4 replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
source | link

There's been an awful lot said here already, so I'm gonna cut to the chase: is clearly a meta tag, in the same way that is a meta tag - it can't stand alone when describing a question.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's bad or should be removed though. [popular-science], like [homework] has value in describing the sorts of answers that can be found on a question... or should be provided to a question.

BUT THAT ONLY WORKS IF FOLKS ARE CONSISTENT IN HOW THEY USE IT.

After years of support and many thousands of questions, we had to burn [homework] on Stack Overflowwe had to burn [homework] on Stack Overflow because folks were using it as a club to beat others over the head with. When folks are regularly getting into fights over a tag, that tag has become a liability and must be removed - regardless of how nice it might be in theory. And before you say "it can't happen here", open your eyes - it already is happening.

While I sympathize with Jim and others who wish to classify these questions, Manishearth is dead right with regard to the ambiguities and potential for abuse: these are the reasons why meta tags are discouraged. If this tag is going to remain in use, three conditions must be met:

  1. This should go without saying, but... Y'all have to want pop-sci questions on this site. I don't mean easy questions - I mean questions that demand answers written for a general audience: no post-highschool physics knowledge required (if even that). Answers you could give to your 8 year old when she asks an annoying string of "why" questions. You could just disallow these questions entirely and side-step the whole issue; not saying that's a good idea, but if folks really hate them then that's an option. If you do want them, and want them tagged as such, then...

  2. ...You need to be ruthlessly consistent in how the tag is used. If a given question doesn't explicitly ask for and receive a "general audience" answer, then it's not a pop-sci question. You may think it's too simple, that the author doesn't have sufficient knowledge to understand the answer he's asking for, or just detest the topic, but... Tough cookies; down-vote or vote to close it as appropriate. Unless the asker states, "I don't know any physics, please give me an answer that doesn't require it" or the equivalent of it... You must not use this tag.

  3. It cannot be the only tag on any question. If there's no clearly identifiable topic beyond "I want a layman's explanation for something", then the question is either poorly-written, off-topic, or badly-tagged - so if it's not closed or deleted, you need to tag it. is already failing this condition - there are 24 posts with no other tag.

And most importantly, you cannot fight about this. Tags should be obvious to anyone reading the question, not a point of controversy. If you find folks engaging in edit wars over whether or not this tag is appropriate, point them to this post; if they continue to misuse it, they will be blocked; if the problem becomes widespread, the tag will be removed with no further discussion.

There's been an awful lot said here already, so I'm gonna cut to the chase: is clearly a meta tag, in the same way that is a meta tag - it can't stand alone when describing a question.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's bad or should be removed though. [popular-science], like [homework] has value in describing the sorts of answers that can be found on a question... or should be provided to a question.

BUT THAT ONLY WORKS IF FOLKS ARE CONSISTENT IN HOW THEY USE IT.

After years of support and many thousands of questions, we had to burn [homework] on Stack Overflow because folks were using it as a club to beat others over the head with. When folks are regularly getting into fights over a tag, that tag has become a liability and must be removed - regardless of how nice it might be in theory. And before you say "it can't happen here", open your eyes - it already is happening.

While I sympathize with Jim and others who wish to classify these questions, Manishearth is dead right with regard to the ambiguities and potential for abuse: these are the reasons why meta tags are discouraged. If this tag is going to remain in use, three conditions must be met:

  1. This should go without saying, but... Y'all have to want pop-sci questions on this site. I don't mean easy questions - I mean questions that demand answers written for a general audience: no post-highschool physics knowledge required (if even that). Answers you could give to your 8 year old when she asks an annoying string of "why" questions. You could just disallow these questions entirely and side-step the whole issue; not saying that's a good idea, but if folks really hate them then that's an option. If you do want them, and want them tagged as such, then...

  2. ...You need to be ruthlessly consistent in how the tag is used. If a given question doesn't explicitly ask for and receive a "general audience" answer, then it's not a pop-sci question. You may think it's too simple, that the author doesn't have sufficient knowledge to understand the answer he's asking for, or just detest the topic, but... Tough cookies; down-vote or vote to close it as appropriate. Unless the asker states, "I don't know any physics, please give me an answer that doesn't require it" or the equivalent of it... You must not use this tag.

  3. It cannot be the only tag on any question. If there's no clearly identifiable topic beyond "I want a layman's explanation for something", then the question is either poorly-written, off-topic, or badly-tagged - so if it's not closed or deleted, you need to tag it. is already failing this condition - there are 24 posts with no other tag.

And most importantly, you cannot fight about this. Tags should be obvious to anyone reading the question, not a point of controversy. If you find folks engaging in edit wars over whether or not this tag is appropriate, point them to this post; if they continue to misuse it, they will be blocked; if the problem becomes widespread, the tag will be removed with no further discussion.

There's been an awful lot said here already, so I'm gonna cut to the chase: is clearly a meta tag, in the same way that is a meta tag - it can't stand alone when describing a question.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's bad or should be removed though. [popular-science], like [homework] has value in describing the sorts of answers that can be found on a question... or should be provided to a question.

BUT THAT ONLY WORKS IF FOLKS ARE CONSISTENT IN HOW THEY USE IT.

After years of support and many thousands of questions, we had to burn [homework] on Stack Overflow because folks were using it as a club to beat others over the head with. When folks are regularly getting into fights over a tag, that tag has become a liability and must be removed - regardless of how nice it might be in theory. And before you say "it can't happen here", open your eyes - it already is happening.

While I sympathize with Jim and others who wish to classify these questions, Manishearth is dead right with regard to the ambiguities and potential for abuse: these are the reasons why meta tags are discouraged. If this tag is going to remain in use, three conditions must be met:

  1. This should go without saying, but... Y'all have to want pop-sci questions on this site. I don't mean easy questions - I mean questions that demand answers written for a general audience: no post-highschool physics knowledge required (if even that). Answers you could give to your 8 year old when she asks an annoying string of "why" questions. You could just disallow these questions entirely and side-step the whole issue; not saying that's a good idea, but if folks really hate them then that's an option. If you do want them, and want them tagged as such, then...

  2. ...You need to be ruthlessly consistent in how the tag is used. If a given question doesn't explicitly ask for and receive a "general audience" answer, then it's not a pop-sci question. You may think it's too simple, that the author doesn't have sufficient knowledge to understand the answer he's asking for, or just detest the topic, but... Tough cookies; down-vote or vote to close it as appropriate. Unless the asker states, "I don't know any physics, please give me an answer that doesn't require it" or the equivalent of it... You must not use this tag.

  3. It cannot be the only tag on any question. If there's no clearly identifiable topic beyond "I want a layman's explanation for something", then the question is either poorly-written, off-topic, or badly-tagged - so if it's not closed or deleted, you need to tag it. is already failing this condition - there are 24 posts with no other tag.

And most importantly, you cannot fight about this. Tags should be obvious to anyone reading the question, not a point of controversy. If you find folks engaging in edit wars over whether or not this tag is appropriate, point them to this post; if they continue to misuse it, they will be blocked; if the problem becomes widespread, the tag will be removed with no further discussion.

3 Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration
source | link

There's been an awful lot said here already, so I'm gonna cut to the chase: popular-science is clearly a meta tag, in the same way that homework is a meta tag - it can't stand alone when describing a question.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's bad or should be removed though. [popular-science], like [homework] has value in describing the sorts of answers that can be found on a question... or should be provided to a question.

BUT THAT ONLY WORKS IF FOLKS ARE CONSISTENT IN HOW THEY USE IT.

After years of support and many thousands of questions, we had to burn [homework] on Stack Overflow because folks were using it as a club to beat others over the head with. When folks are regularly getting into fights over a tag, that tag has become a liability and must be removed - regardless of how nice it might be in theory. And before you say "it can't happen here", open your eyes - it already is happening.

While I sympathize with Jim and others who wish to classify these questions, Manishearth is dead right with regard to the ambiguities and potential for abuse: these are the reasons why meta tags are discouraged. If this tag is going to remain in use, three conditions must be met:

  1. This should go without saying, but... Y'all have to want pop-sci questions on this site. I don't mean easy questions - I mean questions that demand answers written for a general audience: no post-highschool physics knowledge required (if even that). Answers you could give to your 8 year old when she asks an annoying string of "why" questions. You could just disallow these questions entirely and side-step the whole issue; not saying that's a good idea, but if folks really hate them then that's an option. If you do want them, and want them tagged as such, then...

  2. ...You need to be ruthlessly consistent in how the tag is used. If a given question doesn't explicitly ask for and receive a "general audience" answer, then it's not a pop-sci question. You may think it's too simple, that the author doesn't have sufficient knowledge to understand the answer he's asking for, or just detest the topic, but... Tough cookies; down-vote or vote to close it as appropriate. Unless the asker states, "I don't know any physics, please give me an answer that doesn't require it" or the equivalent of it... You must not use this tag.

  3. It cannot be the only tag on any question. If there's no clearly identifiable topic beyond "I want a layman's explanation for something", then the question is either poorly-written, off-topic, or badly-tagged - so if it's not closed or deleted, you need to tag it. homework is already failing this condition - there are 24 posts with no other tag.

And most importantly, you cannot fight about this. Tags should be obvious to anyone reading the question, not a point of controversy. If you find folks engaging in edit wars over whether or not this tag is appropriate, point them to this post; if they continue to misuse it, they will be blocked; if the problem becomes widespread, the tag will be removed with no further discussion.

There's been an awful lot said here already, so I'm gonna cut to the chase: popular-science is clearly a meta tag, in the same way that homework is a meta tag - it can't stand alone when describing a question.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's bad or should be removed though. [popular-science], like [homework] has value in describing the sorts of answers that can be found on a question... or should be provided to a question.

BUT THAT ONLY WORKS IF FOLKS ARE CONSISTENT IN HOW THEY USE IT.

After years of support and many thousands of questions, we had to burn [homework] on Stack Overflow because folks were using it as a club to beat others over the head with. When folks are regularly getting into fights over a tag, that tag has become a liability and must be removed - regardless of how nice it might be in theory. And before you say "it can't happen here", open your eyes - it already is happening.

While I sympathize with Jim and others who wish to classify these questions, Manishearth is dead right with regard to the ambiguities and potential for abuse: these are the reasons why meta tags are discouraged. If this tag is going to remain in use, three conditions must be met:

  1. This should go without saying, but... Y'all have to want pop-sci questions on this site. I don't mean easy questions - I mean questions that demand answers written for a general audience: no post-highschool physics knowledge required (if even that). Answers you could give to your 8 year old when she asks an annoying string of "why" questions. You could just disallow these questions entirely and side-step the whole issue; not saying that's a good idea, but if folks really hate them then that's an option. If you do want them, and want them tagged as such, then...

  2. ...You need to be ruthlessly consistent in how the tag is used. If a given question doesn't explicitly ask for and receive a "general audience" answer, then it's not a pop-sci question. You may think it's too simple, that the author doesn't have sufficient knowledge to understand the answer he's asking for, or just detest the topic, but... Tough cookies; down-vote or vote to close it as appropriate. Unless the asker states, "I don't know any physics, please give me an answer that doesn't require it" or the equivalent of it... You must not use this tag.

  3. It cannot be the only tag on any question. If there's no clearly identifiable topic beyond "I want a layman's explanation for something", then the question is either poorly-written, off-topic, or badly-tagged - so if it's not closed or deleted, you need to tag it. homework is already failing this condition - there are 24 posts with no other tag.

And most importantly, you cannot fight about this. Tags should be obvious to anyone reading the question, not a point of controversy. If you find folks engaging in edit wars over whether or not this tag is appropriate, point them to this post; if they continue to misuse it, they will be blocked; if the problem becomes widespread, the tag will be removed with no further discussion.

There's been an awful lot said here already, so I'm gonna cut to the chase: is clearly a meta tag, in the same way that is a meta tag - it can't stand alone when describing a question.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's bad or should be removed though. [popular-science], like [homework] has value in describing the sorts of answers that can be found on a question... or should be provided to a question.

BUT THAT ONLY WORKS IF FOLKS ARE CONSISTENT IN HOW THEY USE IT.

After years of support and many thousands of questions, we had to burn [homework] on Stack Overflow because folks were using it as a club to beat others over the head with. When folks are regularly getting into fights over a tag, that tag has become a liability and must be removed - regardless of how nice it might be in theory. And before you say "it can't happen here", open your eyes - it already is happening.

While I sympathize with Jim and others who wish to classify these questions, Manishearth is dead right with regard to the ambiguities and potential for abuse: these are the reasons why meta tags are discouraged. If this tag is going to remain in use, three conditions must be met:

  1. This should go without saying, but... Y'all have to want pop-sci questions on this site. I don't mean easy questions - I mean questions that demand answers written for a general audience: no post-highschool physics knowledge required (if even that). Answers you could give to your 8 year old when she asks an annoying string of "why" questions. You could just disallow these questions entirely and side-step the whole issue; not saying that's a good idea, but if folks really hate them then that's an option. If you do want them, and want them tagged as such, then...

  2. ...You need to be ruthlessly consistent in how the tag is used. If a given question doesn't explicitly ask for and receive a "general audience" answer, then it's not a pop-sci question. You may think it's too simple, that the author doesn't have sufficient knowledge to understand the answer he's asking for, or just detest the topic, but... Tough cookies; down-vote or vote to close it as appropriate. Unless the asker states, "I don't know any physics, please give me an answer that doesn't require it" or the equivalent of it... You must not use this tag.

  3. It cannot be the only tag on any question. If there's no clearly identifiable topic beyond "I want a layman's explanation for something", then the question is either poorly-written, off-topic, or badly-tagged - so if it's not closed or deleted, you need to tag it. is already failing this condition - there are 24 posts with no other tag.

And most importantly, you cannot fight about this. Tags should be obvious to anyone reading the question, not a point of controversy. If you find folks engaging in edit wars over whether or not this tag is appropriate, point them to this post; if they continue to misuse it, they will be blocked; if the problem becomes widespread, the tag will be removed with no further discussion.

2 Migration of MSO links to MSE links
source | link

There's been an awful lot said here already, so I'm gonna cut to the chase: popular-science is clearly a meta tag, in the same way that homework is a meta tag - it can't stand alone when describing a question.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's bad or should be removed though. [popular-science], like [homework] has value in describing the sorts of answers that can be found on a question... or should be provided to a question.

BUT THAT ONLY WORKS IF FOLKS ARE CONSISTENT IN HOW THEY USE IT.

After years of support and many thousands of questions, we had to burn [homework] on Stack Overflowwe had to burn [homework] on Stack Overflow because folks were using it as a club to beat others over the head with. When folks are regularly getting into fights over a tag, that tag has become a liability and must be removed - regardless of how nice it might be in theory. And before you say "it can't happen here", open your eyes - it already is happening.

While I sympathize with Jim and others who wish to classify these questions, Manishearth is dead right with regard to the ambiguities and potential for abuse: these are the reasons why meta tags are discouraged. If this tag is going to remain in use, three conditions must be met:

  1. This should go without saying, but... Y'all have to want pop-sci questions on this site. I don't mean easy questions - I mean questions that demand answers written for a general audience: no post-highschool physics knowledge required (if even that). Answers you could give to your 8 year old when she asks an annoying string of "why" questions. You could just disallow these questions entirely and side-step the whole issue; not saying that's a good idea, but if folks really hate them then that's an option. If you do want them, and want them tagged as such, then...

  2. ...You need to be ruthlessly consistent in how the tag is used. If a given question doesn't explicitly ask for and receive a "general audience" answer, then it's not a pop-sci question. You may think it's too simple, that the author doesn't have sufficient knowledge to understand the answer he's asking for, or just detest the topic, but... Tough cookies; down-vote or vote to close it as appropriate. Unless the asker states, "I don't know any physics, please give me an answer that doesn't require it" or the equivalent of it... You must not use this tag.

  3. It cannot be the only tag on any question. If there's no clearly identifiable topic beyond "I want a layman's explanation for something", then the question is either poorly-written, off-topic, or badly-tagged - so if it's not closed or deleted, you need to tag it. homework is already failing this condition - there are 24 posts with no other tag.

And most importantly, you cannot fight about this. Tags should be obvious to anyone reading the question, not a point of controversy. If you find folks engaging in edit wars over whether or not this tag is appropriate, point them to this post; if they continue to misuse it, they will be blocked; if the problem becomes widespread, the tag will be removed with no further discussion.

There's been an awful lot said here already, so I'm gonna cut to the chase: is clearly a meta tag, in the same way that is a meta tag - it can't stand alone when describing a question.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's bad or should be removed though. [popular-science], like [homework] has value in describing the sorts of answers that can be found on a question... or should be provided to a question.

BUT THAT ONLY WORKS IF FOLKS ARE CONSISTENT IN HOW THEY USE IT.

After years of support and many thousands of questions, we had to burn [homework] on Stack Overflow because folks were using it as a club to beat others over the head with. When folks are regularly getting into fights over a tag, that tag has become a liability and must be removed - regardless of how nice it might be in theory. And before you say "it can't happen here", open your eyes - it already is happening.

While I sympathize with Jim and others who wish to classify these questions, Manishearth is dead right with regard to the ambiguities and potential for abuse: these are the reasons why meta tags are discouraged. If this tag is going to remain in use, three conditions must be met:

  1. This should go without saying, but... Y'all have to want pop-sci questions on this site. I don't mean easy questions - I mean questions that demand answers written for a general audience: no post-highschool physics knowledge required (if even that). Answers you could give to your 8 year old when she asks an annoying string of "why" questions. You could just disallow these questions entirely and side-step the whole issue; not saying that's a good idea, but if folks really hate them then that's an option. If you do want them, and want them tagged as such, then...

  2. ...You need to be ruthlessly consistent in how the tag is used. If a given question doesn't explicitly ask for and receive a "general audience" answer, then it's not a pop-sci question. You may think it's too simple, that the author doesn't have sufficient knowledge to understand the answer he's asking for, or just detest the topic, but... Tough cookies; down-vote or vote to close it as appropriate. Unless the asker states, "I don't know any physics, please give me an answer that doesn't require it" or the equivalent of it... You must not use this tag.

  3. It cannot be the only tag on any question. If there's no clearly identifiable topic beyond "I want a layman's explanation for something", then the question is either poorly-written, off-topic, or badly-tagged - so if it's not closed or deleted, you need to tag it. is already failing this condition - there are 24 posts with no other tag.

And most importantly, you cannot fight about this. Tags should be obvious to anyone reading the question, not a point of controversy. If you find folks engaging in edit wars over whether or not this tag is appropriate, point them to this post; if they continue to misuse it, they will be blocked; if the problem becomes widespread, the tag will be removed with no further discussion.

There's been an awful lot said here already, so I'm gonna cut to the chase: popular-science is clearly a meta tag, in the same way that homework is a meta tag - it can't stand alone when describing a question.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's bad or should be removed though. [popular-science], like [homework] has value in describing the sorts of answers that can be found on a question... or should be provided to a question.

BUT THAT ONLY WORKS IF FOLKS ARE CONSISTENT IN HOW THEY USE IT.

After years of support and many thousands of questions, we had to burn [homework] on Stack Overflow because folks were using it as a club to beat others over the head with. When folks are regularly getting into fights over a tag, that tag has become a liability and must be removed - regardless of how nice it might be in theory. And before you say "it can't happen here", open your eyes - it already is happening.

While I sympathize with Jim and others who wish to classify these questions, Manishearth is dead right with regard to the ambiguities and potential for abuse: these are the reasons why meta tags are discouraged. If this tag is going to remain in use, three conditions must be met:

  1. This should go without saying, but... Y'all have to want pop-sci questions on this site. I don't mean easy questions - I mean questions that demand answers written for a general audience: no post-highschool physics knowledge required (if even that). Answers you could give to your 8 year old when she asks an annoying string of "why" questions. You could just disallow these questions entirely and side-step the whole issue; not saying that's a good idea, but if folks really hate them then that's an option. If you do want them, and want them tagged as such, then...

  2. ...You need to be ruthlessly consistent in how the tag is used. If a given question doesn't explicitly ask for and receive a "general audience" answer, then it's not a pop-sci question. You may think it's too simple, that the author doesn't have sufficient knowledge to understand the answer he's asking for, or just detest the topic, but... Tough cookies; down-vote or vote to close it as appropriate. Unless the asker states, "I don't know any physics, please give me an answer that doesn't require it" or the equivalent of it... You must not use this tag.

  3. It cannot be the only tag on any question. If there's no clearly identifiable topic beyond "I want a layman's explanation for something", then the question is either poorly-written, off-topic, or badly-tagged - so if it's not closed or deleted, you need to tag it. homework is already failing this condition - there are 24 posts with no other tag.

And most importantly, you cannot fight about this. Tags should be obvious to anyone reading the question, not a point of controversy. If you find folks engaging in edit wars over whether or not this tag is appropriate, point them to this post; if they continue to misuse it, they will be blocked; if the problem becomes widespread, the tag will be removed with no further discussion.

1
source | link