I saw this question yesterday, and though, "Hey, maybe it could use a tag." However, I voted to close it, and it was closed (reasons explained in comments below the question).

There may be potential uses for the tag in the future, though I can't think of good examples. Should we have the tag?

For reference, here's the Mathematics page for and here's the Physics page for .

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Related discussion on meta tags: Do we need a homework tag? $\endgroup$ – Chris Mueller Feb 25 '15 at 1:17
  • $\begingroup$ Did this really get asked and "answered" in 41 minutes? $\endgroup$ – hazzey Feb 25 '15 at 1:45
  • $\begingroup$ I wouldn't have minded a clarification of what software versus hardware, or other related engineering fields, really are. However, that particular question went too far in asking for opinions, and was very sloppily written. I agree it needed to be put out of its misery, but not for the same reasons cited here. In any case, no, we don't need a soft-question tag. $\endgroup$ – Olin Lathrop Feb 25 '15 at 18:36

Despite its existence on other sites, reeks of being a meta tag to me.

The physics site has this description for :

Questions that ask about some aspect of physics research or study which doesn't involve the actual physics. In general, soft questions can be answered without using physical reasoning.

What I see here is that they use this as a catch-all for subjects peripherally-related to physics, but the tag still doesn't give any information about the subject itself, except that it is not related to the actual physics theory.

As you noted, the question which you linked to was closed as too broad, and I'm guessing we'll see the same conclusion on similar questions. However, we have also discussed questions on not-specifically-engineering subjects like liability that have been decided to be in scope and acceptable if they are done properly. These would probably be good for a tag, but the same information could be conveyed by using a tag like . This implies that the question probably won't involve formulas and calculations, while also making a statement about the actual content of the question.

And as has been noted in the comments, I have another answer on meta tags on this question, which links to some good resources for the StackExchange site as a whole.

  • $\begingroup$ (Sigh) It's a meta tag; there's no getting around it. $\endgroup$ – HDE 226868 Feb 25 '15 at 1:45

I don't honestly see the value of such a tag. Questions can be either objective or subjective. They need not be tagged as such.


You must log in to answer this question.

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