Is [acceptability] a meta-tag?

Question

Is acceptability a meta-tag as described in http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/?

1. If the tag can’t work as the only tag on a question, it’s probably a meta-tag. Every tag you use should be able to work, more or less, as the only tag on a question. Meta-tags, like [beginner], [subjective], and [best-practices], are useless by themselves — they tell you nothing at all about the content of the question.

I would take a bet that if a question was asked with only acceptability, it would be retagged within about 5-10 minutes to add something else. So in other words, yes.

2. If the tag commonly means different things to different people, it’s probably a meta-tag. In a cruel, ironic twist, the meaning of the tag [subjective] itself … is actually subjective. Ditto for [best-practices] and [beginner]. Best practices to whom? Beginner by what criteria? These tags are impossible to define by anything remotely resembling an objective metric. In comparison, the the meaning of tags like [java], [c#], and [javascript] are crystal clear to all but the nuttiest of nutbags.

Not quite; acceptability is fairly clear, but the meaning of it is debatable.

Answer 1

I believe acceptability is not a meta-tag and it should be restored. It is a tag that could work by itself. And it is only too vague and shifty a term to people who don’t really know anything about how English works. The term “acceptability” is essentially a synonym for “grammaticality” and has a quite precise (though not undisputed) meaning to people who know what they’re talking about when it comes to English language and usage.

I think it is quite disturbing that this tag was deleted without any significant discussion and without sufficient opportunity to mount a defense for the tag.

Answer 2

It’s perfectly possible for some questions clearly to be questions of acceptability.
If someone asks:

Is [word] acceptable in [context]?

I don’t think there’s any doubt that the question is about acceptability. Furthermore, I don’t see any reason why acceptability could not stand as the only tag on such a question. That tags may be added does not in itself mean that acceptability cannot stand alone.

That said, few of the questions currently tagged acceptability take this form; my argument there would be that the tag be removed from many of those questions.

Undoubtably the answer to any question about acceptability will be subjective, as people’s interpretation of “acceptability” will vary. But I’m not convinced the tag itself is subjective.

Answer 3

I agree with nohat; I might be inclined to have "acceptability" be a synonym for "grammaticality" (as that is the technical term that I see used most often), but the concept is certainly useful on its own. I am really surprised that it was simply deleted by someone who is not a daily mod of EL&U based on a question asked by a user whose account was created yesterday. There is nothing wrong with Jeff Atwood being involved with the site, and nothing wrong with a new user asking a question about a tag, but surely it would have been worth involving at least some mods and regular users in the discussion before taking action.

Answer 4

See Tag for questions about whether a language feature is acceptable/common?

I can't think of a better word to describe this sort of question. Perhaps acceptable-usage?

EDIT: hmmm. or cromulent? ;-)

Answer 5

@nohat says in a comment above:

[Acceptability] has the specific meaning of referring to whether native speakers would judge a particular usage to be grammatical in a narrow band of formality levels.

I submit that there are different standards for different native speakers, and that what said speakers "would judge" is something other speakers may only guess at, not really know with certainty. Moreover, without further definition, "a narrow band of formality levels" still leaves the door wide open for generalization.

I offer this as a way to begin my own assertion that virtually every answer on ESO involves some judgment of acceptability, and ultimately remains someone's opinion. Even answers larded with citations often cherry-pick sources that support the author's opinions. With some exceptions, there are few responses that could pass for scholarship of any kind.

In that sense, an acceptability tag is superfluous.

Note that in the above sentence I might have said "For me, an acceptability tag is superfluous," or "In my opinion, an acceptability tag is superfluous," or "To my way of thinking, ..." and so on. The point is, when I make a statement it is obviously my opinion, so adding the qualifier is superfluous. The only reason I would do it would be to stress my own fallibility and add a respectful tone. In fact, I add those qualifiers all the time. But where tagging is concerned, we really need no such qualifiers, since tags are not the same as statements made in conversation.

Just my two cents. :)

Answer 6

This is a meta tag, and I have removed it.

Beware, you have two questions now tagged untagged.