Do we allow using family name (surname) tags or not?
Do you think this will be a limitation in the future?
-
This ties in with meta.genealogy.stackexchange.com/questions/3/… I think. If we aren't going to support specific person related questions family name tags are a no-no. If we are then perhaps they would be useful.– Justin808Commented Oct 10, 2012 at 8:58
-
1No to family names! I can just imagine a clan of 'Jones' taking over the site and using it as their own personal communication hub.– Canadian Girl ScoutCommented Oct 12, 2012 at 6:13
Add a comment
|
3 Answers
This is a tricky question if you consider various spellings. For common names, tagging also can be a misleading tool. This is not a document library, and in any case one can always use the full-text search to find a surname. I am against such tagging.
-
3I love your comment on: It's not a Document Library - yet - it's also tricky– SaarikoCommented Oct 10, 2012 at 9:15
I think it was Lord Rutherford who said that students injure themselves more when there are bandages in the first aid kit. "family name" tags will only encourage types of questions that we do not want to promote. Safety first says don't offer them.
Well, we are starting with Country names and State names. That adds a few hundred. If city names start, we'll have thousands.
But family names can add millions.
If we have family names as tags, would we want to prefix them all with something, e.g. family-smith, family-jones just so they're all together and don't overwhelm all the other tags, or is this unnecessary?
