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.
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.