« first day (2380 days earlier)      last day (236 days later) » 

5:58 AM
I used to periodically retag questions with deprecated tags. This led to this critical comment.
 
6:25 AM
@YCor What's the point of editing all these old questions? I also saw that you did this with one of my questions. Please don't do it again. — Martin Brandenburg 7 hours ago
@MartinBrandenburg the point is (mainly) to improve tagging. I understand bumping is inconvenient, so I refrain to to too much (without refraining it would be easily 30 a day!). The reason why it came to your questions is that these were good questions with many upvotes, and I treated in priority such questions (in that case, removing the deprecated tag 'abstract-algebra'). — YCor 1 hour ago
Incidentally bumping good questions sometimes leads to some good new answers (e.g., mathoverflow.net/questions/7112 recently) — YCor 1 hour ago
As I said many times, moderators could have at least prevent deprecated tags from being added to new questions: The existing deprecated tags should be blacklisted.
This discussion did not get much response - but the only comments left there seem to be more supportive than negative: What is the correct way to handle questions with deprecated tags?
I think that silently changing e.g., geometry to mg.metric geometry---as you have been doing---is the best approach, i.e., no "comment explaining why." I don't think that mindlessly removing a tag without replacement would be wise, which rules out an automated process. So I am inclined to the incremental-improvement approach. — Joseph O'Rourke May 28 '17 at 12:52
Perhaps also the fact that the information that the tags are deprecated was added by a moderator into the tag-info and at least one of the moderators contributed to removals of deprecated tags can be taken as a hint that this is somewhat official stance. (At the moment I do not have access to SEDE - I do not know why - so I won't be able to get actual counts.)
But I don't remember whether I've seen some of the moderators saying something about this explicitly. (MO mods are in general rather silent on meta, compared to Mathematics.)
Of course, I can imagine that some users might object if there's too much . I am not sure to which extent the numbers mentioned here should still be considered as the recommendation: Do we have an unofficial quota on how many old questions one should bump for minor edits in a single day? (Maybe if the site has grown, it is to be expected that there might be more bumping.)
BTW the question which cause the above comments still has no top-level tag.
 
7:39 AM
About bumping, I also understand that frequent bumping (i.e. several days in a row) is somewhat inconvenient and I did so in the last few weeks. I especially did so in creating tags. To summarize:
(1) I created . This one had been suggested earlier here. Before merging between 'semigroups' and 'monoids', the tag 'semigroup' was quite clearly split into two parts, say 35% semigroups of operators and 65% semigroups (I haven't checked count). After merging it drown the operators part as a smaller proportion, incoherent with the remainder of the tag.
The split was trivial to do (slightly less trivial was improving tags at each case). Basically, "semigroup" in the analytic/operator side really means "1-parameter", and for instance the discrete (monogenous) semigroup generated by a single operator is not called "semigroup" by this community. The related tags were mostly functional analysis and pde (although [fa.functional-analysis] appears in a few questions really pertaining to ).
In this way I bumped 100 questions in few days (8?) which is a lot.
Next I created which is much closer to my own field, and tagged in this way about 50 questions. I think it's useful because there was no keyword gathering such questions. It also shows that "ordered group" is used in different meanings by different communities (for instance for people working in valued fields it means abelian, and this is a significant proportion of these questions). Also this part suffers from a somewhat incoherent use of tags pertaining to orderings.
I also created the tags and which are subjects I'm interested in; both bumped about 10-15 questions (although certainly more questions could have the first tag!)
About deprecated tag chasing (, , ), I retagged in priority those with no other tag. And more recently some highly upvoted. (The tag tends, even before being deprecated, to attract low-quality questions, but there were significant exceptions.)
 
 
2 hours later…
9:42 AM
14
Q: Do we have an unofficial quota on how many old questions one should bump for minor edits in a single day?

Benjamin SteinbergI noticed tonight that a well-intentioned user has been doing a lot of minor edits of formatting of old questions with the effect of filling most of the active question list with old questions bumped by minor edits. Did we ever reach some sort of consensus as too how many minor edits a user shou...

Maybe adding the tag (and bumping questions) would increase the likelihood that some users might add answer/comment there. (But it is more likely that nothing will be added - after all, meta is not that active.)
 
 
4 hours later…
1:22 PM
@MartinSleziak Yes it sounds like a reasonable tag to add to this question on meta.
 
 
1 hour later…
2:41 PM
A temporary comment - in order to get the linked questions updated: cardinality of product modulo direct sum. — Martin Sleziak 42 secs ago
A temporary comment to get the linked questions updated: Infinite tensor products. — Martin Sleziak 16 secs ago
A temporary comment - in order to get linked questions updated: Infinite tensor products. — Martin Sleziak 38 secs ago
A temporary comment - in order to get the linked questions updated: Infinite tensor products, nonhausdorff dimension, Sheafification - Why does twice suffice?. — Martin Sleziak 29 secs ago
A temporary comment - in order to get the linked questions updated: Infinite tensor productsMartin Sleziak 11 secs ago
Temporary comment - to get the linked questions updated: Infinite tensor products. — Martin Sleziak 12 secs ago
Temporary comment - to get the linked questions updated: Infinite tensor products. — Martin Sleziak 17 secs ago
 
 
1 hour later…
3:58 PM
Follow-up to this discussion unrelated to the current question: chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/10243/mo-editors-loungeYCor 8 hours ago
I'm glad that this question was bumped as I carelessly state in my course notes that such Galois groups are supersolvable. Mistake fixed. — Laurent Berger 6 hours ago
@YCor It's possible that I am stating the obvious - but I'll mention one disadvantage of the link you have given is that it will always show the most recent messages in the room - so after some time, what a user following that see will be related to something completely els.
Possible alternatives would be to link to a specific day or a specific message in the chat transcript.
It is possible also to created a conversation consisting of several consecutive messages - that is especially useful if the messages you want to link span more than one day.
I will also mention that even if the conversation is created, it is possible to make it later into the longer conversation (without changing the link to the conversation) - simply by removing it and then creating the conversation with the same name.
in Tagging, Nov 28 '19 at 7:24, by Martin Sleziak
In case it might be useful: How to bookmark a conversation? and Links to chat in general.
 
 
1 hour later…
5:20 PM
@MartinSleziak @MartinSleziak thanks: I erased my comment with the inconvenient link, would you post a comment with a better link?
 
5:46 PM
@YCor Here is a link to the conversation: chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/10243/conversation/… (As I have mentioned before, if the discussion here in chat continues, it is possible to make the conversation longer while the same link still works.)
Should I post the comment with this link, or do you prefer to post it youself?
(I see that you suggested above that I should post the comment - but since you are already part of that conversation, it seems a bit more natural to me if you post it. That's the reason why I asked again, just to be sure.)
 
6:26 PM
Link to conversation in chat about this discussion unrelated to the question: chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/10243/conversation/…YCor 5 mins ago
 

« first day (2380 days earlier)      last day (236 days later) »