# Proper format for tags

I noticed a pattern in tags from CSTheory, which consists of adding an abbreviation before the name of an area. For example, if the tag is probability, they write down pr-probability, and so on for ds.data-structures, db.databases, ds.algorithms, dc.distributed-comp. Should we do the same? Anyone knows of pros/cons of doing so?

• This is only a guess... but, these codes might be inspired by arXiv categories. May 15, 2014 at 18:17
• @NicholasR.Peterson These codes are ArXiv categories. May 19, 2014 at 12:43
• Similar discussion on CS.SE. We didn't end up using these tags on Computer Science because unlike on Theoretical Computer Science, there wasn't a large enough proportion of the audience who already knew them and would use and enforce them naturally. May 19, 2014 at 12:49

# No - tags should not be a puzzle, they should categorize a puzzle.

Tags inevitably become something that need to change over time, but, .....

.... I was going to say something derogatory about that tag taxonomy you describe on CSTheory, but, as I looked in to CSTheory to see how it works, I realized I don't understand how it works.... and, I think that is the bottom line:

• how would it work? What problem does it solve?
• if it is not easy to understand the tags on CSTheory, how can it possibly be a good thing?

So, no. K.I.S.S ..... ;-)

• Well, the questions you pointed are the pros/cons I'd also like to know. I don't know why/what for they do that, but since they do, I thought there might would be some reason. May 15, 2014 at 15:03
• @Rubens - Tags should be the most simple mechanism for site organization. If you need to do research to understand how the tags work, then they are broken..... that's what i am trying to communicate in my answer. May 15, 2014 at 15:07
• Why would you say anything derogatory about this tag taxonomy? On Theoretical Computer Science (and MathOverflow, which did it before), it is not a puzzle: it is familiar to the core audience of the site (researchers in CS). These tag names are categories used on ArXiv. It makes perfect sense there. On Computer Science, we considered and rejected it because a majority of the audience are not researchers and are not familiar with this classification. I think Data Science is more like Computer Science than Theoretical Computer Science — but it isn't a stupid suggestion. May 19, 2014 at 12:46
• @Gilles - I think your explanation of what the tags are and how they work.... reinforces the fact that they are not suitable for puzzling, and that the reference-perspective you need to use the tags effectively is acquired, not intuitive. How could that be a good thing? Especially on puzzling? May 19, 2014 at 12:55
• @rolfl Oh, uh, I think I understand what you're saying. Please note that we're on Data Science Meta, not on Puzzling Meta. May 19, 2014 at 12:58
• @Gilles - well, this is ... embarrassing, but still applies. There's no good way for me to dig myself out of this hole, so, I'll just wait for time to fill it in.... May 19, 2014 at 13:18