Timeline for Can we get rid of the company tags?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 1, 2012 at 21:49 | vote | accept | Tamara Wijsman | ||
| Feb 1, 2012 at 21:49 | vote | accept | Tamara Wijsman | ||
| Feb 1, 2012 at 21:49 | |||||
| Sep 2, 2011 at 5:51 | vote | accept | Tamara Wijsman | ||
| Feb 1, 2012 at 21:49 | |||||
| Sep 1, 2011 at 19:49 | history | edited | Jeff Atwood |
edited tags
|
|
| Jun 27, 2011 at 2:03 | answer | added | Brock Adams | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jun 26, 2011 at 14:24 | answer | added | Daniel BeckMod | timeline score: 18 | |
| Jun 26, 2011 at 11:22 | answer | added | Jeff Atwood | timeline score: 4 | |
| Mar 22, 2011 at 19:49 | comment | added | Tamara Wijsman | I don't see how you could refine using something more general than a tag you already gave. If you're looking for [windows-7] questions you ain't going to refine by using [microsoft]; if you're looking for [osx] questions you ain't going to refine by using [apple]; and so on... Tags like these don't help to group questions, if I search for [microsoft] now I do not get all the questions that are related to [microsoft], I only get a very small share of accidentally tagged questions or those that are about Microsoft themselves (off-topic). | |
| Mar 22, 2011 at 16:42 | comment | added | Breakthrough | Tom, the reason I'm against this is because I believe tags are supposed to be general categories. They are most useful to help refine searches, but you should use actual keywords as queries. Tags just help to group questions, so this is why I think we should keep the company names (you can just search in those refined results for specifics). | |
| Mar 7, 2011 at 1:19 | history | edited | Tamara Wijsman | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 159 characters in body; added 5 characters in body; edited title; edited title
|
| Mar 7, 2011 at 1:12 | comment | added | Tamara Wijsman | No, because a company name is applicable for Super User doesn't mean tags for them should exist, for the exact same reason tags for the tags [hardware] & [software] have been obliterated, amongst others. How can a question that is solely about Microsoft itself, Apple itself, Acer itself, Samsung itself, Sony itself or Asus itself be reasonable on-topic here? I'm pretty sure none of them are. The tags are way too broad and tagging questions in that metaish way doesn't help the question, search or anything else at all. Better way of tagging them? [microsoft-word], [osx], [acer-iconia], ... | |
| Mar 6, 2011 at 15:18 | comment | added | Breakthrough | Then by this logic, we need to remove Microsoft, Apple, Acer, Samsung, Sony, Asus, and so on and so fourth. I don't think this is a good idea, there is a good reason to have company names. And almost all of the above mentioned companies make both hardware and software, and it is all applicable for Super User. I disagree with removing these tags. | |
| Mar 4, 2011 at 1:07 | comment | added | Pylsa | I think most questions that "NEED" an apple or microsoft tag are off-topic anyway. (Like questions about the company itself) | |
| Mar 3, 2011 at 14:40 | history | edited | Tamara Wijsman | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 10 characters in body; edited title
|
| Mar 3, 2011 at 14:40 | comment | added | Tamara Wijsman | Still, is it possible to ask a question that is on-topic which is only about Microsoft or Apple? I don't think so, thus there is no need for those tags. Thanks for letting us know the existence of the Apple tag. | |
| Mar 3, 2011 at 13:13 | comment | added | Breakthrough | I don't mean to seem out of line here, but if we remove the Microsoft tag, then why not remove the Apple tag while we're at it? (On that note, I hate to say it, but manufacturers names should be allowed tags on this website. Again, this is just my opinion.) | |
| Feb 24, 2011 at 14:25 | comment | added | Tamara Wijsman | @Sirex: How was the previous question identical? I believe this one is different. My previous version has been superseded by meta.superuser.com/questions/2100/…; which is to standardize the more specific tags, but wasn't about the [microsoft] tag itself. It's related, but not duplicate... :-) | |
| Feb 24, 2011 at 12:45 | comment | added | Sirex | what was wrong with your previous identical question ? | |
| Feb 23, 2011 at 22:14 | comment | added | James Mertz | agreed... I can't think of any products that aren't already defined more specifically. | |
| Feb 23, 2011 at 20:41 | history | asked | Tamara Wijsman | CC BY-SA 2.5 |