I think (scoring) is a reasonable tag for this specific question, but if I got it wrong, feel free to let met know.
BTW this question got popular enough to be tweeted on this sites twitter account: twitter.com/StackSport
While we are discussing tags, I would like to thank all users who make effort to improve posts on the site by editing, retagging, etc. sports.stackexchange.com/users?tab=Editors
The above question reminded me that there also is tie-breaker. But I think the word tie-breaker is meant in a different meaning here. (See also tag-excerpt and tag-wiki.)
> Not all sites have Twitter accounts. We stopped creating them for all public beta sites by default because a) Twitter sees very little engagement for us; b) Twitter-the-company started blocking new accounts for us (probably because it thinks we're bots?) and fighting that got too annoying and time-consuming.
@skullpatrol I am not sure what you mean by saying that "JDH would be interested". He has his own twitter account and he posts MO-related stuff quite often.
Also, re: January 20 today. scoring is about the mechanisms for scoring, rather than recording processes and notations which I believe fall between statistics and a little of terminology.
Yes, that's the one I was replying to. Good synonyms - have they been placed yet?
@Nij It seems that we have somewhat different viewpoint what the tag scoring actually is for. (But of course, I will leave the final retagging to core users, I am basically a guest here.)
Since we are talking about this specific question, what do you think about tie-breaker as a tag for this question. Or more generally as a tag for tie-break in tennis - as I have mentioned there are a few instances where it is used in this way: sports.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/tie-breaker+tennis
It's only a couple of months old, I noted that getting involvement with important aspects of tag management was effectively zero, so it means we have a place to store a bunch of small tasks together in one place for accessibility.
For tiebreaker I see it being used on a question that asks about using methods of tiebreaking, tennis an obvious case. I think it would be a meta tag in this case, since the point was that "it means a tiebreaker happened" is the answer.
Good tagging is easy. There's no reason to not let high-rep users know that "by the way, you can also help rubber-stamp these bits, the same as approving small edits in the review queue". Which is the first half of that meta question, the other being discussion on what should be rubber-stamped.
I thought that this tag is intended for something different based on this sentence in tag-info (emphasis mine): "Questions about tiebreakers, a rule or method for deciding the winner of tied teams or players after a competition."
When tie-break is played in tennis, that's not after the competition.
This is the first time I hear somebody saying that: "Good tagging is easy." My impression is that it is very hard to reach any kind of consensus about tags. (But I have experience mostly from Mathematics.SE which is much larger site.)
Bigger sites mean more tags and each has more questions and more users active in them. Seems like there is less agreement, but I only recall three meta discussions about tags on Math.SE in a fair while.
Yes, forgot to tag skullpatrol after that response, sorry.
So, even with the size of Math.SE there's a lot of agreement on what to tag where, and what each tag means.
Here, each user is a greater proportion of the community, and more so of the active/high-rep users, so just one dissenter is a lot, comparatively speaking.
Alright, lots of wording there, time to ponder. Clocking off for now.
