[META] Proposed title keywords for Discussions

post by ata · 2010-10-05T05:09:23.935Z · score: 12 (13 votes) · LW · GW · Legacy · 9 comments

I propose the following title keywords for Discussion posts, to be included as I did with [META] in this one.

Feel free to propose others, debate the merit of the ones I've suggested, tell me that the whole thing is a stupid idea, etc.

This is not meant to replace the actual Tags system, which is good for arbitrarily tagging posts by topic. I see this as a way to allow us to quickly scan through the list of Discussions and know what general type of content to expect from each item. I don't expect that absolutely everything will need one of these keywords, but many/most of the things that have been posted in Discussion so far seem to be categorizable along these lines. And I don't intend by this to encourage specific types of content (e.g. if we get more polls as Discussion posts now as a result of having a [POLL] keyword, then it is not working correctly), I only suggest that it may be useful for organizing the things people are already using this section for.

9 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by whpearson · 2010-10-05T14:58:41.630Z · score: 6 (6 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

I dislike the caps. I'd go with a simple colon instead of the square brackets.

That would make it less visually jarring while still allowing quick filtering.

comment by Will_Newsome · 2010-10-06T02:21:50.465Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Agree; ata, could you retitle your post to match what appears to be a weak consensus for no caps and yes colons?

comment by [deleted] · 2010-10-05T16:40:41.388Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

At the very least, using the DRAFT keyword seems like it would be useful.

comment by humpolec · 2010-10-05T18:28:55.142Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Why not [Meta] or [meta]? No need to use shouting all caps.

comment by Relsqui · 2010-10-05T06:14:40.603Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Will post URLs update when tags get edited out of them later, e.g. when a [DRAFT] moves to the main site?

comment by ata · 2010-10-05T06:31:46.983Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

I think the URL does update when the title changes.

comment by Relsqui · 2010-10-05T05:22:45.735Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Maybe one for thought experiments? They're related to polls in that they frequently end with "what do you think would happen," but I think they deserve their own category.

comment by ata · 2010-10-05T05:37:33.210Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Good idea.

I was thinking of having a category for posts that are invitations to brainstorm/speculate on some topic. Do you think that's similar enough to yours to include them under one keyword?

(And now I am thinking that "essay question–type surveys" may make more sense as part of this category than grouped with simple vote-oriented polls.)

comment by Relsqui · 2010-10-05T06:08:41.728Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Do you think that's similar enough to yours to include them under one keyword?

Yes, and [SPEC] is I think the best short version of any of the ways we've described it.

(And now I am thinking that "essay question–type surveys" may make more sense as part of this category than grouped with simple vote-oriented polls.)

Sometimes, yes, but not necessarily. I think the difference is whether you're seeking more ideas and data about the subject in general, or if you specifically want to know the experiences of LW users.