As we have individual tags for each badge type, I see no point in creating tags which couple some badge types together.

Such as

It'd surely be pretty rare for someone to ask about both "Edit" and "Answer" badges in the same question?

is a new tag with only 3 questions.
has been around since 2008, with 82 questions.

So do we want:

  1. Both and ?
  2. Or, burninate and create which can be used on it's own or with other tags (such as )

It seems more logical and consistent to have separate tags for each badge type.

Then the tags can be used individually, which is most likely going to be the case, or more than one can be used if needed.
Such as in the case of , use separate tags and .

  • 1
    These badges aren't about editing per se, nor about answering per se. They're about a combined edit+answer operation that is unique and specifically being encouraged. As such, tagging them with [edit-badges] would be wrong: it has little to do with the number of edits or the age of the posts. [answer-badges] would also seem inapplicable, as that should reasonably be about badges gained for high-scoring or decently-scoring and unusually late/early answers: again, not exactly relevant. If you have to use a particular pair of tags to describe a concept, why not make a tag for that? – Nathan Tuggy May 10 '15 at 3:05
  • @NathanTuggy "These badges aren't about editing per se, nor about answering per se. They're about a combined edit+answer operation" And my question is not about "discussion" per-se, nor about "burninate-request" per-se, it's about a combination of the two. As per all tag usage. You use multiple tags to build up what the question is about. Those 3 questions would have been perfectly fine with the two separate tags. – James May 10 '15 at 3:10
  • Yes, but there is no meaningful sense in which you have some unique "burninate-request-discussion". They're all that. That's what [burninate-request] already means. Keeping multiple tags only makes sense when there is no semantically-identifiable subset that binds tighter than the usual vast array of possible permutations. ([burninate-request could stand on its own, but the software doesn't want you leaving out the required tags and it's not worth it to add it to the list.) – Nathan Tuggy May 10 '15 at 3:13

Note that the respective badges (Explainer, Refiner, Illuminator) are comparably new and moreover were created after the Meta split, so naturally there cannot have been that many questions about them posted here. Also the tag itself is only a few hours old and has not yet been applied to all suitable questions.

Or are/should we start a collection of specific tags for specific badges?

Those tags already exist for a long time; just search for tags containing badge in their name. Some examples: , , or . In fact, most badges have specific tags already.

There are many questions in these tags and I have found them useful in the past, as they allow for searching for existing questions regarding those specific badges. For example, if I had some issue with one of Explainer, Refiner, Illuminator, I would have to search for all three names to find prior questions. Assuming proper tagging, I can instead search for [edit-and-answer-badges].

Thus, I think that those tags should stay.

  • 1
    "Also the tag itself is only a few hours old...." hmmm, first question with the tag and a rough idea on the age. I wonder who created it ;) – psubsee2003 May 9 '15 at 22:25
  • I didn't realise we already had some separate ones. As you stated in your answer "we already have [edit-badges]" then surely having tags with multiple badges ([edit-and-answer-badges]) makes no sense? We should keep them all separate and one tag per badge type. Then on the rare occasions where two badge types are asked about in one question use both tags. – James May 10 '15 at 1:15

I am adding a new answer, since the old answer hardly applies to the current question anymore:

It seems more logical and consistent to have separate tags for each badge type.

I am not certain what you are understanding as a badge type here, but I created to serve for one badge type, namely the Explainer, Refiner and Illuminator badge (which is by now reflected in its tag-wiki excerpt). The tag is not intended for questions that concern both, edit badges and answer badges, nor is it intended for some future badge that somewhat concerns editing and answering. I named it edit-and-answer-badges, because that’s what these badges are about: editing and answering the same question. I might as well have called it ¹, , or .

I consider the tag consistent with the current badge-tagging system that has one tag for most complex badge mechanisms, whether they apply to a single badge or several ones. For example, we have and do not tag the respective questions , , and .

This tagging scheme makes sense in my opinion, as many questions around badges concern their mechanism and the mechanism is what people want to actually search for. For example, it is unlikely that somebody is explicitly interested in the Inquisitive badge and not the mechanism underlying the Curious, Inquisitive and Socratic badge, i.e., the . But the latter is what people (including me) actually search for. For example, if I think I should have received an Inquisitive badge and didn’t, is where I would look for existing information, because this way I also find information about somebody who had the same problem just with the Socratic badge.

Approaching the question of scope from the other site, e.g., most questions about the Good Question, Notable Question and Inquisitive badge are very unlikely to have more in common than being about badges in general and thus there is little need for to comprise all of them and only them. Taking the above example again: If I have a problem with the Inquisitive badge, would be almost as useless as for searching stuff about it. I rather run fulltext searches for Inquisitive, Curious and Socratic (which is tedious, since I have to search three times).

¹ which is in idea I only had later. We might very well rename or synonymise the tag, should we decide to keep it.

  • "Explainer" badge is an "Answer Badge", so wouldn't the tag "[answer-badges]" suffice? – James May 10 '15 at 19:12
  • @James: No, see my last paragraph. There are a lot of answer badges, from Good Answer over Populist to Unsung Hero, which have nothing in common that would prompt anybody to search in or favorite [answer-badges]. One might as well have [bronze-badges], [silver-badges] and [gold-badges]. Usually people have questions about a specific badge or badge series and thus limiting the scope of badges to that level is exactly what is useful. I have used the tags on this level for searching many times, but I cannot even imagine a situation where [answer-badges] would be useful. – Wrzlprmft May 10 '15 at 19:49
  • Surely in terms of searching, you search the badge name? "Explainer" etc. Also, using your tag "edit-and-answer-badges", how is that better than tag "answer-badges" for searching? – James May 11 '15 at 0:18
  • @James: No, I do not. E.g., if I have some issue with the Explainer badge, somebody else might have had the same issue with the Illuminator badge and reported it under that name. To cover everything, I would have to search for all three badge names (see also the last paragraph of this answer). Also, just search for explainer yourself and see what it gets you. Sure, here quotation marks help, but what about Reviewer? As for [answer-badges], it’s unnecessarily broad (see again, my answer). – Wrzlprmft May 11 '15 at 6:38
  • "but what about Reviewer?" well it depends on other keywords. Stand alone search = 2,016 results.An issue with the Explainer badge doesn't necessarily work for Illuminator. I'd have thought searches would be more around their particular differences (1 action required vs 500). As I'm downvoted on this, I obviously don't know enough about the badges and searches to debate this with you, as I just don't see the logic (back on topic) with using two badges in one tag. As their being split into 2 tags means they can be used together to form one, or separately - which caters for all scenarios. NW – James May 11 '15 at 14:47
  • An issue with the Explainer badge doesn't necessarily work for Illuminator. – No, but most of the time it does. And even, if it doesn’t, I very likely do not know that when I have the issue. – Wrzlprmft May 11 '15 at 14:52

You must log in to answer this question.

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