2

The tag appears to be a popular meta-tag, which is to be be avoided.

Should it be deleted and banned?

  • Should be removed, but I'd ask SE to do that as retagging manually would be quite disruptive. – Mad Scientist Dec 19 '12 at 14:11
6

I use the tag when someone is skeptical of statistical data. It doesn't look to me as it's a worse usage of a tag than, say, , or .

3

I'm probably one of the "guilty" users, but I find the tag useful to note questions where the key evidence is or should be about the interpretation of statistical data. I don't think this makes it a meta-tag. Perhaps I just need to see a better explanation of why using it is a problem, or perhaps a better, clearer explanation of the concept of meta-tag.

I think we would be worse off without it. It clearly distinguishes some questions from others, though it applies to a wide range of questions. Perhaps it is a unique problem on this site because, to some degree, it classifies the sort of evidence required to address a question not just the content of the question.

0

I agree [that it should be deleted and banned]. Let’s see what the other mods think.

You must log in to answer this question.

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