« first day (3 days earlier)      last day (53 days later) » 

Anonymous
07:48
@Ϻ.Λ.Ʀ. Aww, you got rid of the tag for bare role NPs.
Anonymous
Now there's no hint anywhere that the question is about bare role NPs.
Anonymous
So the odds of anyone eventually writing a useful answer went down.
Anonymous
17:25
@snailboat I'd recommend adding a "editor note: this is about bare role NPs and a useful answer would mention blah blah blah". The tag isn't gonna be one that gets applied to a reasonable number of questions, and for a coherent set of tags we don't need too specific or too general tags, so.
 
2 hours later…
19:09
Hullo @Stoney!
 
1 hour later…
20:14
@Ϻ.Λ.Ʀ. Hi! Sorry I didn't respond earlier -- I've been posting an Answer.
No problem!
How're you doing?
I'm OK; getting glum about having to go back to work tomorrow after two weeks off, though.
How bout you?
@StoneyB Great! And I've been writing a pdf so we'd sit back and see how we're gonna deal with tags.
I look forward to reading it. Were you happy with yesterday's results?
20:32
@StoneyB It was a good start. But still we're rushing while we still don't have much idea what we're doing.
My feeling, too.
@StoneyB I wish I could stop all the retagging right now.
@Cop @Jasp could you stop retagging until I/we get an idea what the tags should look like?
Some things you don't realize til you're in the middle of them.
It's gonna get about a week before we get to a consensus on all of the existing tags and which ones should be removed.
I wasn't going to be able to participate in the next round anyway--that's the middle of my workday.
20:42
Next round I'm gonna ask people to retag stuff that only have one [grammar] and no other tags.
Is there a way to get that list from the search facility, or do we have to go through data.SE?
@StoneyB It's easy using SEDE, and I did that.
I don't know of any other ways.
Oh wait, @Stoney there's another way:
> grammar & meaning & word-usage & meaning-in-context & word-choice \\
sentence-construction & prepositions & word-meaning & grammaticality & word-request \\
difference & tense & phrase-usage & vocabulary & sentence-meaning \\
phrase-meaning & usage & verb & articles & modal-verbs \\
phrase-request & idioms & american-english & adjectives & past-tense \\
pronunciation & adverbs & expressions & phrase & conjunctions \\
questions & present-perfect & conditional-constructions & definite-article & pronouns \\
There you go man.
rofl
Ignore the & and `\\`, those are alignment stuff with TeX.
But shouldn't those ` & s all be -[X]`s?
20:51
What?
Oh, is [point-of-view] a tag we'd want to have?
Hmm ... it's not a linguistic thing at all, it's LitCrit. I've retagged the one question , which is sort of stretching a point but ...
Doing something to kill all the empty ones?
@StoneyB Yeah, so we have a number less than 490 to deal with.
By the way, I retagged everything tagged [transitive-verbs], [intransitive-verbs] or [ditransitive] with [transitivity]. There were less than 30 all told, and it's almost impossible to talk about just transitives without talking about intransitives, too.
@StoneyB Thanks! We also have a [ambitranstive-verbs] I'm gonna deal with now.
I also retagged everything tagged [copula] as [linking-verbs]; I figure when we have two terms, use the one learners are likely to know.
21:08
@StoneyB OK, striking them out.
21:19
I also created some new ones: causative-have, causative-get, have-got, get, have, reference, pied-piping, preposition-stranding, forms-of-address, past-vs-present-perfect for questions I know come up again and again and again - there aren't that many QQ on them now, but there will be before we're over.
Here are four that belong under one tag, perhaps : verbing, verbal noun, deverbal, nominalization.
We're gonna need to sort out all the -clause -phrase tags; there are methodological lines we may want to respect.
@StoneyB Oh, but I wanted to inform you guys that I decided we should burn all the vs. tags.
@StoneyB We do have the [anaphora] tag.
@Dam please stop the retagging for a few days.
@Ϻ.Λ.Ʀ. Oh! What's the reason?
@DamkerngT. Getting a coherent set of tags.
I see. Great idea!
CC @Cop @Jasp. See the few messages above.
21:26
Hmm ... There are hundreds of questions that are specifically directed to Why past rather than PrPf here, or Why past rather than PaPf here, and they mostly all have the same couple of answers.
@StoneyB I also decided tags named after words should go.
@StoneyB I agree, that doesn't mean they get a tag.
That means we need a canonical post and a couple of close voters.
Hmm ... you gonna be around a little later? I have to go get groceries for dinner, and I want to keep discussing this ...
@StoneyB I hope so.
Maybe half an hour.
Or maybe more.
Lemme just throw this out, then: how many questions on a tag is too many? If we can pick a number we can get a handle on which tags need to be narrowed -- and that will give us a handle on which tags should take over a piece of the big ones.
@StoneyB Currently on ELL, roughly 2k.
2k should be the number of questions in less than 5 tags, if those exist.
1k should be the number of questions in less than 20 tags.
Less than 500, the other ones.
Currently, we need a very good reason to keep a tag that has less than 7 questions on it, unless
1. it's a new tag, or
2. it's a very good tag with some hopes of growing.
21:39
Even 500 seems very high to me. What use is a list of 500 questions? Ideal to my mind would be 50 top, with a few allowed to reach maybe 100. Except the -meaning/-request/-choice/-difference sort of tags, which are mostly unique and reachable only through a title search.
@StoneyB Well, you're gonna search for a question, not look at a list of 500 questions.
On average, though, tags on ELL should have about 75 questions.
Exactly -- and what's the tag for if not for searching? If it gives you 500, how does that help you?
Those 500 would be the few broad tags we let remain. Like [pronouns].
I could live with 75.
@StoneyB But people never search only using a tag.
We should be careful about making too many tags.
21:42
Pronouns? ... As we go we should be breaking that down into relatives, personals, demonstratives, &c
... and now I really hafta go ...
@StoneyB I agree, I gave it off the top of the head.
\o @Stoney
In the end, though, you're the man, and I'll follow your lead
I should go to sleep now. See you later guys.

« first day (3 days earlier)      last day (53 days later) »