I found tagging buggy. I tried to tag something yesterday, and I believe it didn’t get through although it worked today. The ’S-risks” tag doesn’t show up in my list to tag posts at all, although it’s an article. But that might also be something about the difference between tags and articles that I don’t understand? I use firefox and didn’t check on other browsers.
Is there a consensus for how to use organisation tags? Specifically, is it desirable to have have every output that’s ever come out of an organisation to be tagged to them or only e.g. organisational updates? I’ve seen the first partly, but scarcely, done and am not sure about my opinion. (I mean things like “This report is published on the EA forum and the person who worked on this report was at org X at the time and wrote it as part of their job”)
edit: 3) Just adding this on here...Is there a way to tag everything that has one tag with another tag? (I’m speaking of the ‘economics’ tag + lots of more specific tags; ‘moral philosophy’ and ‘metaethics’ etc.)
Sorry about the issues. On S-Risks, it is a wiki-only tag, though probably we should change that.
I really like the idea of tagging everything that’s been officially produced by an organization with the organization’s tag. So you might go to the Rethink Priorities tag, sort by top, and see a “best of” list.
I think Chi’s point 3 suggestion would sometimes be helpful, and even more so if we could somehow sort-of pre-select a batch of posts for giving tag X to, but then scan through the list and un-select some before the tags are applied. This could be like how many sites (e.g., gmail) let you click one box at the top of the list to select all items in that list, then individually unselect some.
And ideally the pre-selection could be for all posts with a given other tag, all posts by a given author, or something else or combos. (E.g., I’d have used this for tagging most Aaron Hamlin posts with the Center for Election Science tag.)
On 2, I share that view, and I’d also add that I think “organisation tags” should also be applied to things about but not by the org. E.g., I think donation writeups that discuss why the person donated to orgs X and Y and considered but ultimately decided against donating to Z should be given the tags for orgs X, Y, and Z. And I think someone’s attempt to summarise and critique an org’s theory of change and recent outputs should be given that org’s tag, even if the person doesn’t work there.
My thinking is that the same people interested in posts by an org will often also be interested in posts about the org but by other people.
But I think we shouldn’t do this when a post only includes a very small bit about a given org (e.g. the posts Aaron Gertler and David Nash make which give updates about many orgs at once).
I think it might be good to have a clearly visible policy about how organisation tags are to be used. This goes especially if the norm I suggest is indeed adopted, since in that case we wouldn’t want people automatically assuming that all post tagged with org X were by someone from org X writing in relation to their work for org X.
I think of tags as being for “posts that involve X in some way”, which encompasses posts written by and about a given organization.
I do think that org update posts are a good way to use an org’s tag. If someone is interested in The Humane League, they might want to see what THL was doing in a given month. It’s easier to use the tag for this than to make someone filter through all the monthly update posts to see which ones mention THL. (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?)
The case when I wouldn’t use an org is when that org’s work is very briefly referenced in a way that doesn’t have much to do with them (e.g. someone cites an 80K problem profile as a source for some claim — that doesn’t seem like a statement “about” 80K).
As this conversation continues and I arrive at a firmer definition of an org tag policy, I’ll try to make it clearly visible in a few places.
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.
On point #2: Here’s what I had suggested on my post about organization tags:
Choose an organization. Add that organization’s tag to every post about their work, every cross-post from their website, etc. (If they have no tag, create one!) You can find these posts by entering the org’s name into the searchbar.
In general, I think it’s better to have more posts tagged rather than fewer, and I’d consider “paid work by an employee of X” to be “work paid for by X” and thus, in some sense, “the work of X”.
I found tagging buggy. I tried to tag something yesterday, and I believe it didn’t get through although it worked today. The ’S-risks” tag doesn’t show up in my list to tag posts at all, although it’s an article. But that might also be something about the difference between tags and articles that I don’t understand? I use firefox and didn’t check on other browsers.
Is there a consensus for how to use organisation tags? Specifically, is it desirable to have have every output that’s ever come out of an organisation to be tagged to them or only e.g. organisational updates? I’ve seen the first partly, but scarcely, done and am not sure about my opinion. (I mean things like “This report is published on the EA forum and the person who worked on this report was at org X at the time and wrote it as part of their job”)
edit: 3) Just adding this on here...Is there a way to tag everything that has one tag with another tag? (I’m speaking of the ‘economics’ tag + lots of more specific tags; ‘moral philosophy’ and ‘metaethics’ etc.)
Sorry about the issues. On S-Risks, it is a wiki-only tag, though probably we should change that.
I really like the idea of tagging everything that’s been officially produced by an organization with the organization’s tag. So you might go to the Rethink Priorities tag, sort by top, and see a “best of” list.
[Edit reply] Not to my knowledge, sorry.
I think Chi’s point 3 suggestion would sometimes be helpful, and even more so if we could somehow sort-of pre-select a batch of posts for giving tag X to, but then scan through the list and un-select some before the tags are applied. This could be like how many sites (e.g., gmail) let you click one box at the top of the list to select all items in that list, then individually unselect some.
And ideally the pre-selection could be for all posts with a given other tag, all posts by a given author, or something else or combos. (E.g., I’d have used this for tagging most Aaron Hamlin posts with the Center for Election Science tag.)
On 2, I share that view, and I’d also add that I think “organisation tags” should also be applied to things about but not by the org. E.g., I think donation writeups that discuss why the person donated to orgs X and Y and considered but ultimately decided against donating to Z should be given the tags for orgs X, Y, and Z. And I think someone’s attempt to summarise and critique an org’s theory of change and recent outputs should be given that org’s tag, even if the person doesn’t work there.
My thinking is that the same people interested in posts by an org will often also be interested in posts about the org but by other people.
But I think we shouldn’t do this when a post only includes a very small bit about a given org (e.g. the posts Aaron Gertler and David Nash make which give updates about many orgs at once).
I think it might be good to have a clearly visible policy about how organisation tags are to be used. This goes especially if the norm I suggest is indeed adopted, since in that case we wouldn’t want people automatically assuming that all post tagged with org X were by someone from org X writing in relation to their work for org X.
I think of tags as being for “posts that involve X in some way”, which encompasses posts written by and about a given organization.
I do think that org update posts are a good way to use an org’s tag. If someone is interested in The Humane League, they might want to see what THL was doing in a given month. It’s easier to use the tag for this than to make someone filter through all the monthly update posts to see which ones mention THL. (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?)
The case when I wouldn’t use an org is when that org’s work is very briefly referenced in a way that doesn’t have much to do with them (e.g. someone cites an 80K problem profile as a source for some claim — that doesn’t seem like a statement “about” 80K).
As this conversation continues and I arrive at a firmer definition of an org tag policy, I’ll try to make it clearly visible in a few places.
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.
On point #2: Here’s what I had suggested on my post about organization tags:
In general, I think it’s better to have more posts tagged rather than fewer, and I’d consider “paid work by an employee of X” to be “work paid for by X” and thus, in some sense, “the work of X”.