This is why it's not nice to the community to use tags as graffiti

Cycloptichorn wrote:

As with all other functions of A2K, I use the tagging system primarily and exclusively for my personal enjoyment. The promotion of humorous tags makes the site a better place, not a worse one.

Have fun then. If possible try to have fun in ways that negatively impact others less. For example, even if you want to use humorous "graffiti" tags just varying them can help. Using one over and over makes it more prominent than it deserves to be.

Think of it like jokes, telling the community the same joke too many times doesn't make it a better place.

Are you against tags that are author-specific, such as Crazyassgunga, one of my faves?

Who's we? This is being done by a couple of people. But yes, the users "adapted" but will continue to adapt. You might be beyond convincing but others might not be and I already outlined two things we can do about it.

Useful for what? In order to identify topics of little value? Because voting them down would also do that

you'll notice "hit and run" is still related to the "international news" tag.

You want our input but, but you want to control our input? I suppose you can create a list of pre-approved tag titles.

I suppose this all raises a question: do we really expect people to tag in the community's interest, instead of their own?

In a way, the graffiti tagging is an unintended consequence of not displaying the real popularity of a thread.

Where did I say anything about trying to control your tags?

if I wanted them pre-approved then I'd have stuck with pre-approved forums.

I fail to see the problem. Someone found "hit and run" meaningful, even if you don't, and even if "hit and run" is not really related to "international news".

This is a correlational problem, not a problem with how people are using the tags. Your algorithm threw an artifact and as a result, you're trying to change human behavior. IMO, it's like trying to hold the tide back with a spoon.

The whole basis of the thread is to tell folks that you disapprove of how people are tagging.

That was my point.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I suppose this all raises a question: do we really expect people to tag in the community's interest, instead of their own?

I expect some to and some not to, I don't really expect you to but others have different motivations, maybe an osso would. I also expect this ratio to be able to be influenced to some degree by making appeals, which is why I make them.

Or public vs. private tags? I'd be more inclined to tag topics with useful tags if this distinction existed.

As the appeals are likely to reach a very limited number of users, perhaps a change to the code instead, as you mentioned earlier?

Or public vs. private tags? I'd be more inclined to tag topics with useful tags if this distinction existed.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

As the appeals are likely to reach a very limited number of users, perhaps a change to the code instead, as you mentioned earlier?

We definitely have to do that as well, but it's a week or two of our time that we will have to spend when we can.

Quote:

Or public vs. private tags? I'd be more inclined to tag topics with useful tags if this distinction existed.

How so? I've thought about private tags before, but am not getting the connection to this kind of thing (which I think has the intention of being public), so what did you have in mind?

rosborne979 wrote:

I hate to say it, but I find the "graffiti" tags useful. Things like "international snooze", "hit and run" and "do my homework", are usually pretty accurate tags.

Useful for what? In order to identify topics of little value? Because voting them down would also do that

jespah wrote:

Writing about President Obama? Then tags like Politics, United States, Presidency, President Obama could all be good.

this one in particular is an arrrrrgh for me. Using "politics" to mark something that's about the current state of U.S. politics. U.S. politics - probably in my top ten tags - most days for "stay away" purposes.