[Tagging] tagging for decaying features

[Warin]

On 10-Jan-18 10:15 AM, Richard wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 01:37:26PM +1100, Warin wrote:
>> On 07-Jan-18 09:59 AM, Richard wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 06, 2018 at 07:19:31AM +1100, Warin wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2) I have not put in any examples - just placed the birthing, decay and repurpose categories on the main page.
>>>>
>>>> I hoped to bring some organisation to the page and simplify the understanding. If this has exposed misuse GOOD!
>>> It was good to point out the problems with "historic:" but don't see any gain
>>> in the reorganisation, especially as "birth" and "decay" are very poor section
>>> headers to organise that.
>> What headers/terms would you suggest?
> don't have much better now. Genesis or "initial stages" vs varoius stages
> of abandonment.
>
> One problem is that an object that gets disused may become used again or
> reused or something new replaces it. It is not that each object necessary
> goes through all stages of "decay", hence such grouping isn't ideal either.

Not everything goes through the same 'birth' process either. By grouping them in a logical sequence the mapper can quickly select the most appropriate,

rather than having to go through possibly all of them to find the closest match.

>
>> As the things were getting confusing, for me at least, I though some organisation was needed.
> I think the old scheme - ordering by frequency of use was not so bad. It would
> naturally guide mappers to consider the most used tags before more exotic ones
> and this kind of approach worked well in other cases.

I think that scheme promotes the 'frequently used' and does not provide a grouping of similar things nor a grouping that can be easily scanned.

And that is not good. For mappers looking for a tag they will tend to chose the closest match that they come across first -

particularly where the next choice presented is an extremely poor match (as provided by not organising them with similar things together).
They may not proceed through the entire list to find a better match further on,
I know I would not.. waste of my time that I would rather spend mapping rather than tagging.
Thus you get poor tagging and increased use of the 'frequently used' (or 'frequently misused'!) because of the wiki order.

>
> Here "historic:" was an outlier, the frequency of its use as life cycle prefix
> was simply not calculated properly. If only real uses as lifecycle prefix were
> counted it would be somewhere far behind the other choices.
>
> Some other tags like "no:" were also documented in this page which are not
> really life cycle tags but occassionaly may have been used for a similar purpose
> when no other tag was deemed fitting - this again escapes any easy attempts at
> categorisation.
>
The tag no: is the death of something.
Death is part of life, and so it can be include here for those who must have it for whatever reason.