-2
$\begingroup$

I asked a question about pertaining to aerogel, and could find the tag for aerogel.

Aerogel is an innovative technology, I mean before Kistler made it, who would have imagined that jellies were more than just a delicacy. Aerogel makes it mark in active research in the recent years. As Physics.SE is one of the first sites one would ask a question pertaining to physics(personally, I do). Therefore, we as the community would find ourselves duty bound to welcome and support relevant questions to the site. So, I think should be a tag for it, as it is still an emerging technology and it may invite more questions.

This question is posted for the community's thoughts on the creation of this tag and opinion of the community on relevance of this tag to Physics.SE.

$\endgroup$
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ Why should there be such a tag? What about this material is more relevant to physics than other types of materials? $\endgroup$ – ACuriousMind Jun 25 at 17:20
  • $\begingroup$ @ACuriousMind Sorry, the earlier version lacked supportive points. I posted it too soon. I edited it, please review. $\endgroup$ – user79161 Jun 25 at 17:24
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Why should physics.SE care about "innovative technologies"? Engineering is explicitly off-topic here - what relevance does this technology have to the natural science of physics? $\endgroup$ – ACuriousMind Jun 25 at 17:27
  • $\begingroup$ I think it would attract more good questions to the site meaning good material for the site and our community. I'm sorry if its pre-mature to say so or lacks actual need. $\endgroup$ – user79161 Jun 25 at 17:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Good questions in what way? I wouldn't expect adding a tag to suddenly improve the question quality, or even increase the odds of people asking questions related to the tag. $\endgroup$ – JMac Jun 25 at 17:42
  • $\begingroup$ I think I understand now, better drop it. Do I delete the post or add the status-declined tag? $\endgroup$ – user79161 Jun 25 at 17:59
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Something to keep in mind is that the system will automatically delete tags that have too few instances after a certain time. I'm not sure that [aerogel] would survive that process at this point. $\endgroup$ – dmckee Jun 25 at 18:01
  • $\begingroup$ @dmckee I didn't create one, I just thought it was better to ask first then do something like that. Will keep that in mind too. $\endgroup$ – user79161 Jun 25 at 18:49
7
$\begingroup$

Some of the reactions here are a bit more negative than they need to be, given that you're fairly new to the site, so a bit more explanation is in order.

Tags are organizational concepts: they exist to classify and organize the questions that already exist on the site, and to make them easier to discover and link together. They are not magical beacons that will conjure up good questions on a given subject, regardless of whether said subject has been featured recently in Veritasium or not.

Tags are created as and when they are needed for the population of questions that already exists. As Jon Custer mentioned, there's some fifteen questions on aerogel on the site. This is not sufficient to call for the creation of a tag, I would say: it wouldn't do harm per se, but there's not really any great need for one at this stage. If you do think this is important enough (i.e. that there are enough questions, and that the subject is important enough to merit classification on its own), and you have 1000 rep, then you can create the tag yourself by taking a meaningful subject of the already-existing questions and adding the tag yourself.

(Generally speaking, the fact that the tag-creation privilege by regular users is available only at 1k+ rep is a strong nudge by SE that this is roughly the level of experience with the site and its workings that will give you a good grounding on whether the tag creation is appropriate or not.)

And just to emphasize: the lack of an aerogel tag does not mean that questions about aerogel are off-topic or that they are unwelcome here. So long as they fit the site, and there is at least one other tag on the site that describes them, then they're perfectly welcome. (If a question would be described by aerogel but not by any other tags on the site, then it's a fair question as to whether it is actually on-topic.) So if people want to ask on-topic questions about aerogel, they already can.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This one puts it all on the table top. Thanks:) $\endgroup$ – user79161 Jun 27 at 14:20
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @user79161 Apologies for the rough reception you got in the comments. Sometimes we forget that not everyone knows every detail of how the site works =). $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Jun 27 at 14:24
  • $\begingroup$ Please, no apologies. Besides, I think I gave it a too rebellious title. XD $\endgroup$ – user79161 Jun 27 at 14:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @user79161 That was more of a rebuke to the others than an apology to you ;-). $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Jun 27 at 14:27
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @user79161 also, bear in mind that on meta.SE, downvotes do not (usually) mean that the post is bad; they only express disagreement with the proposal. So, here, they just mean people don't think the tag is necessary. They do not mean that the post is off-topic or badly written or anything like that. Cheers! $\endgroup$ – AccidentalFourierTransform Jun 28 at 14:39
3
$\begingroup$

As of today, a search for 'aerogel' in Physics SE comes up with 15 total questions across the whole site.

No, I don't think we need an 'aerogel' tag.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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