7
$\begingroup$

The has a simple tag wiki summary:

For puzzles that were asked at a job interview

At the time of writing, it has only 12 questions. Furthermore, reading it, it could be many different types of puzzles. The tagged questions refer to , , , , , etc.

The second point makes it look like a meta tag, which is disapproved of on SE.

Should we burninate the tag?

UPDATE: All the questions have now been de-tagged

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ YES. However, duplicate of Should we abolish tags that only describe the origin of a puzzle? $\endgroup$ – Rand al'Thor Feb 6 '17 at 11:22
  • $\begingroup$ @randal'thor Would you like me to remove this question? The only thing is it (IMO) a bit more forceful than yours. $\endgroup$ – boboquack Feb 7 '17 at 9:11
  • $\begingroup$ Once this is status-completed, maybe I'll go back and edit mine to focus specifically on the iq-test tag with reference to the precedent of burninating the job-interview-question tag. $\endgroup$ – Rand al'Thor Feb 7 '17 at 12:43
  • $\begingroup$ @randal'thor The witch is dead, long live the wi--wait, wrong expression. Job interviews are no more. $\endgroup$ – user20 Feb 10 '17 at 5:46
3
$\begingroup$

Probably.

Stack Exchange generally disapproves of tags that describe anything other than the content of a question. "Questions that were asked at a job interview" certainly fits that description.

However, there is another possibility that should be considered, though it should probably then be rejected. If the definition were something more like "For the sort of puzzles that get asked at job interviews" then it would be about puzzle content rather than puzzle origin.

The questions then would be (1) is there actually a reasonably well-defined class of "questions of the sort that might be asked at a job interview"?, (2) if so, is that class interesting enough to anyone to merit a tag (e.g., is it the sort of thing that might get searched for)?, and (3) if so, can the purposes that tag would serve be covered adequately by other tags?

To which I say: (1) I want to say no, but can't help feeling that there is a certain "feel" that these job-interview brainteasers tend to have; (2) probably not, but I can e.g. imagine someone who's just had a frustrating job interview finding the tag useful in tracking down a question equivalent to the one they got asked, or "job interview questions" being part of an FTC some time; (3) conditional on the tag being useful at all, it probably wouldn't be redundant with other tags.

All of which is very far from a ringing endorsement for keeping the tag around. I think it most likely wouldn't pay its way, and the fact that it hasn't been used much (only 12 puzzles!) seems like further evidence for that. So I'm inclined to say "let it burn" -- but the contrary arguments seem like they deserve airing, hence the blather above.

... Wait, I only find 7 puzzles tagged with it. Has someone begun the burnination already?

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ If someone's started removing the tag from these questions, that's probably a good thing. Thanks, O Mysterious Unsearchable Helper! $\endgroup$ – user20 Feb 7 '17 at 4:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Emrakul You're welcome. But don't you mean Random And Never Disappearing, Always Lurking, Tag Helper Of Repute? $\endgroup$ – Rand al'Thor Feb 7 '17 at 12:14
  • $\begingroup$ See also When to burninate from main meta. I'd say job-interview-question scores pretty poorly on all four criteria there. $\endgroup$ – Rand al'Thor Feb 7 '17 at 12:32

You must log in to answer this question.

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