3
$\begingroup$

While browsing the tags, I noticed that we have , but with only 20 questions. I've looked for other rock type tags, but couldn't find tags for the most common ones, e.g., sandstone, basalt, granite... (but each of those research terms yields > 100 questions).

Should we add the main rock types as tags, or else just remove ? (and other rock type tags, if any)

My suggestion: remove the limestone tag, and create three tags for the three main rock families:

Which could be made synonyms of existing tags , and , respectively.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ I'm wondering what is so special about a specific rock type, such as limestone, basalt or whatever. I think your suggestion for broader rock type classification tags, such as [sedimentary-rock] would simply things. $\endgroup$
    – Fred
    Oct 7, 2022 at 17:37

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
3
$\begingroup$

The problem I see is when a poster ask about a rock don't know often if it is metamorphic, sedimentary or igneous. But he migth know from somewhere it is a limestone.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ I see, but tag edit is just one click and a few seconds away for us advanced users, so it would be easy to add the correct tags once the question has been asked. $\endgroup$
    – Jean-Marie Prival
    Aug 29, 2022 at 7:40
2
$\begingroup$

I think I'd lean towards adding a tag for the rocks that show up a fair bit, as someone could have an interest in that specific rock type, and numerous questions show that it is has usefulness to having them as a tag. Whereas rarer used rocks don't show that interest/need.

Novice users may not know what category a specific rock type is, and very well may not think to search for it under the category. So it may mean more unnecessary work.

Plus having it as the terms now given encourages questions that aren't about the rocks but the processes. I could be fine for leaving it as is too, though do see the benefit of branching into separate rock categories, thereby leaving rock less of a generic grabbag... it's just whether someone wants to go to the work to do that. Collecting them into their wider type categories would just turn those terms into grabbags the same, and I'd envision would swamp out any questions on the processes that may be of more interest to people currently following the category, than many questions that may subsequently fall into the tag group without having much direct connection to the topic.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .