Many people seem to be using arXiv-style tags, e.g. cs.cc.complexity-theory instead of just complexity-theory. I saw Suresh change some of these to non-arXiv style, but is that something we might want to systematically suggest? If so, we should probably be retagging the arXiv-style tags to non-arXiv style before the private beta ends.

Update: The most fruitful thing to come from this question seems to be Charles Stewart's proposal, which is now it's own question. Please take a look at it.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ We could define tag synonyms: cstheory.stackexchange.com/tags/synonyms $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 18, 2010 at 15:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Of course, proposing synonyms requires some amount of reputation, but that shouldn't be an issue if people followed this advice: meta.cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/6/… $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 18, 2010 at 15:46
  • $\begingroup$ Actually cs.cc.complexity-theory IS an arxiv tag - the system doesn't allow the full name. I'd like to use the arxiv tags where possible (ds, cg, cc) and so on. I used the (redundant) cs prefix to be consistent with MO but we could always drop that and use explicit 'math' prefixes for the math tags $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 18, 2010 at 16:01
  • $\begingroup$ The cs.cc.complexity-theory is my fault, I think -- I copied it across from MO. It would seem to make sense to use ArXiv tags as they are, since that requires no translation between different sites using them. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 18, 2010 at 18:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Why is compatibility with MO's love of abbreviations worthwhile? We're not them. $\endgroup$
    – Jeffε
    Commented Aug 24, 2010 at 5:56
  • $\begingroup$ I was working under the assumption that people will visit both places. There's a clear consensus away from this though (see Charles Stewart's answer below). @JeffE any recommendation ? $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 24, 2010 at 6:10
  • $\begingroup$ Personally, I don't really care that much exactly which scheme we are using, but I do like the idea that we have "top-level tags" and "more detailed tags". I think if we have reasonably few top-level tags (e.g., those derived from ArXiv) and all questions are tagged with at least one of them, then they make the filtering tools (e.g., interesting vs. ignored tags) very powerful; with a handful of tags you can already find relevant posts and ignore completely irrelevant posts. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 24, 2010 at 9:28
  • $\begingroup$ possible duplicate of Proposal: Remove discipline prefix from the Arxiv-style tags $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 25, 2010 at 21:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ As the above comment indicates, I'm voting to close and transfer discussion to Charles Stewart's concrete proposal. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 25, 2010 at 21:23
  • $\begingroup$ I second Suresh's vote to close. I didn't delete my own question because I think some of the discussion here might be nice to have on record. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 26, 2010 at 15:04

6 Answers 6


Here are some tags that could be arxiv'ized:

  • learning-theory (cs.LT)
  • automata theory (cs.FL)
  • data structures (cs.DS)
  • cryptography (cs.CR)
  • Logic (cs.LO) - note that there's also math.LO - not sure what to do about that.
  • general literature (cs.GL) - could be related to historical questions, or not.
  • $\begingroup$ I think the ArXiv tags are ok. I was first concerned that cs.DC in Arxiv is a catch-all, but I think that the intersection of cs.DC and the scope of this site is a fairly well-defined and reasonably narrow area of computer science. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 18, 2010 at 21:50
  • $\begingroup$ Stupid question: exactly how do we form the names of the tags? For example, what is the name of the cs.DC tag? Obviously [cs.dc.something], but do we have a source that we can use for the "something" part, or should we just make up something? $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 18, 2010 at 21:54
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ my recommendation would be to use cs.TWO-LETTER-FORM.full-name-as-given-by-arxiv, unless the length doesn't permit. so cs.lt.learning-theory, cs.ds.data-structures, cs.cg.comp-geom, and so on $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 18, 2010 at 23:31
  • $\begingroup$ And the idea is that each question should have at least one ArXiv tag + possibly some additional, more specific tags? $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 19, 2010 at 20:38
  • $\begingroup$ yes, I'd agree with that. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 19, 2010 at 20:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I did a little bit of retagging to see how it would look like if we used Arxiv tags. I'd suggest that others do this as well; before we get public, it'd be nice to have a bit more stable and consistent set of tags. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 21, 2010 at 20:39

Users unfamiliar with arXiv-style tags will know what complexity theory is, but the extra context will leave them thinking [cs.cc.complexity-theory] must be something else.

Why not use separate tag axes, e.g., [complexity-theory] and [arxiv.cs.cc]?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ part of this is to retain compatibility with MO. Also, why have duplicate tags: is there any post that would be labelled one of the above, but not the other ? $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 23, 2010 at 20:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Suresh Venkat: Why do you want to retain compatibility with MathOverflow? Especially since they aren't a Stack Exchange 2.0 site, so they are "out of the loop". I think that compatibility with the Mathematics and Statistical Analysis exchanges would be far more useful - especially since eventually, it will be possibly to migrate questions to these (and other SE2.0) sites, but won't be possible to migrate questions to MathOverflow unless they upgrade to SE2.0. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 25, 2010 at 21:52
  • $\begingroup$ that's an interesting point. the compatibility was mainly for user friendliness, given that our population is used to MO $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 25, 2010 at 23:10

Now we have the following ArXiv tags:

  • cs.cc.complexity-theory (Computational Complexity, also in MO)
  • cs.cr.crypto-security (Cryptography and Security)
  • cs.cg.comp-geom (Computational Geometry, cs.cg in MO)
  • cs.dc.distributed-comp (Distributed, Parallel, and Cluster Computing)
  • cs.ds.data-structures (Data Structures and Algorithms)
  • cs.fl.formal-languages (Formal Languages and Automata Theory)
  • cs.lg.learning (Machine Learning, also in MO)
  • cs.lo.logic (Logic in Computer Science)
  • cs.ne.neural-evol (Neural and Evolutionary Computation)
  • cs.pl.programming-lang (Programming Languages)

Here is the list of ArXiv/CoRR subject classes that I have used as a reference.

[I'm marking this as CW, feel free to extend/edit.]

  • $\begingroup$ Um... Algorithms papers are classified on the ArXiv under cs.DS, but cs.ds.data-structures is definitely misleading for an algorithms question. And why is comp-geom abbreviated, but formal-languages spelled out? I honestly don't see the point of the abbreviations; what's wrong with plain English? (In fact, I don't see the point of the abbreviations EVEN ON THE ARXIV.) Backward compatibility is a noble goal, I guess, but not at the expense of clarity. $\endgroup$
    – Jeffε
    Commented Aug 24, 2010 at 5:54
  • $\begingroup$ Unfortunately, there is a limitation of 24 characters; for example, cs.cg.computational-geometry would be 28 characters. If you have better suggestions, feel free to change and retag, I don't like some of these that much either. I think "cs.ds.data-structures" wasn't really planned, people just started using it; perhaps "cs.ds.algorithms" would be less misleading? $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 24, 2010 at 9:23

The current AA.BB.CCCCC tags are unwieldy —a defect in a question tagging scheme, not so bad in an article classification scheme— and AA is nearly always cs. The exceptions are, AFAICT, misclassifications.

If we simply dropped the AA. part off the tag, we would have a system that looks like the MO scheme, and is more pleasant. We'd also remove the tiresome math.lo.logic vs. cs.lo.logic issue.

The full Arxiv code can be given in the tag description.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ this might be more reasonable than my original idea. I'm all for it. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 24, 2010 at 6:09
  • $\begingroup$ This would also help make the limitation of having max 24 characters in tags less severe. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 24, 2010 at 9:24

I believe that These arXiv tags should not be used at all.

My biggest concern is that these tags are not friendly to people who don't know arXiv (I'm one of these people). I have an interest in many computer science topics, but I rarely read computer science publications, have never browsed arVix, and really don't want to learn how to use such a system that I'll never use off of this site.

However, I routinely read other publications of papers by the IEEE (in fact, I have the most recent issue of IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering next to me right now). Papers in this publication have "index terms" - keywords that describe what the paper is about. I grabbed a copy of the ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology out of my shelf, and they have three sections: categories and subject descriptions (which contain a code as well as textual descriptions), general terms, and additional key words/phrases. Whenever I've searched for papers in an online database, my matches have always come from the keywords sections or the body of the paper.

Looking at these tags, they are unwieldy. I have no idea what the tag means, and I wouldn't expect that most undergraduate computer scientists and software engineers would either. Given the responses to my previous question here on Meta, you want to be inclusive of multiple skill levels. If I find it difficult to search and browse through questions based on tags (which are also used in the site search engine), I'll be less likely to use this site.

Instead of following MathOverflow, I believe that this exchange should follow a path closer to that of Mathematics. There are three relevant discussions on their Meta that I could find. The Mathematics community appears to be doing quite well in terms of having people of various skill levels (appears to range from undergraduate university-level mathematics on up), their tagging appears to be working quite well, and I honestly find it easier to read and search than MathOverflow.

But really, if this Stack Exchange follows MathOverflow, I actually see someone else coming along and making another Computer Science exchange geared toward a broader audience, in terms of skill levels. I think that this exchange can avoid this splintering of the community (avoiding another Unix/Linux versus Ubuntu Stack Exchange problem) by catering to as many people of various skill levels and educational backgrounds as possible. Yes, you need a specific focus on certain topics and clearly define what is and is not on-topic, but you want to segregate based on those topics, not by knowledge or experience. By dumping the arVix style tags, you make it easy for everyone to find questions/answers, but also make the site friendlier to less knowledgeable and experienced people such as myself.

However, that's not to say that arVix isn't useful. I believe Stack Exchanges have the "tag wiki" page that Stack Overflow has. It would be benefitial to identify which tags correspond to arVix topic areas and link to those topic areas in the tag wiki for a given tag.

Also, a technical consideration: The tags are specified using rel="tag" in the source of a page. If you aren't familiar with microformats, search engines actually do pick up on them and they do help people find pages. People who do searches search for things like "data structure" and "data structures", not "cs.DS.data-structures". The tags should reflect what people are searching on Google and Bing so that they are brought to questions on Stack Exchanges that are relevant to their searches.

I also want to address a few comments and other postings.

Another point that I've read in some postings and comments here is that you want to maintain compatibility with MathOverflow. I think this is a mistake. MathOverflow is a Stack Exchange 1.0 site and, last I heard, had no intention of migrating to Stack Exchange 2.0. However, there are a number of Stack Exchange 2.0 sites that might be of interest to this community in some way that are at various levels of existance - Stack Overflow (people might ask algorithm or data structure implementation questions here), Mathematics (which includes discrete mathematics, graph theory, combinatorics...), Statistical Analysis (which includes machine learning), Not Programming Related, Compiler Design, Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Application Security, Machine Learning, Numerical Modeling and Simulation, Signal Processing, Operating systems Development, Natural Language Processing and Computational Linguistics, and Cryptography (and those are just the first 10 pages of proposals, sorted by progress). These are the communities that need to work together to decide what best belongs where, especially since it appears that there will be a feature to move questions between various Stack Exchange 2.0 sites. Unless things change on MathOverflow, you will never be able to migrate a question from here to MO. However, in the future, it will be possible to migrate questions to the exchanges I mentioned, and so far, none of them are using ArVix tagging.

As first mentioned in a comment here, some of the ArVix tags are long. Potentially too long to fit in the limit of a tag. The purpose of tags is to help people search and sort through questions. If you start abbreviating ArVix tags, you open up a whole new can of worms with the best way to abbreviate the tags.

  • $\begingroup$ We will certainly write tag wiki pages as soon as we have moderators and/or people with enough reputation to do that. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 25, 2010 at 20:50
  • $\begingroup$ There are several non-TCS sites in the proposal stage at Area51: Not Programming Related and Compiler Design are just two from the front page. This is in addition to Statistical Analysis and Developer Testing. There are relatively few theorists, so I don't think a TCS site could attempt to serve the broader CS community successfully. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 25, 2010 at 21:11
  • $\begingroup$ I am glad you find Mathematics useful and easier to read than MO. That doesn't mean that MO doesn't serve a useful purpose. I don't expect someone building realtime systems for computer vision would be especially interested in a theory site, but that doesn't mean the theory site should try to cater for an applied audience. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 25, 2010 at 21:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think you mistake my point. There are a lot of people who are interested in theoretical CS. However, they are all at varying levels of knowledge and skill. You don't want to end up catering exclusively to the experts in the field, neglecting everyone who is less experienced and knowledgeable simply because they can't find information. Let me reword a few parts of my answer to make that a little more clear. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 25, 2010 at 21:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Edited. I think I made it more clear that any segregation should be made based on topics and knowledge areas and not by the knowledge or experience of the users. I believe I made my point that the ArVix tagging makes it difficult for people without a background in formal publications to find what they are looking for. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 25, 2010 at 21:52
  • $\begingroup$ @Thomas: Anyone can use Google (or the full-text search features of this site) to find questions and answers. Tags are just something extra; you can ignore them safely. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 25, 2010 at 22:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Jukka Suomela: I actually addressed that. The full-text search of the site actually DOES weight the tags (if I did a search for "data structures", something tagged "data-structures" would be higher in the results. In addition, a rel="tag" of "data-structures" would help Google index the pages better. Tags should not be considered something extra, but things that actively help people (and spiders) find and sort content. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 25, 2010 at 22:11
  • $\begingroup$ @Thomas: Have a look at meta.cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/118/… which is a concrete proposal that aims at a compromise: tags would be much simpler, but still contain some minimal amount of references to ArXiv classes. I think it'd be best to continue discussion there. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 25, 2010 at 22:17
  • $\begingroup$ @Jukka Suomela Posted a new idea there. Took yours, and chopped it down even more. But yes, a discussion there would probably be better. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 25, 2010 at 22:37

My one suggestion would be that if arXiv abbreviations are used, they be used in the form Suresh just typed (in parentheses after the main word). Otherwise, some people will use the tag cc.cs.... and others will use complexity, and we have an indexing mess. If the abbreviations are at the end, someone who starts typing "complexity" will (I think) see the "official" tag and use it.

So, in other words: learning-theory(cs.LT), not cs.LT.learning-theory

  • $\begingroup$ Tag synonyms should help with the indexing mess. I think the system does not allow parentheses in tags? $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 18, 2010 at 22:54
  • $\begingroup$ yes, best to use tag synonyms. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 18, 2010 at 23:30
  • $\begingroup$ By the way, if you start typing "complexity...", the system will give a list of suggestions, and the first one is "cs.cc.complexity-theory". Hence it shouldn't matter that much whether the cs.cc part is at the beginning or end. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 21, 2010 at 20:53

You must log in to answer this question.

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