On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:45:19AM -0400, Herbert Graf wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 22:06 +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 8:56 PM, Herbert Graf wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 20:14 +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote: > > > > I do not understand why the admins are so stubborn on this one. > > > > > > Where does it end Xiaofan? Assume we add another tag, how long before > > > something else comes up causing another request for another tag? And > > > then another? > > > > > > This is the "P" "I" "C" list; > > > > Do not forget the admins have many tags created already which > > are underused, like [ARM] and [AVR]. Why not create a new > > one which at least Russell is heavily using? > > Underused tags don't concern us, since they don't cause a problem very > often. I don't think anyone can claim that if an additional tag were > introduced that more closely matched what Russell's posts encompass that > it would be underused. > > That said Xiofan, you didn't answer my question: where does it end? > Basically you're asking for a Russell oriented tag. It's not just a Russell oriented tag. I've spent quite a bit of time here talking about nuclear technology for example. While it's been in the OT area, it would fit well under this SCI/TECH tag we've been discussing. > Fine, what next? 2 > months from now another poster may be interested in posting OT threads, > but instead of putting them in OT where they belong (what is so wrong > with the OT tag, noone seems to want to use it), they put them in the > Russell tag. If the thread is under SCI/TECH then there's no issue. If not, then like anything else it needs to go to OT. BTW to answer your question, there's nothing wrong with OT topics. I suggested that a workable alternative is to declare EE as only Electrical/Electronics Engineering, and shunt everything else to OT. > So, another tag should be created? And then another? Should > we just have a tag for every thread? No. No. and No. Non Electrical engineering tech/science/engineering is sufficient to catch the vast majority of the topics in question. OT takes care of the rest. There isn't a need for tag proliferation if the SCI/TECH tag is definied broad enough and the EE tag enforced narrowly enough. > FWIW I believe we are leaning towards adding an additional tag and > redefining the current tags, but a decision has not been made. Good. > Now, what follows are just my personal opinions and do not necessarily > reflect the opinions of the Admins: > > I love the PICLIST, it is by far the best resource related to my > profession that I have (except maybe google). I believe it is as good as > it is because it has remained relatively focused on EE and CE type > topics. The OT stuff is interesting sometimes, but I don't see why it > should be given the preference in content some feel it should. If you > want to really discuss that sort of stuff there are probably millions of > forums to choose from out there. All true. But I think that it misses some of the social aspect of the list. While there are millions of other forums, those forums do not have the collection of folks that I interact with on close to a daily basis. The tagging system and the ability to have the list server not even send posts that are tagged with certain tags (as James has been suggesting repetitively) can eliminate that content for anyone who wishes it. BAJ -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist