I missed this comment till now, sorry. Seems no one else opined yet, so my thoughts:
I don’t feel like I can confidently say something about the value of distinguishing the two, but I can offer the broader questions I see.
What is the extent of our ability to maintain nuanced distinctions in the tags?
I’ve seen already that tag creators will have one narrow thing in mind when they make a tag, and then other people will come along and apply it very broadly, e.g. Biology getting applied to anything involving a biological system at all even if it’d be of no interest to a biologist or someone look for biologist content. If two tags are very adjacent, I might expect things to haphazardly go in one or the other or both.
2. If it’s important, how do we maintain two tags?
I could see preserving a space to just discuss the formal side separately from the psychological being quite valuable. Especially if there’s a sustained back-and-forth on technical stuff. If it is, then I think there’s effort we could put in to maintain the distinction in the face of entropy.
The tags need to be optimized a set.
The tag names directly should imply the tag boundary, e.g Truth (formal) and Map & Territory (Applied) or something.
Each description should early on differentiate the tags and mention the other.
You’ll need someone who cares to keep an eye on the tags. (Subscriptions to tags should make this easier, but currently, it doesn’t batch that doesn’t work well for high-volume tags).
Although if each tag has highly upvoted relevant content at the top, it matters less if some other stuff and goes to the bottom of the list (especially below the Load More)
Overall, the seeming cost of maintaining separate tags makes me by default want to just aim for broader, more-inclusive tags. But if a distinction is worth it and/or we end up with a committed community and people who want to keep tags clean and true to their intention, might be worth it.
I missed this comment till now, sorry. Seems no one else opined yet, so my thoughts:
I don’t feel like I can confidently say something about the value of distinguishing the two, but I can offer the broader questions I see.
What is the extent of our ability to maintain nuanced distinctions in the tags?
I’ve seen already that tag creators will have one narrow thing in mind when they make a tag, and then other people will come along and apply it very broadly, e.g. Biology getting applied to anything involving a biological system at all even if it’d be of no interest to a biologist or someone look for biologist content. If two tags are very adjacent, I might expect things to haphazardly go in one or the other or both.
2. If it’s important, how do we maintain two tags?
I could see preserving a space to just discuss the formal side separately from the psychological being quite valuable. Especially if there’s a sustained back-and-forth on technical stuff. If it is, then I think there’s effort we could put in to maintain the distinction in the face of entropy.
The tags need to be optimized a set.
The tag names directly should imply the tag boundary, e.g Truth (formal) and Map & Territory (Applied) or something.
Each description should early on differentiate the tags and mention the other.
You’ll need someone who cares to keep an eye on the tags. (Subscriptions to tags should make this easier, but currently, it doesn’t batch that doesn’t work well for high-volume tags).
Although if each tag has highly upvoted relevant content at the top, it matters less if some other stuff and goes to the bottom of the list (especially below the Load More)
Overall, the seeming cost of maintaining separate tags makes me by default want to just aim for broader, more-inclusive tags. But if a distinction is worth it and/or we end up with a committed community and people who want to keep tags clean and true to their intention, might be worth it.