6

This is NOT a burnination invitation - it is a discussion. Do not burninate this tag right now

We have a tag on SO with 88 questions. Here's the tag wiki:

Logistics refers to the overall process of managing how resources are acquired, stored, and transported to their final destination. The "how" often includes an optimization aspect: many "ways" are possible, and we must choose one that is "best" (or, due to limitations, at least "good enough") in some sense.

I don't think it is a great tag. I'm not sure it needs to be burninated, so I'm omitting the burnination criteria for now. Instead, I'm looking for suggestions as to what we should do with it (and the answer might well be that we should burninate it).

At least one question tagged with it refers to logistic regression, but in general, I think it totally fails to actually describe what a question is about. We already have an tag, and for most of the other questions, I don't really think it accurately describes what question is about. Instead, a more specific tag can typically be used.

Thoughts on how to handle this tag?

5
  • 2
    It really seems like a bad tag and there's just 88 questions. We could probably just get rid of it without too much fuss.
    – Lundin
    Mar 10, 2023 at 10:42
  • 2
    @Lundin Note that because it has over 50 questions, it still has to go through the normal burnination process
    – Zoe Mod
    Mar 10, 2023 at 15:18
  • @ZoestandswithUkraine I personally think it needs to be dealt with by investing less effort than it took to create it. If there's consensus to get rid of it, of course. SO has so much moderation bureaucracy and tendencies to create pointless busy-work...
    – Lundin
    Mar 13, 2023 at 7:44
  • 1
    @Lundin That's irrelevant. I'm not exactly a fan of it either, but that's the policy we have, and unfortunately, it's the policy I have to enforce if it's attempted ignored. If you'd like to see that changed, you'll need to post a feature-request/discussion.
    – Zoe Mod
    Mar 13, 2023 at 7:49
  • 1
    It's perfectly logical that there is a higher bar to remove content than to add it. Destroying others' work needs to be done carefully, with plenty of double-checks. We have a process for precisely this reason. We aren't going to go back to not having a process, because people have abused it in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Mar 14, 2023 at 6:54

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/423582/what-logistics-would-be-involved-in-dealing-with-this-tag
meta.stackoverflow.com
CC-MAIN-2024-22
99205
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:RPD6SSPJS5OUEGI6NCLGPHJODZGVDDHS
<urn:uuid:e15d73fc-6a14-4a9d-9224-88d1927c3073>
2024-05-24T13:36:20Z
172.64.155.249
text/html
sha1:WZ4TQJCCDTZGLCH3ZLJORBM6XXXEVCUN
<urn:uuid:42a45ba7-1518-4a7b-913b-2a97e5226481>
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/423582/what-logistics-would-be-involved-in-dealing-with-this-tag
response
<urn:uuid:0278b3ff-67b6-4a94-b74b-702c3efb3849>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2024-22
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for May 2024
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-80
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/