@HodofHod Ahh.. I'm having my doubts if that will ever be a really useful resource.

@HodofHod That's okay IMO.

@DoubleAA I think the ones that are clearly part of a system -- the various books of Tanach e.g. -- are good to have.

@DoubleAA So am I.

@msh210 For what purpose? A new user will just try typing in the name of the book directly and likely find it, or just put Tanach instead. We already have those pretty well synonymized.

Is having a tag for each melacha (vis a vis Shabbos) useful?

borrer = borer-separating, incidentally.

@DoubleAA So people can browse interesting questions.

@msh210 Isn't that why we have the [tags] page?

@HodofHod we also have mocheik koseiv and hotzaa IIRC. IMO if they have enough questions, why not?

^^^ wortha shot.

@HodofHod I was wondering about that. Any that has enough questions, sure, why not.

@HodofHod But those are in no order. Hence the meta question.

Go Baltcisco!

Who? What?

@DoubleAA or leave it out and see if anyone adds it. Either's fine while the tag is in flux.

@DoubleAA it was my only hope of discovering our tagging scheme(s), but I agree it's not working very well. Part of that is probably that different sorts help different people; something organized according to mishneh torah doesn't do squat for me, for example, but thematic groupings (e.g. "all the shabbat tags") help. For others it's the reverse.

It still feels like we have too many tags, so my question isn't usually "what's the tag for X?" but "wait, what, we have a tag for that??" when someone adds it.

@HodofHod My way of saying I care not a whit whether Baltimore or San Francisco wins the Super Bowl (currently, and when I posted that, underway).

Super Bowl? Oh, you mean "The Big Game"? ;)

gosh, I wish I could get as excited as some of these people. I hear the yelling coming from the other room now.

@msh210 @MonicaCellio @DoubleAA, I've started a running spreadsheet tabulating the results from judaism.stackexchange.com/review/community-eval/history . OK if I share it in public?

@IsaacMoses You can see the history there?

@DoubleAA I can. I tried it in Private Browsing mode (i.e. w/o credentials of any sort) and couldn't

@IsaacMoses Can you see the history of the other review tabs? Like who voted for deletion of bad posts etc.

judaism.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/history

@DoubleAA Yes

@IsaacMoses Huh. I thought only mods could see that. My bad I guess.

@DoubleAA I can also take out the usernames from the sheet before sharing, if that's preferred

@IsaacMoses So you want to share that list with the public? Do you mind telling me why?

@DoubleAA I'm more interested in the stats than in the individual ratings, but the former is a product of the latter. I was curious about how the questions did, how they compare with my ratings, and how the collection as a whole did. I assume others may also be curious

@IsaacMoses Who do you want to release this to?

@DoubleAA chat and/or meta

@IsaacMoses Turns out it's mods and 10ks.

@DoubleAA That's pretty exclusive.

I'd definitely leave out the usernames

@IsaacMoses Regular users can see their own, but mods and 10k can see everyone's.

@IsaacMoses Ok, you can publish the data without names on meta after the time is up. SE has no immediate plans for the data. The thought is the history page should still exist at least if you have the direct URL even after the time is up, but no guarantees.

@DoubleAA Cool. Thanks for considering / checking.

@DoubleAA sounds good to me. The aggregate data (total votes of each type for each question) seems safe (and interesting), but I think a lot of people would be surprised to find their individual votes in public view. Since they can get their own, they can still compare how they voted to everyone else.

@IsaacMoses ^^^

@MonicaCellio So you'd prefer not to release the votes even without the voters' names?

Trying to come up with a wiki for zionism. Can I safely just use Wikipedia's definition, which limits it to the modern nationalist movement, rather than the ancient religious one? The 4 questions with the tag all use it in that sense.

@DoubleAA Since you're active on-site ^^^

@IsaacMoses oh, if you mean anonymized individual records (to show correlations among questions), that's fine. I just don't want to surprise anyone by publishing identified votes.

@HodofHod I wouldn't exclude modern religious Zionism, which bridges the two. But yeah; I think that "Zionism" generally refers specifically to the modern movement[s]

@MonicaCellio I think we're on the same page then.

@IsaacMoses I think so too. I just plain hadn't considered that use case. But SE releases that level of data for elections and I would expect that to be more sensittive than a site evaluation, so I see no issues here.

@MonicaCellio Good point. In addition, I suspect that @DoubleAA checked with SE staff, so we have both reasoning and a source :)

@IsaacMoses he did.

All: What do you think of a question like this? "I've noticed a phenomenon in the Jewish community / custom religious Jews do / custom Jews do. I haven't hung out in the more general (non-Jewish/irreligious) community enough to know whether it's a broader phenomenon/custom. It may be; I just don't know. Is it Jewish-specific? If so, why do Jews do it?"

And if that's okay, then what about this? "[Same lead-up.] Is it Jewish-specific? If so, why do Jews do it? If not, why do people do it?"

@msh210 I'm fine with this if it's more like "Is it related to Judaism? If so, how and why?" Whether it's Jewish-specific, but not related to Judaism (e.g., let's say, moneylending in Europe in the Middle Ages) is off-topic for us. Once we answer whether it's related to Judaism and how, we're done.

@msh210 "If not, why do people do it?" is 100% off-topic

@IsaacMoses I agree with this (and the followup).

Yeyasher kochacha, @HodofHod!

@MonicaCellio Me too.

@IsaacMoses :)

@HodofHod good job!

@msh210 Was there a particular question or trend that prompted this?