6
$\begingroup$

This post is primarily to get a consensus on appropriate tag name conventions. Signal processing is a very diverse field and not everyone might be familiar with all acronyms (other than basic ones). I see an increasing trend of acronyms for all tags and it could get confusing eventually. Personally, I think descriptive tags are better than acronyms (which should be synonyms). However, we'd also run into tag length issues (e.g., is 26 chars and only 25 are allowed).

So my suggestion is to use a hybrid of partial acronyms and partial descriptive names as in , , , , etc. when there is one among the group that will overflow and fully descriptive names in other cases as in , ,

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

It all comes down to what people will be expecting these tags to be. For example, when I ask a question related to the discrete Fourier transform, I will start typing and expect it to be there. I think that if we go as far as creating full descriptive tags, we have to make sure they all have synonyms among the acronym style tags. With hybrid acronyms, it would sometimes be especially difficult to predict how the hybrid acronym was constructed to start with. In any case, how would you create an hybrid acronym for something like ? I think synonyms is the answer, and several people should really be monitoring how well this structure is formed at the initial stages to avoid confusion.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ oh yeah, all of these will have synonyms. I meant slightly more descriptive tags for the master tags. $\endgroup$ – Lorem Ipsum Aug 24 '11 at 14:43
  • $\begingroup$ Yep, makes sense $\endgroup$ – Phonon Aug 24 '11 at 14:51

You must log in to answer this question.

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