2
\$\begingroup\$

Isn't going to be applicable to all questions? Therefore, shouldn't we delete it and related tags?

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I thinks, it's unuseful tag. Maybe we need to classify, which goals can be in questions and follow this classification, like: codegolf, complexity, memory-usage. Sometimes mix 2nd and 3rd. \$\endgroup\$ – Nakilon Jan 27 '11 at 22:56
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Nakilon Yes, I'm thinking the same. Does anyone know if it's possible to require one of a set of tags like meta sites require one of {discussion, bug, support}? \$\endgroup\$ – moinudin Jan 27 '11 at 22:59
  • \$\begingroup\$ also we almost forgot research or smth like it, meaning I don't want your code, I want ideas, links to scientific materials. \$\endgroup\$ – Nakilon Jan 28 '11 at 0:21
  • \$\begingroup\$ Where does Lorem Ipsum Compressor fit then? \$\endgroup\$ – Mateen Ulhaq May 5 '11 at 4:26
7
\$\begingroup\$

No! Do not delete it! I did not commit to this site to practice writing as illegible code as I can to trivial problems. I committed to this site to practice coming up with practical solutions to difficult problems.

Consider using code-golf for problems where being as terse as you possibly can is the challenge. Consider using coding-challenge where the challenge is in actually coding a solution.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
4
\$\begingroup\$

Agree. I think tags like code-challenge and code-golf are more or less redundant for this site.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Right now [code-golf] is redundant, but if (and I'm going to answer a lot of questions like this :P) we widen scope then it will serve a purpose. However, however we move scope I don't see any on-topic questions not being [code-challenge] questions. \$\endgroup\$ – moinudin Jan 27 '11 at 22:00
  • \$\begingroup\$ @marcog: True, though, I expect code golf to comprise at least 50% of posts, regardless, so, such a tag is probably still mostly content-free. \$\endgroup\$ – Chris Jester-Young Jan 27 '11 at 22:01
  • \$\begingroup\$ If it's that much (I really can't predict) then I'm less sure how to handle the distinction. Questioners should have an easy way to identify code golfs, without saying "this is a code golf". If >50% of questions are code golf I can foresee many questioners forgetting to tag [code-golf]. I guess we'll see how this evolves over time. \$\endgroup\$ – moinudin Jan 27 '11 at 22:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ @marcog: Indeed, play by ear. :-) \$\endgroup\$ – Chris Jester-Young Jan 27 '11 at 22:10
  • \$\begingroup\$ So the question is now, do we delete these superfluous tags? \$\endgroup\$ – moinudin Jan 28 '11 at 11:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ @marcog: Not yet. Once the pro tempore moderators are appointed, it'll be easy for them to, if indeed that's still the direction the site is going. \$\endgroup\$ – Chris Jester-Young Jan 28 '11 at 14:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ Definitely play it by ear but I think your benchmark is off. Only if 100% of Questions were code-golf would that tag become superfluous. The fact that > 50% are code-golf has zero bearing in my opinion on the usefulness of the code-golf tag. \$\endgroup\$ – Jeff Swensen Feb 4 '11 at 18:14
2
\$\begingroup\$

The area51 brief said something like code-golf and programming puzzles. I think there will probably be some nice programming puzzles that aren't really fun to golf, but then how to choose a correct answer? :)

| |
\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .