Well - obviously I understand the english word. But in the context this post, I dont see any use of it. Maybe there is - but a description would be nice. Or is it some kind of meta-tag for describing "bad quality"?
I think everyone who creates a new tag, should use the tag-wiki to give it a good description. In other cases it is not that difficult to understand, of course. But well defined tags is a must have in the long run.
It's a meta tag - kill it, quickly.
But yes, I agree that everyone who creates a tag, especially one that is not self described by the tag itself, should take the time to create at least a wiki excerpt to explain what the tag should be used for.
quality is a meta tag. It doesn't seem to be relevant to the question it was used with, certainly. I do think it's a bad tag that should be killed with fire, though, because "quality" is rather indistinct. Better to use a tag specific to the metric that we are using to measure quality -- "durability", for example.
$\endgroup$
Jan 20, 2015 at 22:49
It is about quality engineering. I removed it from the magnetic levitation question and changed it to [quality-engineering] on the DOE question:
What do you think of my new tag?
I can't edit the wikis, as I don't have high enough rep.
Updates
@JohnHK requested refs for Quality Engineering. Here are a couple:
I am not sure what "mechanical engineering", "chemical engineering" and so forth means in JohnHK's comment. Does it include Aeronautical Engineering, Requirements Engineering, System Safety and Reliability Engineering, Acoustic Engineering, Systems Engineering, and Hydraulic Engineering ? IMHO, some are minority interests, and some are inter-disciplinary, but most seem relevant to some or other expert practitioners. Lets tag them if we get questions on them.
