I’ve noticed that the AI tag here is getting applied to some topics that are not really about AI, but just happen to offhandedly mention it (in the same manner that someone might say “I googled for…” without the topic itself being about Google).
Some of those are topics I started, where I just happened to mention AI or used it to provide an example of some sort.
I think applying the tag to topics like that, which are otherwise unrelated to AI, can be a bit misleading, both for people who might want to block AI-related discussions and people who are specifically looking for discussions about AI.
Tagging topics that merely use AI in a side note dilutes the meaning of that tag. It’s everywhere these days, like search engines, and of course we don’t have a “used a search engine” tag because it’d be pointless.
I’m not sure if these tags are auto-assigned any time someone types “AI” in a post, or if there are moderators/users manually applying them. But I think it would be a more useful tag if it were limited to discussions about AI, rather than discussions that just offhandedly mention it.
Ah, sorry. I always get the two confused. I even thought to check before I posted, but I still misunderstood
Should it be? Can it be something we manually suggest instead? Maybe a few years ago it made sense, when AI was still novel, but now it’s just a part of many everyday discussions.
We can leave it up to the OPs to add the tag. I will not be doing the tagging.
This is not one of my tags, mine are overwhelmingly Cafe & Game Room oriented.
I would be fine with turning off the automation. But I suspect the tag will almost never get used if I did. ETA: I want to make it clear, I’m not doing that without more feedback and at least some Mods commenting.
You make me wonder if we could change the name of Site Feedback to Discourse Feedback. That would be easier to understand I think.
That’d be my vote. There’s not a way for posters other than the OP to “suggest” tags for a topic, is there?
I think it’d still be better than the auto-tagging for this particular word…
Not that I have a strong opinion about this, but since you brought it up… is there even a reason to have the two separate forums? Both seem to be meta-feedback about the SDMB itself… is the distinction between “mostly about the software” and “mostly about the moderation process” even significant? Doesn’t it end up being mostly the moderators who have to deal with both, anyway? Like in this topic’s case, it is both about the auto-tagging feature in Discourse and the way it’s applied (or not) by our users and moderators. Other posters might not know what the software is responsible for, vs what is a human workflow thing on top of the software.
Site Feedback is effectively a default forum from Discourse itself. They at least use to check it, not sure if they still do. This is why I’m not sure we can change the name of it.
Based on what @Ponderoid just wrote, I would be tempted if allowed to change it to Discourse (board Software) Feedback
On the other Discourse site I manage, we deleted that category altogether. Not sure if the SDMB is on the same Discourse version (there might be a difference between the cloud version and the self-hosted one?)
Even if it’s a special protected category, IF you wanted to, you should be able to move all existing posts from Site Feedback into ATMB, effectively “merging” them. Then you should be able to hide Site Feedback altogether and limit anyone from posting there.
But only if you wanted to.
I think when we first moved to Discourse a few years back, we were one of the bigger users of the software, right? I wouldn’t be surprised if they frequented here then and checked for our feedback. But these days there are hundreds of thousands of Discourse communities and there’s no way they can check each one individually anymore
Discourse, the company, has its own Discourse forum (but of course) at https://meta.discourse.org/ where you can give them feedback directly. We did that recently when one of our posters here had an issue with Sam’s Simple Theme.
Anyway, just spitballing here. Don’t feel inclined to do any of it unless you want to… appreciate the moderation efforts, so whatever makes your jobs easier is probably best
Is there a way to set the automation so it assigns the tag only when “AI” is in the thread title? It won’t catch all, but it should at least tag the most obvious ones.
Site Feedback came with Discourse and we didn’t name it. The devs do check it periodically, though I don’t know how often. The devs have no interest whatsoever in the rules and moderation of our board, so it makes sense to keep Site Feedback and ATMB separate.
We don’t just use the Discourse software. Discourse provides our hosting and also provides tech support. I don’t know exactly what the details are of our agreement with them, but we don’t have a dedicated tech like we did in the old days with Jerry (and later John). We can report bugs and issues, but we can’t ask them to basically administer our site for us. A forum name-change is probably a no-go.
I think I was the one that added the AI tag. It seemed like we were getting a lot of AI discussions and the tag was initially considered to be quite useful. If the tag has outlived its usefulness, we can definitely change it.
OK, yeah, in that case, naming it something like “Discourse (Board Software) Feedback” seems fair.
The tag itself is fine (and useful: New AI tag created), but I’d vote for either disabling the auto-tagging or at least limiting it to “AI” in the title only, as @TroutMan suggested.
It’s not the tag that’s the problem, just when it’s getting inappropriately auto-applied to topics too broadly.
What do you think of just tweaking the auto-tagging to only in the subject?
That would reduce the false-positives greatly. Should take a very small effort for me to change it.
Back when we first switched to Discourse, there was massive board software feedback. Enough that it totally warranted its own category even if it hada not been a default part of a Discourse build-out.
Today however, Site Feedback as distinct from ATMB is a bit like The Quarantine Zone: something that has (mostly) outlived its separate usefulness. From the poster’s POV. OTOH, if the Discourse software team actually reads and act on what’s put in there we sure ought to keep it for that reason alone. IOW, because it’s useful to us from their POV.
If i were to change the name of a forum, i would change “about this message board” to something like “about the straight Dope message board”. And leave the “site feedback” one alone. I think that would be clearer.
But I’d probably merge the two unless there’s some real value in keeping the discourse stuff separate.
