0

I was going through the tags, specifically those with low-usage, and trying to determine if they were worthwhile, or could be replaced with something else already in use.

One which I removed was 'store' (which could mean either food-storage, or a place to buy things.) In their case, they meant a place to buy things, as the question was about buying fish. It was also tagged [market], which I don't think is horrible, but it's not ideal for describing that the question is about selecting/purchasing food, and not about preparation.

Can anyone out there recommend a good tag for this class of question?

Everything I can think off runs into the problem that it's too broad, and covers two aspects -- looking for where to get food (which might be too localized, and therefore closed quickly), and how to select a good item; ideally, I'd prefer soemthing that's specifically related to selection. (but isn't ambiguous like 'selection'.)

2

I prefer [ingredient-selection] for questions about... well, selecting ingredients. Choosing or finding the highest quality ones, etc. It hasn't been used, but there is a [food-selection]; and as Mike has mentioned in another discussion, the food is rather superfluous. ingredient makes more sense because these things are going to be prepared somehow, not eaten directly (otherwise it's not a question about cooking anymore!).

If the question really is about purchasing (and I suspect that there are a very limited number of questions under this umbrella that wouldn't be too localized), then [purchasing] or [buying] are both fine to me. These are things that an expert would know about.

  • I think [food-selection] and [ingredient selection] are basically synonymous, although the latter could be about more general 'recipe planning', i.e. picking which kind of pie to make rather than which apple to use for it. Purchasing, shopping, buying, and market should, I think, all be synonyms. – Ocaasi Aug 1 '10 at 18:03
  • What about menu-planning, is that a tag to consider? – Ocaasi Aug 7 '10 at 17:43
  • @Ocaasi: I don't think [menu-planning] is exactly the same as the others, if that's the question, but I have no objection to the tag itself. – Aaronut Aug 8 '10 at 13:39
  • @Aaronut Re: "food is rather superfluous. ingredient makes more sense because these things are going to be prepared somehow, not eaten directly (otherwise it's not a question about cooking anymore!)." I just want to clarify, is the 'food' in 'food and cooking' only acceptable in the area of intersection between the two? I was under the impression that questions about food itself would be in the scope of this site (as well as my personal bias that they can be very useful to eaters and chefs alike). – Ocaasi Aug 8 '10 at 22:28
  • @Ocaasi: As far as the original definition is concerned, the site about making food. While the community here has decided that it makes sense to extend that out to certain tangents, such as wine pairings, presentation, meal planning, etc., the site is not for foodies looking for snacks. "Food and cooking" is a placeholder name; if you look at the domain name recommendations, you'll see that we're all trying to converge on names that emphasize the cooking or "kitchen" aspect of the site. – Aaronut Aug 9 '10 at 21:02
  • @Aaronut That was below the belt. Foodies eat whole meals, just like you. – Ocaasi Aug 9 '10 at 21:30
  • @Ocaasi: It wasn't an insult to foodies everywhere, it was a reference to the spate of snack-based questions we've already seen. You like to take things personally, don't you? – Aaronut Aug 9 '10 at 23:43
  • @Aaronut You couldn't detect the humor? Calling foodies mere snackers was obviously a small thing, a casual slight like saying that chefs are just hat-wearers. I took nothing personal from it. I do, however, value the perspective of foodies and question drawing a line between them and cooks, or at least the knowledge each group shares. – Ocaasi Aug 10 '10 at 0:05

You must log in to answer this question.

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