Timeline for Moderator-only tags, such as "canonical-question"
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aug 16, 2021 at 23:08 | comment | added | Bryan Krause Mod | I think there could be some usefulness to this and there are definitely times I've wanted an easier way to find some of these questions, but I think given stackoverflow.blog/2010/08/07/the-death-of-meta-tags (despite it being quite old) it might be an uphill battle. | |
Aug 16, 2021 at 19:52 | comment | added | cag51 Mod | @Buffy - OK. Well, I have no objection to mod-only tags, but it seems like most of the upgrades coming out now were requested 5+ years ago. So, it's too bad if we can't think of any way to grant your wish without needing to request new upgrades. | |
Aug 16, 2021 at 19:49 | comment | added | Buffy | @cag51. I actually do think it would be overused. If the canonical list is huge it defeats the purpose altogether. It might lead to tag wars if it is over-applied. Unlike the current list, which is a central location, it would result in more dispersed information. Maybe a discussion about it among mods (and higher levels) would be useful to have. This is really why I raised the issue. | |
Aug 16, 2021 at 19:43 | comment | added | cag51 Mod | My thought is that, even if well-received, it could take years for them to implement mod-only tags. What would you think about just creating a regular tag called "canonical"? I doubt that new users would often misuse a tag with this name, so it shouldn't be too difficult to maintain. Let me know whether this would scratch your itch; I can write it up as an answer if so (or someone else can). | |
Aug 15, 2021 at 16:52 | comment | added | Buffy | @MassimoOrtolano, yes, I figured that it would need escalation, but who better to do so than yourself. ;-) | |
Aug 15, 2021 at 16:50 | comment | added | Massimo Ortolano Mod | Mod-only tags exist only for meta, and so the creation of mod-only tags for the main site would require a network wide change. | |
Aug 15, 2021 at 16:43 | comment | added | Buffy | I wonder if any of the current mods have anything to say, since it would be an additional task for them. | |
Aug 15, 2021 at 16:41 | comment | added | Buffy | @GoodDeeds, I also don't find meta especially useful, since there is so much there that the things you want are hard to find. Maybe the whole issue can go away with a better help section and faq. For all my rep, I have a hard time navigating. | |
Aug 15, 2021 at 16:38 | comment | added | Buffy | @GoodDeeds, the problem is visibility for the average user. Tags can be searched easily. There isn't an obvious way to point people to the canonical list. Question askers often have rep 1 and no experience. Answerers, might not remember where to find it. I admit that is my own issue. The list of "similar questions" provided on the main API isn't always useful, nor linked to the canonical list. | |
Aug 15, 2021 at 16:34 | comment | added | GoodDeeds | But what's the issue with using the existing meta question that collects a list of canonical questions from the main site? | |
Aug 15, 2021 at 16:31 | comment | added | GoodDeeds | Agreed, it's not covered there. But I am not sure it's even possible to have mod-only tags on the main site (at least, I don't recollect seeing any such instance anywhere). So it would probably have to be a feature request to SE. Edit: just realized that is also mentioned in the linked post. | |
Aug 15, 2021 at 16:26 | comment | added | Buffy | @GoodDeeds, lots of overlap. Thanks. But how about the mod-only tag idea. I don't see that anywhere. And one of the comments on the linked question was about making things more visible. | |
Aug 15, 2021 at 16:16 | comment | added | GoodDeeds | And a useful thread linked there: What potential duplicate targets should I know about as a reviewer? | |
Aug 15, 2021 at 16:16 | comment | added | GoodDeeds | Related, most likely a duplicate: academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4097/68109 | |
Aug 15, 2021 at 16:04 | history | asked | Buffy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |