I have decided not to split following questions. At the end I will explain why.

  1. Should I take under consideration original/unconventional answers while retagging? What I mean is, for example: One question is clearly about graphics, let's say showing some points. And among answers appears one based on matrices and image processing, also it works quite well. So, should I retag the question with , . It is of course an exaggeration but shows my point. (my attitude: I think Yes)

  2. What do You think about creating tag. Following answers and questions are what have driven me to this question:

    This tag should be pinned to the questions which some of the answers are based on post-processing the results generated by Mathematica. So they (answers) are not straightforward/direct but abusing Mathematica capabilities.

Now should be clear why I think those questions are related. Usually is meant to be added in retagging. For example, only the first of the links above shows the case when this tag could have been anticipated.

  • 1
    It is better to split the questions even if conceptually related, as otherwise it's difficult for people to express agreement/disagreement with an up/downvote. Myself, I agree with the retagging if an answer introduces subjects not foreseen in the question (but, remember that there is a maximum of five tags), but disagree with the post-processing tag. In addition to being (I think) somewhat imprecise, it also isn't clear to me why anyone would wish to categorize this family of techniques in a particular way in order to be able to search for them, since they're largely conceptually unrelated. Jun 24, 2013 at 20:52
  • Another candidate for post-processing. I think this tag might be useful, but would need better/narrower description at least. I suppose it is quite a natural question to ask if there is a "hacky" way to do something, if you are confident there is no normal way. The tag undocumented probably does not cover enough of this subject imo. In my opinion the main dilemma in tagging Q&As based on answers or questions is whether you want good search results for question askers or for content managers. Somebody who asks what is another word for (cont.) Jun 24, 2013 at 22:28
  • lists of lists of equal length will not soon search for matrix. Jun 24, 2013 at 22:29
  • @OleksandrR. Do You think I should split and restate questions?
    – Kuba Mod
    Jun 25, 2013 at 6:33
  • reduplicate with you case 1.So I close that discussion. :)
    – yode
    Mar 1, 2017 at 4:24
  • @yode I reopened you question and marked it a duplicate since you agree it is one. It is better to leave duplicates than delete topics as they can serve as roadsigns for future readers who face them.
    – Kuba Mod
    Mar 1, 2017 at 6:51
  • @Kuba Really?I have not consider this.Sorry,I have deleted so many duplicated post~
    – yode
    Mar 1, 2017 at 6:53
  • @yode well, don't do that from now on :)
    – Kuba Mod
    Mar 1, 2017 at 6:54

1 Answer 1


Here is my opinion:

  1. Tags are for questions, not for answers, so if someone answers a question using an unusual or highly original technique, that is a good reason to up-vote the answer, but no reason to retag the question.

  2. I don't think we need tags especially intended for re-tagging. If a tag doesn't identify a category useful for tagging, I can't see it being useful for re-tagging.

More specifically, I think is too vague to convey anything useful. Perhaps if you were to write a really good tag wiki for it, you could change my mind.


You must log in to answer this question.

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