25
$\begingroup$

A tag named has recently been created in this question. So far there is no tag wiki to indicate intended usage.

Do we really need such a tag? It veers slightly towards meta tags, which are generally discouraged.


To me it seems somewhat similar to , see the tag-wiki. (I would characterize this tag as questions that are similar to tricki articles, see this conversation in chat.) However, tag is often used incorrectly.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What's the difference between a trick and a method? $\endgroup$ – Antonio Vargas Dec 24 '13 at 18:00
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Antonio: It's the same different between drinking a beer at home, and having a kegger. Methods start as tricks, then develop into a method. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Dec 24 '13 at 18:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AntonioVargas "An idea which can be used only once is a trick. If one can use it more than once it becomes a method." See here. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Dec 24 '13 at 22:21
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I think that tricks is too fuzzy (and too meta) to be a good tag. Standard techniques may appear as tricks to noobs, but aren't really. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Dec 24 '13 at 22:44
  • $\begingroup$ @JyrkiLahtonen: Because you'd need to see the trick first before it turns into a standard technique, there should be some tag to track down the tricks. Please fill in on a better word for the tag. It doesn't have to be tricks. It can be (strategy) or some other tag. $\endgroup$ – Group Theory Dec 25 '13 at 6:48
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Yes. I made it because I think we need it. There are a lot of highly voted questions that involve tricks math.stackexchange.com/search?tab=votes&q=trick. These questions show they're never really taught or publicized. Someone might come across a trick and struggle through it for a long time before realising it's a trick. Hence we need this tag to help people learn, look up, spot tricks. Of course, if we are discussing how to cook up a proof, then proof strategy is similar to tricks. But what if a question involves tricks but isn't about how to cook up or plan for a proof? $\endgroup$ – Group Theory Dec 25 '13 at 8:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Frank, the problem is that for a tag to be useful, it should be possible to objectively decide, whether it fits. It should not depend on the personal history of a member. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Dec 25 '13 at 9:03
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @FrankMuer I wonder why you have deleted your answer, where you are explaining your reasons for the tag. (You should not be discouraged by the downvotes, voting is different on meta; they simply show disagreement. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Dec 25 '13 at 9:42
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @MartinSleziak Thanks for telling me not to be discouraged. I am getting a lot of execration for my posts like meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/12184/…. meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/12204/… Phira wrote 'dislike the hypocrisy of demanding empathy for your problem, but not even admitting the possibility that other people are different.' I never meant hypocrisy or ignorance of other people. Hence maybe I should stick to comments for now? $\endgroup$ – Group Theory Dec 25 '13 at 10:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @FrankMuer, I understand your argument, I believe, but am not convinced. How should I decide whether to tag a question so? That seems more like a tag for an answer, and there is no such thing. Note that I voted to reject your tag wiki because it struck me as more an attempt to justify the existence of the tag than a description of what should be tagged so, and should not be seen as a comment on the utility of the tag. $\endgroup$ – dfeuer Dec 25 '13 at 13:48
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @Antonio The difference is that tricks are pulled out of empty hats, but methods are pulled out of beautiful minds. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Dec 26 '13 at 2:10
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ What in the world is a "trick" anyway? I could think of it like a "trick question" or "trick answer" (similar to the new code-trolling on Code Golf), or I could think of it as a short method of solving a problem. The word "trick" is ambiguous, and is thus not a good tag descriptor. If there were to be such a tag at all, perhaps uncommon-solution-method or similar would be better. (But, I don't think we need such a meta-tag at all) $\endgroup$ – apnorton Dec 29 '13 at 2:00
  • $\begingroup$ For what it's worth: The only "trick" question I recall answering was tagged with recreational-mathematics rather than, e.g., proof-strategy. It can be found here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/232800 $\endgroup$ – Benjamin Dickman Dec 31 '13 at 14:50
17
$\begingroup$

Certainly not. Let's remove it.

It hard to imagine someone adding this tag to favorite or ignored tag. It's not useful for search.

It's a meta-tag. It has unclear and potentially very vast area of usage. What questions exactly should be tagged (trick)? Who should tag it — e.g. if an answer is 'trick' should the question be tagged (trick)? (If it's intended for question asking explanations of some 'tricks' then it seems to me there are more or less reasonable tags for this already.)

The proposed tag doesn't fit well into current tagging ideology of SE and it's (intended) usage is not at all clear. Of course, rules can have exceptions — but if someone wants an exception to be made they should make a coherent proposal with some arguments addressing the issues (no, 'why not' and 'there are a lot of highly voted questions that involve tricks' is not remotely enough).

$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Please explain why not? $\endgroup$ – Group Theory Dec 24 '13 at 9:23
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I edited my post. It'd be nice to hear your explanations too please. Your answer is pretty negative. 'It hard to imagine someone adding this tag to favorite or ignored tag.' Please explain how you know this. $\endgroup$ – Group Theory Dec 25 '13 at 6:44
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Grigory --- You fail to give any reason here again for your "answer" --- just like you gave nothing at meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/12204/…. Frank Muer explains himself like you ask --- but you never explain yourself. Again, you make a lot of claims with no evidence. More helpful if you can give realistic reasons please. I'm really confused by upvote on your answer. $\endgroup$ – Matthew Lau Dec 25 '13 at 14:07
  • $\begingroup$ @dresserse (Re: just like you gave nothing at) you're linking back to this page $\endgroup$ – Grigory M Dec 25 '13 at 14:25
  • $\begingroup$ @dresserse, votes on Meta relating to proposals to do/not do something don't mean the same thing as votes on Main. They usually indicate agreement/disagreement with the ultimate conclusion, rather than agreement with the argument or belief that the post is of a high quality. $\endgroup$ – dfeuer Dec 25 '13 at 18:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ As this answer has the most upvotes, I think we can consider it the community consensus, so I have accepted it. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jan 10 '14 at 17:43
8
$\begingroup$

Just offering another possibility to vote for/against:

Keep the tag, but make it a synonym of .

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for the suggestion. Sure. This would work. $\endgroup$ – Group Theory Dec 25 '13 at 6:49

You must log in to answer this question.

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