3

I noted that @Divi had rejected the new tag because "This edit introduces tags that do not help to define the topic of the question. Tags should help to describe what the question is about, not just what it contains." However, enzymatic-browning is exactly what question is about and OP was looking for help to overcome just that and nothing else. "How do I prevent carrot juice going brown?" could be more precisely worded as "How to I prevent enzymatic-browning in my carrot juice?"

There are existing tags for Maillard and Caramelization, two of the three types of browning reactions. The third being enzymatic-browning. The first two are more often desirable than not, while e-b is the opposite and a very common annoyance in need of solutions. All three are common in cooking.

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

I know that the canned rejection reason is indeed rather unspecific, but I also don't see much use of this tag.

Tags are mostly there for the askers. We expect an asker to be able to add the appropriate tag to his question. We also expect askers to search for their problem before asking a new question, and if their keywords match tags, the system is able to offer better matches than if they match body text. I am not saying that this happens every time, but the system should be geared to support these scenarios for those who actually make use of them.

Enzymatic browning is something most askers don't know about. It is not impossible that somebody comes in and asks a question about "what are the rates of enzymatic browning in Linda potatoes at 20 Celsius" or similar, but I don't remember ever seeing such a question on the site. What we see is usually something like "why does the color get funny?", like in the question you linked. The term is contained in the answer, not in the question.

I would argue that such terms are bad candidates for tags. Those who are supposed to add them to the question won't do it - if they knew the term, they wouldn't be asking the question in the first place. Those who may think of adding a "browning" tag to their question will get the suggestion "enzymatic-browning" from the system - but if they don't know the difference between enzymatic browning and other types of browning, they are likely to use the tag where it doesn't apply, reducing the findability of our information.

In short, it seems to me that it is not really a good term to add to the tags.

I cannot of course say if Divi's reasoning to reject it was based on the same arguments. Maybe she had some different ideas about the reason to reject. And maybe others prefer us to have the tag. I am just adding my opinion on why it is probably not very useful to add.

3
  • 1
    @user110084 And the official answer aside, thank you very much for caring enough to add tags and to discuss them on Meta. Not many new users care about either tags or Meta, you are one of the positive outliers! Please don't let my reaction here (which is negative about the tag itself) discourage you from continuing making such suggestions.
    – rumtscho Mod
    Commented May 11, 2017 at 13:29
  • Thanks @rumtscho. As a newbie here I am a bit concerned about giving the wrong impression and coming across as a rather unpleasant sort. I came into stackexchange looking for help and thorough tagging always helps when searching for a topic. I guess that is why I tend to look out for them. Thanks for putting up with my obsession.
    – user110084
    Commented May 11, 2017 at 13:42
  • Understand the "term in the answer, not in the question" logic now. Thanks.
    – user110084
    Commented May 11, 2017 at 13:55

You must log in to answer this question.

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