Some tools and terms are used a lot. Should we create tags for these, even if they are rather specific?

Where should we draw the line for "a lot"?

For example, things like:

According to those search results, there are now a good 50 questions which could potentially use a tag.

We already have a few tags like this, such as and .

What are the possible downsides of adding these tags? What are the upsides?

How should we pick what tools deserve a tag? How many questions should there be asked about said tool before we consider making a tag?


3 Answers 3


We definitively need these tags, the more exact a search result can be narrowed down, the better. Some would argue that all of those tags could be ignored and simply tagged Modeling.

from the basic description of all tags

A tag is a keyword or label that categorizes your question with other, similar questions. Using the right tags makes it easier for others to find and answer your question.

Although a question about the knife tool could be tagged modeling and left at that, you could further tag it as knife-tool and make search results much more useful. however, that same question it would not necessarily also be about extruding, so I would argue that not only those three, but many more like them could be added. when you broadly tag something modeling, it can have Many, Many different questions that have nothing to do with each other. tags are meant to categorize questions that are similar so someone with a problem can easily find his/her/its solution.

This is the same situation with the modifiers tag and the subdivision-surface tag. someone could blindly throw on the modifiers tag and walk away, but it makes it much more difficult for an expert on a certain subject to assist that person.


If there are downsides, I can't think of any. I think we'd have to go ahead with this and see if any pop up.

This idea has my vote, straight up.


I agree with the idea that the more specific you can make a question's tags the better. The only thing that might possibly be an issue would be that people might be tempted to add the non-specific ones first and use the available 5 up before getting to them, but I think this risk is negligible because of it's unlikelihood.

I support this idea, and I think we should go ahead with it.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I still think there should be a limit to how specific tags should be. IMO we don't want super-specific tags like inverted-normals, non-manifold-geometry, undo-history, etc. Though with the number of inverted normal questions we get, it'd almost be worth it if they weren't all duplicates :P $\endgroup$
    – gandalf3 Mod
    Apr 16, 2015 at 3:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Exactly, it should be limited to tools and major techniques I think $\endgroup$
    – J Sargent
    Apr 16, 2015 at 10:50

You must log in to answer this question.

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