I just noticed the tag. It is a meta tag and I think it not a useful tag for for filtering or searching and I think questions should stand alone and contain enough information to make sense independent of papers they may use as context. Coming from someone reading a paper doesn't add much useful information about the content of the question. Would one care if a question is coming from reading a paper or from a discussion or just thinking about some problem? Do we really need this tag?

  • $\begingroup$ think the site has really great potential for reviewing hard sections/jumps of difficult papers (have various items on that) & there seems a large/inexhaustible supply but votes/conventions seem to have pushed against it eg the rigid preprint policy fixed in place yrs ago =( ... also dislike the se-wide mod tendency of micromanaging/pushing against collective tag folksonomy and killing new/creative/useful tags before they even get off ground as surrogate for managing/restricting/constraining scope... $\endgroup$
    – vzn
    Mar 5, 2014 at 18:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The tag seems of low utility, for me personally. It seems to have been first used by domotorp in a reasonable way (I don't have access to any earlier now-deleted questions that may have introduced it prior to this one). Whatever the merits or demerits of the tag, I am not sure that my own preferences should necessarily be authoritative -- tags are a community feature. $\endgroup$ Mar 13, 2014 at 11:43
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @vzn What does the tag actually achieve? If you were having trouble with a paper about widgets, you'd search for questions about widgets, not for questions asked by other people who were having trouble with the paper they were reading. $\endgroup$ Mar 13, 2014 at 12:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I've (finally) removed the trouble-with-paper tag. $\endgroup$
    – Lev Reyzin Mod
    Sep 24, 2014 at 13:22


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .