# Should we abolish tags that only describe the origin of a puzzle?

We have at least two tags (possibly more) which say nothing about the content of the puzzle but only describe what context it originated or was found in.

• - "For puzzles that have appeared in IQ tests", 38 questions.
• - "For puzzles that were asked at a job interview", 12 questions.

Unless we can identify a particular type or genre of puzzle which all IQ test questions or all job interview questions fall into, I think these tags count as meta tags and should be abolished. Who cares about where the puzzle came from - it's what kind of puzzle it is that we're interested in.

In fact, getting rid of is currently the highest-voted surviving suggestion at It's tag cleanup time! Complain about tags for free meta points!:

Get rid of [iq-test]. (It's a meta tag, and says nothing about the puzzle's actual content.)

-- Deusovi♦

In fact I thought that had already been done, and this meta post was originally going to be entitled "Should [job-interview-question] go the same way as [iq-test]?" until I realised that both tags still exist.

EDIT: has now been burninated. Let's get rid of too!

• Not sure. E.g. if someone wants to ask a [puzzle-history] question about the history of [iq-test]s, the tag might be fine. After all, PSE isn't only about creating & solving puzzles.
– user14478
Dec 11 '16 at 13:54
• @Displayname Sure, but that isn't how the [iq-test] tag is being used at the moment. Dec 11 '16 at 14:00
• Interestingly enough, while [iq-test] is probably more meta than anything else, it's nevertheless a pretty good predictor of a low-quality puzzle that boils down to, as someone said recently, "guess MY pattern," as they rarely contain enough to fully disambiguate an objectively best answer from a lot of other possible answers. (Imagine if emails or your caller-id were to reliably indicate "FROM NIGERIA" - that doesn't technically indicate anything about the content in and of itself, but it will likely affect whether you open/answer it, as well as how skeptical you are of what you get from it.)
– Rubio Mod
Dec 11 '16 at 23:21
• @Rubio The idea of a tag to catch low-quality puzzles has already been proposed. Doesn't seem to be a good idea. Dec 11 '16 at 23:42
• @randal'thor I dunno, that proposal didn't have overwhelmingly positive response but it certainly wasn't negative. In any case, [iq-test] seems to be a corner case where it strictly speaking (and per the tag description) merely tells where the puzzle originated, but it also genuinely does describe the type of puzzle: they're short, multiple choice, and one of a limited set of varieties. It also seems to me to be an in-the-wild example of the sort of self-flagging tag that proposal talks about. How does the community treat puzzles with that tag today, and is there utility in having it there?
– Rubio Mod
Dec 11 '16 at 23:57
• @Rubio The response from a CM to that proposal seemed pretty negative. As for whether the tag does describe a particular type of puzzle, and whether there's utility in having it there ... well, that's what this meta post is intended to find out :-) Dec 12 '16 at 0:00
• I don't support this idea. For an IQ tag question I have a blurry image in my mind what to expect, and I usually get one of those "silly" questions about random-looking patterns. And job interview questions are of course one of those "silly" questions whose solution is well known to those who... did their homework, and learnt the answer beforehand. Will the questions be better organized after the burniation of these two tags? I don't think so. Let's keep them. Dec 13 '16 at 8:57
• The cleanup proposal on the second sesquiannual tag cleanup has reached +12; I'm going to start cleaning up; will you? Apr 10 '17 at 10:49
• @boboquack I've already started :-) Just remember that slow and steady wins the race, and don't flood the front page with edits. Also, if you find old closed crap questions with the iq-test tag, don't hesitate to ping some 10k-ers in chat and call for delete votes. Apr 10 '17 at 10:52
• It's done!   May 10 '17 at 23:36