This is a bit related to the question about prefixing tag names for equipment with manufacturer's name.

For example, currently we have such tags: , , , and many more, already for this single manufacturer.

Should using the manufacturer name as prefix in tags be our best practice? Or should we better omit the manufacturer if the tag is expressive enough without it?


If this practice of prefixing with the manufacurer name would continue, we might soon have hundreds of tags starting with cisco, since there are a lot of technologies and model series of this manufacturer. Staying with this example:

  • Adding a tag would look very redundant.
  • Not adding the tag would make searching for cisco harder - I would combine searches with a manufacturer tag, when I prefer its technology, not test out all possibly prefixed tags.

So I suggest, we should rename those tags, at least don't create more such prefixed tags

  • A series or a technology is often expressive enough, perhaps proprietary or even trademarked, so there could be no confusion.
  • Even a tag which could be related to different manufactured would not be harmful but good, since more tech related and not bound to a manufacturer.
  • We could add the (then) not redundant manufacturer tag to such questions, which is great for filtering.

To clarify, I mean questions about general topics, such as technology and series. A number-only tag such as 2812 or 5520 isn't nice either and might benefit from the prefix. However, this leads to the question if model numbers are beneficial as tags, or more specifically if closely model related questions would be on topic at all.

I don't mean immediate action on existing questions. Just to discuss how to proceed, as early as possible.

  • 1
    A bit stretched: I don't tell my colleagues: "Hey, I installed the Cisco ASDM on our Cisco ASA, so you can configure Cisco AnyConnect settings now." And this wouldn't be my desired working with tags. If it would stay, I guess in a year I would post a screenhot here of a cisco tag cloud. ;-)
    – Stefan
    May 16 '13 at 8:42

Having the MANUFAC- prefix on tags has benefits:

is clear and meaningful stand-alone. It also provides some context to alphabet soup; hints at cisco hardware while 'isr-g2' is all-or-nothing based on wether the reader knows what the acronym means.

...and I don't see any real drawbacks:

There's no critical tag string length limit. Tagging stuff and enables people to follow the cisco universe or just ASA stuff. Ditto for the universe. Also, looking at the current popular tags listing, it's not a sea of "cisco-".

aside: I do agree that we don't want more tags than we need. So I think it should be sans the '-1000v' model information; Same with -- details about model series and specific model numbers can always be found within individual questions and answers.


I thought that earlier thread concluded that we liked the prefix to avoid collisions between vendors but that we didn't want to go to the level of tags for specific models.

I get that it looks redundant in some cases but as soon as we go to instead of we'll get someone with a BYOD question about iPads. I do agree that the is probably sufficient and the extra "-g2" isn't needed. So someone go make a tag and make a synonym for it.

When tagging questions you can start typing and it will match in mid-tag so it's not like you have to type "cisco-asa", just type "asa" and it will find it for you. The "cisco-" also keeps also the Cisco specific topics conveniently together in the alphabetic tag list and allows folks to follow on as Craig mentioned.

I see more benefits and given the tag synonym feature, which I think will let us have "redundant" tags without cluttering things too badly, I'm really concerned about tag proliferation.

  • Extraordinary cases, such as ios being a brand name in different branches, could be fixed using the prefix for the less relevant subject, such as [apple-ios]. Also I was glad to see mid-tag-matching. I'm just worried about seeing a hundred identical prefixes.
    – Stefan
    May 21 '13 at 20:03
  • Why Cisco lost their lawsuit against Apple who stole the IOS trademark, I'll never know. Now we have confusion in the marketplace, but certainly this isn't the first time TLAs collided, so it's a weak argument to have lengthy tags with multiple keywords just to avoid confusion. May 22 '13 at 22:02

You must log in to answer this question.

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