 '14 at 22:11
  • 1
    Not beyond what I linked above. I've been thinking about starting a feature request for deleting/blacklisting specific tags, but it might be good to wait until the great Meta split has happened, it's been rumoured to be coming any day now. – Pëkka Feb 3 '14 at 22:13
  • I've reviewed some of this person's suggested edits, but I don't really see a problem. Most of these tags are good (if not great) tags, and they seem to be applied to the questions correctly. The only remaining complaint is that edits are "too minor," but as long as a preponderance of reviewers are reviewing these edits as correct, I don't see much to do here. – Robert Harvey Feb 4 '14 at 3:46
  • @RobertHarvey Now I'm getting really conflicting signals. On the one hand, there are lots of people saying these kinds of tags are bad, and on the other hand you're saying they are great. Could you please leave a reply to that post or this one elaborating a bit on your views? I might be mistaken on this load of tags, but from the replies I've had so far I got the strong impression minor unnecessary tags shouldn't be created. – joeytje50 Feb 4 '14 at 10:54
  • @joeytje50: Well, first of all, I didn't say they were great. In fact, I specifically said these were not great, but they're not all that bad, either. [sunburst-diagram] is a perfectly valid tag. The ones over on that other question, however, are terrible. I'll post an answer here. – Robert Harvey Feb 4 '14 at 16:05

Looking at the tags here, some of them are not that bad. is a perfectly valid tag. Granted, some of these like , and are not all that useful for characterizations.

I suggest you talk to the guy. Explain that tags like and are not searchable, nobody is going to follow them, they have multiple meanings and they don't adequately characterize questions.

But there's not a lot that mods can do about reviewers summarily approving tags like these. Why would we override the will of the community on a regular basis? That's not our role.

  • I'm not sure what your last statement is replying to exactly, but I didn't mean to suggest going against the votes of the community. What I do think though is that it's really weird that despite one of the main rejection reasons being that the edit is 'too minor', still a lot of edits that would clearly qualify for rejection for being minor are accepted so smoothly, without rejections. I'd think either the general rule should be that tiny edits don't go through, and then there's an option to reject them, or the rule is that tiny edits are okay, but then there'd be no need for that option. – joeytje50 Feb 4 '14 at 16:35
  • 1
    If you look at the review history for these folks, you will see that the review process for these edits is not unanimous. There are always some dissenting votes. I'm not replying to anything; I'm just stating a fact. I see a lot of grousing about bad tags, but not a lot of communication with the people using them, and I see this as primarily an educational problem. We do, after all, allow people to put hazy tags into their questions, and until the SE software becomes sentient, I don't see that situation changing. – Robert Harvey Feb 4 '14 at 16:38
  • The reason why I never contacted the user that caused me to post this in the first place, is because there's currently no way for me to send him any messages other than replying to his current answers (like how I also posted this, before flagging an unrelated post for mod attention). I wouldn't want to start a completely unrelated discussion on a question/answer to bring this to the user's attention. I'll try to invite him to a chat room when I next see him though. – joeytje50 Feb 4 '14 at 16:41
  • 1
    Editors of a question get notified when you @user them. – Robert Harvey Feb 4 '14 at 16:42
  • I didn't know that, thanks. (I thought it would only work for the OP and replies to the question). I'll use that then. Will this also work for edits that are rejected, or will it automatically work when the edit is suggested? – joeytje50 Feb 4 '14 at 16:43
  • AFAIK it only works for edits that "take." – Robert Harvey Feb 4 '14 at 16:44
  • I've removed a couple of tags that did indeed come up with consistent results when googled, but the ones from highlight to label in the updated list are still too ambiguous and unsearchable. For force-based-algorithm, the only consistency in the results was that it was identical to force-layout, so I kept that in the top part of the list. – joeytje50 Feb 4 '14 at 17:06
  • 1
    It does not help that if someone spends time considering an edit; it is likely to be accepted by someone else before the reject vote is casted. – Ian Ringrose Feb 4 '14 at 18:08

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .