1

I just ran into the 5 tags limit, asked a lot of questions and never thought to use that many tags before, but this time it would have been useful. So I would like a little higher tag limit myself.

This might be a duplicate, so I am open to links where this has already been discussed, but has raising the tag limit for serverfault in particular been talking about?

In my case, I was asking a question about networking, which involves a lot of technologies which seem like suitable and important tags. On serverfault, tags are used in generally to list versions and the OS. Such as Windows-server-2003, Exchange-2003, outlook 2007 client. This ends up taking several tags right there. So maybe for serverfault, a slightly higher tag limit would make sense?

12
  • You can try, but you will fail (even with SF): meta.stackexchange.com/questions/13912/5-tags-is-too-few/13920
    – Ladybug Killer
    Commented Sep 11, 2009 at 12:21
  • 1
    How 'bout some examples of questions that could use more than 5 tags...
    – Shog9
    Commented Sep 11, 2009 at 12:23
  • 1
    Quick analysis of the public data dump for SF reveals... Oh crap, no data. Uh... I guess... (runs away)
    – ベレアー アダム
    Commented Sep 11, 2009 at 12:25
  • In this one, serverfault.com/questions/64465/slow-performance-with-mpls . I wanted to add 'site-to-site-vpn' and vlan, because those are both important. This is the first time I ran into this myself, So I am interested in what other heavier users of SF think.
    – Kyle Brandt
    Commented Sep 11, 2009 at 12:26
  • My abuse of the tag tags is of course in jest ;-)
    – Kyle Brandt
    Commented Sep 11, 2009 at 12:31
  • Well, you created two new tags with one question. Are they really necessary?
    – Ladybug Killer
    Commented Sep 11, 2009 at 12:46
  • John Smithers: Ya, I think they are...
    – Kyle Brandt
    Commented Sep 11, 2009 at 12:58
  • @Kyle: they're necessary because...? How do they work to categorize your question such that others with the same problem or potential answers would find it more easily?
    – Shog9
    Commented Sep 11, 2009 at 13:17
  • Shog: Because they are the technologies used directly with the connection that has the issues. Since I don't know the answer yet, I can't give a better answer then that.
    – Kyle Brandt
    Commented Sep 11, 2009 at 13:31
  • 1
    @Kyle: i understand... Just trying to help you flesh this out a bit more: as Pesto notes, a single question doesn't justify changing the system, but if you could explain how, say, this question on Server Fault requires a tag for each company, system or technology involved while a question on Stack Overflow need not have a tag for each referenced class, then it might help to strengthen your argument.
    – Shog9
    Commented Sep 11, 2009 at 14:13
  • Sohg9: Ya, you and Pesto have good points. I don't care that much, it is the first time I have run in to it. So no matter how good my argument is I think, unless some other SF people feel they would like more tags, then 5 is fine I guess. So I really just want to see if any of them feel the same way.
    – Kyle Brandt
    Commented Sep 11, 2009 at 14:32
  • I would go through questions that have 5 tags, and post a comment requesting that those users participate on this question.
    – Brad Gilbert
    Commented Sep 11, 2009 at 15:00

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
7

I just ran into the 5 tags limit, asked a lot of questions and never thought to use that many tags before, but this time it would have been useful. So I would like a little higher tag limit myself.

Just to reiterate: you have asked "a lot of questions" and only run up against the tag limit once. That isn't grounds for raising it. There needs to be a consistent need for additional tags before it is even worth considering such a thing. There are always going to be outlier questions that the asker will feel need more tags, regardless of the limit. Five is a good limit because it encourages the author to pare the tags down to just the essentials.

3

I'd suggest we wait until the public data dump becomes available, and analyze the data to see how the tag usage distribution falls.

Frankly, I don't know enough about network administration to judge whether the tags you used in the question you mentioned in the comments are necessary, or whether having site-to-site-vpn and vlan are also important, so I just have to trust your judgment that they are.

However, unless this happens relatively often and is negatively affecting the use of tags for their intended purpose, I wouldn't hold your breath.

2

I have yet to see an instance where you really need more than 5 tags. Every time someone has asked for more, I have noticed that they are adding superfluous tags that don't need to really be added.

Tagging is supposed to be used to help categorize your question and get it the attention of users who scan tags for new material. It is not meant to try and sum up your entire question in 5 small phrases or less.

Many people try to make their title into tags and I don't think that is right.

If your question is about the Outlook 2007 client communicating with Exchange 2003 on a Windows Server 2003 box, then those tags are fine. I don't know what other tags you would need to necessarily add (seeing as how you have two more to go after that).

2
  • I am going to eat pony-burgers for lunch, because I am taking that you think my tags might be superfluous personally.
    – Kyle Brandt
    Commented Sep 11, 2009 at 14:34
  • There is a nice place around the corner with shetland veal.
    – Kyle Brandt
    Commented Sep 11, 2009 at 14:35
1

On serverfault, tags are used in generally to list versions and the OS. Such as Windows-server-2003, Exchange-2003, outlook 2007 client.

This is a problem in itself - tags don't need to be this specific. Answers to questions about one version are often highly relevant to other versions too.

You must log in to answer this question.

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