On 2, I share that view, and Iâd also add that I think âorganisation tagsâ 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 someoneâs attempt to summarise and critique an orgâs theory of change and recent outputs should be given that orgâs tag, even if the person doesnât 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 shouldnât 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 wouldnât 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 âposts that involve X in some wayâ, which encompasses posts written by and about a given organization.
I do think that org update posts are a good way to use an orgâs tag. If someone is interested in The Humane League, they might want to see what THL was doing in a given month. Itâs 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 wonât have much info about it â are you worried about that kind of tag use not being relevant enough?)
The case when I wouldnât use an org is when that orgâs work is very briefly referenced in a way that doesnât have much to do with them (e.g. someone cites an 80K problem profile as a source for some claim â that doesnât seem like a statement âaboutâ 80K).
As this conversation continues and I arrive at a firmer definition of an org tag policy, Iâll try to make it clearly visible in a few places.
I do think that org update posts are a good way to use an orgâs tag. [...] (The downside is that many posts tagged with an org wonât have much info about it â 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 Nashâs 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, thatâd sort of âclog upâ those orgsâ 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/âabout an org, so they wouldnât show up right at the top of the orgâs tag page
And itâd probably be systematically less useful to someone who wanted to learn about the org than most other things that have the orgâs tag
Though I guess it might be similarly useful per relevant word, so if people realise they should just read the relevant section if thatâs all they care about, then maybe thatâs ok
Each of those many-org-update posts mentions probably over 10 orgs (I havenât counted), so every one would have over 10 tags, and that just seems perhaps a bit much
But I donât 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 âslightly oddâ rather than actually bad, and the first downside doesnât seem major. So I think Iâd still vote to have a norm against using org tags for those many-org-update posts, but now itâs just a very very weak vote.
On 2, I share that view, and Iâd also add that I think âorganisation tagsâ 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 someoneâs attempt to summarise and critique an orgâs theory of change and recent outputs should be given that orgâs tag, even if the person doesnât 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 shouldnât 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 wouldnât 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 âposts that involve X in some wayâ, which encompasses posts written by and about a given organization.
I do think that org update posts are a good way to use an orgâs tag. If someone is interested in The Humane League, they might want to see what THL was doing in a given month. Itâs 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 wonât have much info about it â are you worried about that kind of tag use not being relevant enough?)
The case when I wouldnât use an org is when that orgâs work is very briefly referenced in a way that doesnât have much to do with them (e.g. someone cites an 80K problem profile as a source for some claim â that doesnât seem like a statement âaboutâ 80K).
As this conversation continues and I arrive at a firmer definition of an org tag policy, Iâll 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 Nashâs 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, thatâd sort of âclog upâ those orgsâ 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/âabout an org, so they wouldnât show up right at the top of the orgâs tag page
And itâd probably be systematically less useful to someone who wanted to learn about the org than most other things that have the orgâs tag
Though I guess it might be similarly useful per relevant word, so if people realise they should just read the relevant section if thatâs all they care about, then maybe thatâs ok
Each of those many-org-update posts mentions probably over 10 orgs (I havenât counted), so every one would have over 10 tags, and that just seems perhaps a bit much
But I donât 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 âslightly oddâ rather than actually bad, and the first downside doesnât seem major. So I think Iâd still vote to have a norm against using org tags for those many-org-update posts, but now itâs just a very very weak vote.