Visualization tag (and are more tags always better)?

Question

Recently I added the tag 'visualisation' to this question on displaying multiple layers in one map. I also think it should be added to this recent question about cartograms.

I figured I would ask the community though their opinion. Is there any benefit to adding the visualisation tags to these questions?

I'm also not quite sure what the tag 'map' is for, but that may be worth another question. I suppose my fear is (and this is related to the map tag as well) that practically every other question could be give the label visualization, because this is basically the point of any map produced to a greater or lesser extent. Should the visualisation tag be referred to only questions that ask for applied knowledge about visualization (i.e. how should I display this) as opposed to what is this called or how to do x with y (which may involve visualizing info but not necessarily deal with why you should visualize info in a particular way)? I'm kind of lost in even trying to formulate the question!

Answer 1

As long as you have a defensible rationale for adding a tag -- other than "why not?" -- then it is probably fine.

Most of the bad tags we see are "just because" tags that people added out of a misguided sense of, well, if 2 tags is good, then 5 tags is more than twice as good!

Some guidelines:

1. can you imagine someone browsing all questions in this tag, or subscribing to this tag via email or RSS, for any reason?

2. would this tag work as the only tag on a questions?

Answer 2

Take a look at the 2K+ questions already asked, because they suggest the scope and nature of future questions. Few actually ask about maps per se or about visualizations. They concern how to do specific processes--data generation, data manipulation, data transfer, and many kinds of analysis--and how to do and understand GIS operations and analyses. The latter often lead to a map eventually, but do not directly concern the production of a map. Thus, on the whole, both "map" and "visualization" may be sufficiently narrow to provide useful distinguishing information.

(I wonder, though, what distinction is intended between these two tags, because every map is a visualization. A better division might be between "map" and "non-map graphical display of data." Perhaps "cartography" would be a better term than "map.")

To @Jeff's guidelines I would propose a third:

(3) Would this tag help discriminate usefully among items identified by means of other tags?

Answer 3

Personally I think more than a handful of tags is too many. If it feels like it needs more, the question is too wide ranging and doesn't have enough focus. At a certain point they become just another word, and that's what [search] is for.

If you feel an urge to yet another tag to the list, maybe it should go in the body of the text instead. For example when I talk about rasters I often also make sure to use the word image. It wouldn't be appropriate to use both as tags, just adds noise, and they're certainly not synonyms but as long as both are in the text it gives a handle for people coming from either direction to find the discussion.