3
$\begingroup$

Reviewing an edit I realized we have some duplicated tags or at least somehow redundant.

We have , and .

Some numbers:

Should we remove remove in favor of and ?
Or should we retag those 7 questions with both tags in favor of ?

Related discussion: Let’s standardise some tags

As stated in the comments of the related discussion I think that the usage of these tags should differentiate between technology and target of the technology. Here describes a technology and describes the target of a technology so it would be possible to have other technology targeting the same single cell such as metabolomics or methylation assays, or...

| |
$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

I would actually be in favor of removing . As you pointed out, by itself, isn't telling us much. It isn't enough to define a subject, it only tells us what a question is about when combined with another tag. This seems to me to fit the definition of a meta tag, a tag that can't stand alone and only qualifies other tags.

As a general rule, each tag should be able to stand alone. If it only makes sense when combined with another tag, then it isn't helpful.

So, I would suggest we completely remove the and instead use . I would also suggest creating and making a synonym of it. I think it is best to have explicit tags where possible. Having this synonym would mean that when someone tags with , the question would be tagged with instead, but you could still search for and find the relevant questions.

Then, if and when we start getting questions about other single-cell targeting technologies, we can create tags for them.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I would argue that single-cell as pointed by Devon is used for questions about peculiarities and problems associated with that kind of analysis. See for example this question that used "scATAC-seq". $\endgroup$ – llrs Feb 23 '18 at 10:01
  • $\begingroup$ @Llopis are there any issues that are specific to single cell experiments as opposed to this type of single cell experiments? Can someone be an expert in "single cell" in general? If the answer is no (I think it is no, but I don't really know much about this), then the tag isn't helpful. Think of tags as a way of directing experts to the questions they are interested in, as well as a general way of categorizing. If there really are problems shared by all single-cell approaches, then maybe the tag is useful, but if not, let's replace it with more specific ones. $\endgroup$ – terdon Feb 23 '18 at 10:06
  • $\begingroup$ I don't know much about single cell experiments just what I learned here. But I see that they have a common problems, like the large sparsity, (batch effects ?), and mechanical problems that affect the analysis. $\endgroup$ – llrs Feb 23 '18 at 10:09
  • $\begingroup$ @Llopis OK, if there really are similar enough that someone could be an expert in "single-cells", then the tag might make sense. $\endgroup$ – terdon Feb 23 '18 at 10:46
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe we can wait a little to know what problems do people have before judging. I'm sure we'll get more question in those kind of analysis $\endgroup$ – llrs Feb 23 '18 at 11:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Why not change single-cell to single-cell-sequencing then? I suspect that other sc-seq methods are going to present a lot of the same issues that scrnaseq do $\endgroup$ – heathobrien Mar 2 '18 at 15:15
1
$\begingroup$

I would propose adding to the 7 & posts. scRNA-seq is a popular enough method in its own right with peculiarities that it warrants its own tag, in my opinion.

| |
$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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