4
$\begingroup$

Following the question

Can we get rid of and lock the [signal] tag?

and especially Kevin's answer

FYI: This type of bad tag is called an intrinsic tag and there is a feature specifically to blacklist that kind of tag. It can be found in the moderator links as “Blacklisted User Input”.

We might want to compile a list of tags that carry no information, when posted on signals./dsp.stackexchange.com .

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2
$\begingroup$

So far, we'd have:

We might want to:

  • replace ~-processing with just "~"
    • image-
    • audio-
    • video-
$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ I would add dsp-core. It seems to be mostly misused, as I guess people interpret it as "core DSP knowledge" instead of a "DSP processing core." $\endgroup$
    – Jason R
    Nov 28, 2016 at 12:39
  • $\begingroup$ @JasonR hm, I considered that to be an important tag; it's what people use to tag things that actually have to do with digital signal processors (be it some motoroloa 56k or some TI C6000) $\endgroup$
    – Marcus Müller
    Dec 1, 2016 at 14:57
  • $\begingroup$ I agree, that's what the tag is for. My point is that if you look at the questions that use it, it's almost always misused to mean "core DSP knowledge" instead of "DSP processing core." $\endgroup$
    – Jason R
    Dec 1, 2016 at 22:31
  • $\begingroup$ I see. Haven't had a look, yet, though. So, any better idea? "digital signal processor" will probably have the same problem, just worse. "dsp-ic" might work. $\endgroup$
    – Marcus Müller
    Dec 1, 2016 at 22:42
  • $\begingroup$ by the way, this is a wiki answer. Edit it, add a section "under discussion" and add dsp-core with an explanation there. $\endgroup$
    – Marcus Müller
    Dec 1, 2016 at 22:42

You must log in to answer this question.

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