A versioned tag should automatically include the unversioned tag. This boils down to the introduction of sub-tags.
If someone follows or filters
product they most likely also want to follow or include in their filtering
product-v5 - but it would be impractical to have to mention them all for followers and in search.
And on the other hand, it is also simpler for tagging questions, this way only the specific tags have to be added manually.
The relation between
product could be handled similar.
To implement this, for each tag one or more parent-tags could be defined.
Brand a could be a parent of
product 1 and
product 2 could be a parent of
product 2 - v4 and so on.
I see 2 ways how this could be handled in tagging:
a) Whenever a tag that was added has a parent, all parents are automatically added to the tag list. Parents do not count regarding the maxmimum number of tags per question. This way it is more explicit.
b) The other way would be to automatically remove all parent tags, whenever a child is present. But then search and following would have to automatically search for all parent tags of a tag searched for or followed. This way the questions maybe look nicer, but I am not sure if it is obvious for everybody what happens.
- If the tag is somewhat or possibly ambiguous without the brand prefix, include the prefix.
- If the tag doesn't need to include the brand, it doesn't need to include the brand.
- If a question is asking about a product, and isn't specific to a particular version, then it doesn't need to include a version tag.
The brand is usually superfluous unless in the first case. Then you can just go with the product or product version.
I kind of agree with random here, though I do not feel strongly about it; that is …
… should be sufficient in the case where the product is unambiguously and uniquely .. itself. That is, if it is not a generic name. Now you could argue that "word" and "access" are not unique enough and that
helps. I won't disagree.
However, one thing I do feel strongly about and I agree with Tom: I certainly do NOT want us to have
that is not good, we should simply have