-3
\$\begingroup\$

is currently used on 40 of 62 questions. Like other sites I've seen launched, such a tag allows users to throw it on their questions without having to bother thinking of a better, more specific, more useful tag.

Should the tag be blacklisted so it cannot be used?

Further explanation/comparison

On Electronics and Robotics, we (unfortunately) have the [electronics] tag. While it's true that not every question on E&R will be electronics related (it could be software, robotics, or higher-level project management stuff), we are steadily trying to remove said tags because that tag alone is near-meaningless as it encompasses too much (e.g. analog vs. digital).

That said, that rationale isn't as good here as software is less broad (at least with respect to most of the puzzles I've seen).

Perhaps the root question here is: Is tagging a question with only acceptable? If not, how can it be avoided?

\$\endgroup\$
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ but code-golf questions should be tagged code-golf shouldn't they? I think what you really want is that they requires code-golf plus another tag \$\endgroup\$ – gnibbler Feb 3 '11 at 4:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ @gni, that's essentially the rationale, but I'm not sure if there's some method to make a tag a "fake" tag that doesn't count, forcing a user to enter another tag \$\endgroup\$ – Nick T Feb 3 '11 at 15:02
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Meanwhile, I asked this question codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/404/forecast-the-weather What other tags do you think apply here? Weather? Random? Please feel free to suggest/add whatever tags you think are sensible \$\endgroup\$ – gnibbler Feb 3 '11 at 20:23
8
\$\begingroup\$

As long as we expect to have more than one game on the site, questions should be tagged with the type of game. The fact that code-golf dominates does not change that.

What we want is more tags. But the trick is guessing how to categorize these games in a way that will help people.

Someone suggested a tag for problems. That would be good.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I agree with almost forcing the use of one tag from a set that defines the type of question. There are far too many questions already which ask for the "shortest" solution with answers making zero attempt at brevity. There needs to be a way to distinguish between code-golf, puzzles, ascii-art, etc otherwise every question is going to have pages upon pages of essentially off-topic answers. \$\endgroup\$ – Jeff Swensen Feb 4 '11 at 1:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Sugerman See meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/59/… where I first proposed the idea of forcing one of the core tags like on meta. \$\endgroup\$ – marcog Feb 5 '11 at 8:15
  • \$\begingroup\$ Spot on! (filler) \$\endgroup\$ – Jeff Swensen Feb 5 '11 at 17:11
5
\$\begingroup\$

There's now a very good reason to use the code-golf tag

It has special significance to Nathan's user script, which every serious golfer should check out

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Thank you for pointing that out... the script uses the tag to differentiate code golf puzzles from others (like code bowling, which needs to be processed differently). \$\endgroup\$ – Nathan Osman Feb 16 '11 at 19:19
2
\$\begingroup\$

You should read this post (or rather, its comments). They explain the rationale for .

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ A question simply tagged with [code-golf] is almost pointless; are there any questions that could be well classified by just it and do not logically deserve others in addition? \$\endgroup\$ – Nick T Feb 3 '11 at 14:59
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Nick - I'd say just the opposite. The code-golf tag (and requests for "shortest", "golf" etc) is being ignored far too frequently in my opinion. Answers that make zero attempt at golf on 'code-golf' tagged questions are literring up this site. If anything we need to come up with strict categorization rules and answering guidelines stemming from those categories. If you post a response to code-golf that admittedly makes zero attempt at golf it should at most be a comment on the original question, certainly not an answer. \$\endgroup\$ – Jeff Swensen Feb 4 '11 at 15:46
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Sugerman You can't really post code as a comment, especially if it's non-golfed. Once we have moderators, they should delete un-golfed attempts at golf questions IMHO. \$\endgroup\$ – marcog Feb 5 '11 at 8:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ Was suggesting that people would upload the code to a snippet sharing service and then just post a link in the comment. I agree with moderators cleaning up the answers that don't try to answer the question. \$\endgroup\$ – Jeff Swensen Feb 5 '11 at 17:10
  • \$\begingroup\$ IMO, there are occasions where one should be able to make a comment of how it should be done, Golfing is fine and dandy, but there are occasionally cases where Golf is a detriment to the thing that is being achieved. This "answer" shouldn't be taken as "the answer" for such questions, but I think leaving out the "right way to do it" will, long term, result in lots of people doing dumb things like using golfed snippets in production code :/ \$\endgroup\$ – Kent Fredric Feb 7 '11 at 10:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Kent: This site is for coding games. What's this about production code? Also, this site is for both golf and non-golf questions. Golf questions only welcome serious golf entries. If the entry is not golfed, then it should be deleted, as @marcog says. \$\endgroup\$ – Chris Jester-Young Feb 7 '11 at 19:42
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Chris : I enjoy Golf as much as the next guy, but I strongly feel a balance must be exercised so that wherever golf is present, equivalent-but-more-sane-and-less golf representations of the same are present. Perhaps its more tollerable if these larger explanations piggy-back a golf answer =) ? \$\endgroup\$ – Kent Fredric Feb 7 '11 at 19:54
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Kent: You can write an ungolfed answer and/or an explanation alongside a golfed answer---but your entry will be judged solely on the golfed version, and therefore it must be present. \$\endgroup\$ – Chris Jester-Young Feb 7 '11 at 20:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think the more important point is that code-golf questions typically aren't hugely complex algorithms to begin with. The challenge of code-golf is to refactor a relatively standard algorithm into something much more concise, potentially adding complexity along the way. The truly impressive code-golf answers are not the ones that simply remove all whitespace and use single-letter names; truly impressive answers achieve the end result in a non-standard, not necessarily intuitive way. \$\endgroup\$ – Jeff Swensen Feb 9 '11 at 15:14
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Sugerman: I'd love to post a hugely complex algorithm as a code golf question. Should I do it? ;-) \$\endgroup\$ – Chris Jester-Young Feb 9 '11 at 19:11
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Chris, bring it \$\endgroup\$ – gnibbler Feb 15 '11 at 20:05
2
\$\begingroup\$

I think the tag shouldn't be removed, because we may ask code golf, code bowling and even other programming puzzles there. But seems unneccessary. And I'm not sure if we need , either.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I guess, instead of language-agnostic one could just mark language-specific problems (like JAPH) with a language tag. \$\endgroup\$ – Joey Feb 24 '11 at 0:21
  • \$\begingroup\$ I feel 'code-challenge' is currently used solely as an expressed difference to 'code-golf'. It could be replaced if we found an encompassing category system. \$\endgroup\$ – J B Feb 24 '11 at 9:13

You must log in to answer this question.

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