4

We already have lots of tags for specific games, but if we generate the levels of traffic we'd like to generate, then we're likely to find that for the most popular games people will want/need game-specific tags.

Where there is a lot of traffic relating to a particular game, it would make sense to have multiple tags for that game that would enable users of the site to separate and manage the traffic.

I suggest that we adopt the convention that a tag that is specific to a game should have the name of the game or an abbreviation of the name, then a . and then the tag, so for instance we might have for movement in the Advanced Squad Leader games. Game tags should continue to be the full name of the game, so .

The reason to do this is that it puts them into separate namespaces so you can have and instead of mixing up everything relating to that phase.

I'm not sure that "movement" is necessarily a good tag, it's just the first example that came to mind!

This came out of a discussion in the comments to this answer, for context.

  • @Dori I think It would be useful for people having the full-game-name tag as one of their favorite tags. They could still view all questions from one game together. – Rogier Apr 15 '11 at 19:19
  • @Dori - I would think that using the full name should attract more folks from Google. ASL -> American Sign Language to most of the world. – Pat Ludwig Apr 15 '11 at 19:52
  • @Dori - That would only select all questions with a specific tag. There might still be questions for a game without such a specific tag. Selecting them together is not possible while, please correct me if i'm wrong, OR-ing favorite tags is not possible. – Rogier Apr 15 '11 at 19:58
  • @Dori - Did not know about the tag sets feature. Thanx. – Rogier Apr 15 '11 at 21:20
4

You are absolutely 100% right that tagging should focus on using the forms of the tag that are found in Google! This is extremely important.

However, I must say I am not a fan of this "let's smush two things together with a period to ghetto up a tag hierarchy" approach.

I think should suffice, really.

Considering there is all of one question in this tag at the moment, perhaps it would be a good idea to table this and wait until there are a bunch of questions that might need additional categorization? (Though I'd say you would need 250-500 to even begin needing anything beyond a simple single tag).

  • Agreed on the "table until there are lots of questions" proposal. – Richard Gadsden Apr 18 '11 at 11:16
  • 1
    Concur. It's dangerous to solve problems you haven't encountered yet; it means you can't test your solution and find out what you didn't think of. – Tynam Apr 19 '11 at 18:19
1

I think in the question's example that you would tag it, , though I'm not sure that will work well in practice, since tactical considerations tend to overlap a lot.

I think more specific game tags should be based on game versions, like and .

  • I have no objection to tagging versions of games. Over at RPG, there are a plethora of Dungeons and Dragons tags. – Pat Ludwig Apr 22 '11 at 2:32
  • and Gaming has a ton of game-version tags: we don't tend to get too many questions about a series, but rather questions about specific games in the series, so you can follow fallout* but also know from the tags which game (or games) are applicable for a given question. – Dave DuPlantis Aug 4 '11 at 18:49

You must log in to answer this question.

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