If a user includes the following in a question:

  • attempt to provide an answer to own question;
  • code for debugging;
  • own unique view towards the problem;
  • a request to check whether her/his assumptions are correct,

is there a need for a tag, or anything similar (e.g. , )? It was a recent question I made a Flowchart for Sig Figs- Is it Correct? and several earlier requests for debugging non-working Gaussian code that made me think of this suggestion.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ There's already similar tag erratum not exactly common though $\endgroup$
    – Mithoron
    Commented Sep 29, 2017 at 14:41

2 Answers 2


It's quite a meta tag... I'm not sure whether this is a great idea.

The biggest trouble I have is that quite a few of these questions would probably be off-topic. For example, the check-my-work / amirite questions are not really well fitted for our format. Code (like actual program code) for debugging should probably better go to Stack Overflow, Code Review, or similar. Chemistry.se is not a place where we do genuine research, so peer-review is probably also not our forte. Apart from that I fail to see how this tag would add anything to the question. The same applies to questions that want to know whether the made assumptions are correct. I think in those cases the question itself would be clear enough that a tag like this is superfluous.
While I have no objection of debugging electronic structure program's inputs,[1] I fear that the level of these questions are strongly dependent on the problem at hand, especially if the asker might use a completely unfitting methodology. (I have seen too many researchgate questions about Gaussian errors, that with a thorough Google search could be resolved.) On the other hand there are legit problems, that are not yet covered. In those cases I think such a tag would be misplaced, as it essentially boils down to a methodology question.

While writing this, I'd have to conclude, that I am against such a tag.

[1] I am aware that I still have not drafted the long planned guidelines for such questions.

  • $\begingroup$ And also, have we reached a consensus on amirite yet? (Other than that nobody likes them) $\endgroup$
    – Jan
    Commented Sep 28, 2017 at 8:24
  • $\begingroup$ @Jan I think that's the current state, since we have (temporarily) abandoned to fix the homework close reason, there has not been any progress in that regard either. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 28, 2017 at 8:46

I think this, if anything, should be embodied as a newly created, dedicated chatroom, instead of as a new tag.

I have seen the horror that is the meta-tag, and I recoil aghast at the prospect of creating another.

However, the purpose-specific Spring Cleaning chatroom has served its purpose well, and leaves both the main and meta sites un-muddied. Tracking and cleaning up posts needing proofreading would be something needing only momentary tracking; once a post is dealt with, there'd be no need to follow it any longer.

(Upon rereading the original question, I may have misunderstood the point of it. Apologies if so.)

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You'd need a team of dedicated volunteers for that... $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 28, 2017 at 18:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I misread it similarly, and I'd say that people are already good about cleaning up stuff that needs to be cleaned up. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 28, 2017 at 19:41

You must log in to answer this question.

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