I do think that org update posts are a good way to use an org’s tag. [...] (The downside is that many posts tagged with an org won’t have much info about it — are you worried about that kind of tag use not being relevant enough?)
I think the main downsides I see are that:
There are just so many ofyou and David Nash’s org update posts, and it seems like many of the orgs are mentioned in almost every one of them, and each org is only given something like 1-3 paragraphs.
So it seems like if we tagged all of them with every org mentioned for at least a paragraph in them, that’d sort of “clog up” those orgs’ tag pages
But I guess that that problem is reduced by the fact that those org update posts seem to usually get less karma than the average post from/about an org, so they wouldn’t show up right at the top of the org’s tag page
And it’d probably be systematically less useful to someone who wanted to learn about the org than most other things that have the org’s tag
Though I guess it might be similarly useful per relevant word, so if people realise they should just read the relevant section if that’s all they care about, then maybe that’s ok
Each of those many-org-update posts mentions probably over 10 orgs (I haven’t counted), so every one would have over 10 tags, and that just seems perhaps a bit much
But I don’t think this is actually a problem; it just might look slightly weird
But as became clear to me when I was writing this comment, the second downside just seems “slightly odd” rather than actually bad, and the first downside doesn’t seem major. So I think I’d still vote to have a norm against using org tags for those many-org-update posts, but now it’s just a very very weak vote.
I think the main downsides I see are that:
There are just so many of you and David Nash’s org update posts, and it seems like many of the orgs are mentioned in almost every one of them, and each org is only given something like 1-3 paragraphs.
So it seems like if we tagged all of them with every org mentioned for at least a paragraph in them, that’d sort of “clog up” those orgs’ tag pages
But I guess that that problem is reduced by the fact that those org update posts seem to usually get less karma than the average post from/about an org, so they wouldn’t show up right at the top of the org’s tag page
And it’d probably be systematically less useful to someone who wanted to learn about the org than most other things that have the org’s tag
Though I guess it might be similarly useful per relevant word, so if people realise they should just read the relevant section if that’s all they care about, then maybe that’s ok
Each of those many-org-update posts mentions probably over 10 orgs (I haven’t counted), so every one would have over 10 tags, and that just seems perhaps a bit much
But I don’t think this is actually a problem; it just might look slightly weird
But as became clear to me when I was writing this comment, the second downside just seems “slightly odd” rather than actually bad, and the first downside doesn’t seem major. So I think I’d still vote to have a norm against using org tags for those many-org-update posts, but now it’s just a very very weak vote.