Sign Up Sign In

What should we do about tagging in Site Proposals?


We need to figure out tags in the "Site Proposals" category. I noticed that some proposals were tagged "suggestion" and some "new-communities" and started to replace the former with the latter, and then I stopped and said "wait, everything here is a suggestion for a new community!".

For technical reasons we need to have some tag right now, but what should the tag(s) there be? Adding a tag for launched communities makes sense, and maybe one for proposals we've agreed we're not going to do, but that doesn't help with the initial tagging.

Or maybe everything is a status-something tag -- proposals start at status-proposed, and then we might retag to status-something-else as it moves through the process?


Why should this post be closed?


2 answers


It's a little awkward using a Q&A engine for site proposals at all, really, at least not without some more guidance, as not only the tagging is unclear, but what exactly goes in the "questions" and what goes in the "answers" needs some direction and refinement, and what is required before a site gets "accepted".

But for tagging specifically (let's solve one problem at a time, I suppose), I like your suggestion to have a required status-* tag for everything.

Here's a rough list off the top of my head, please pick it apart and take only what makes sense:

  • status-proposed
  • status-shortlist or status-refinement or something. (Not sure what to call this, but when it's "yeah, that's a good idea, and will probably get implemented, we just need to nail down some specifics like on-topic scope, what if anything to import, who is moderating, that kind of thing.")
  • status-needs-to-find-more-users
  • status-declined
  • status-accepted (Yes we will, we just haven't yet)
  • status-beta (maybe not needed right now as everything is beta-ish, but we may want to distinguish at some point between beta sites and "completed" sites?)
  • status-completed

In terms of other tagging, we might want to also group proposals by type in some other way, like technical, recreation, science, etc.


Thanks for these suggestions! Eventually we might come up with a special post type for proposals, but if we use the question for the pitch and answers to identify and resolve issues, I think the tools we have now will work. Key to this is editing in updates as things get decided in those comment threads on all those answers. :-) Monica Cellio about 2 months ago

I agree with this wholeheartedly. One of the main design defects of SE was the assumption that everything must be organized as Q&A. When you only have a hammer, everything looks like a finger. I am somewhat disappointed that Codidact chose to take the same path. A site proposal is a proposal, it is not a question. There's no need to fit a square peg in a round hole, except that round holes is all that we have got. Masked Man about 2 months ago

As they say in SE world, this is an XY Problem. The question is not what tags we should use, it is why do we try to shoehorn a proposal into a question. Masked Man about 2 months ago

Codidact hasn't chosen to take the same path, @MaskedMan - we recognised the downsides of that approach too. We just haven't got to that point of development yet; other features have been more important. It hasn't been forgotten. ArtOfCode about 2 months ago

@MaskedMan, Codidact is building a lot more capabilities, including other post types beyond questions and answers. We're not there yet, but rather than waiting for everything to be done before launching anything, we decided to start with what we have, which is enough for immediate needs of communities that want to be here now, and we'll keep working on improving it. What you see now isn't the only stuff you'll ever see. Monica Cellio about 2 months ago

Show 5 more comments

This answer builds on Peter's answer (thanks!).

I think we need to approach tags along two axes. One is tracking status of proposals, as suggested by Peter. We did this informally when I added "status-launched" to the Photography post, but we can and should track status through earlier stages too.

The other axis is proposals versus ideas. We've been getting both types of suggestions. Proposals are more fully worked out; ideas are more like "can we have a site about X?". Ideas aren't ready to move forward yet because we need to find out if there's a community behind them -- but how do we find out if there's already a community here if not through a post? So I suggest having two tags, "ideas" and "proposals", with a requirement to use one or the other. Ideas can gather support and be refined into proposals, and people can more easily see what stage each suggestion is in.


While I don't really object to this, I'm not completely convinced yet it's the best approach. I'd think that a "proposal" goes through stages of being refined, starting with an idea, getting more and more specifics and details added, and then (hopefully) eventually getting to the "accepted" state. Maybe this is just adding "status-idea" that would precede "status-proposed" for when it's just floating ideas around gauging interest. But maybe that's the same thing as you were saying after all. Peter Cooper Jr. about 2 months ago

@PeterCooperJr the same division could be done with just a set of status tags, yes. I was thinking that having the two stages would make it easier to see at a glance (on the list) which proposals are in the "idea" stage and which are undergoing more active development. I admit it can be fuzzy. Part of my reasoning is that there's been some pushback on ideas that aren't yet well-developed, but we need a way to find out which ones have interest and support so we should be open to them too. Monica Cellio about 2 months ago