Splitting site-growth tag?

Question

I think that the site-growth tag should be split to two tags- community-growth and site-growth.

Why?

I believe that this would make it easier to sort through questions related to growth of online communities and questions about growth in general.

Questions which belong in the new tag

I have also spotted some questions tagged under site-growth which I think should belong in a tag like community-growth:

Models of Community Growth (this question talks about growth in general, not just growth of online communities)

The academic literature often proposes simple models that help us think about the behavior of a system. For instance, the Bass Diffusion Model is a famous mathematical model that captures the dynamics of new product adoption.

What are some of the most popular / widely used models of community growth that have been studied in the academic literature? I'm especially interested in simple models that capture the impact of key characteristics like the current size of the community, the size of the overall population that might be interested in the community, and the visibility of the community to the overall population.

What are the best practice for starting community groups (this questions specifically talks about face-to-face, offline community groups and would belong under community-growth) The following is a excerpt from the question, with bold added in to emphasis certain parts of the question)

I am really keen to hear about research and authoritative material that this community know about starting and sustaining real-life, face-to-face, old school community groups? It would be nice to know what practices and strategies have been shown to work or have been detrimental to community groups. I realise that there may not be much research out there so happy with community reports or association reports or blogs, opinion etc.

Answer 1

I'm new to this site, but let me make a generic observation. It might be worthwhile to split the tag (I'm not familiar enough with it to weigh in on that part). But for the resulting tags to be useful as tags, they need to be intuitive for most users. There may be a technical distinction between site growth and community growth, but unless most users are familiar with the distinction and think in those terms, usage of the tags won't comply with the definitions. It's more important that the tag terminology be what people think of and associate with the concepts than be technically correct. Otherwise, the tags won't offer a benefit and will eventually require ongoing curation and cleanup.

Also, assuming the great majority of users know the distinction, that distinction needs to be summarized in a few words, or one short sentence, in the tag description. If it takes a paragraph of explanation, it won't work as a tag. It's possible that a different choice of terms might be more readily associated with the concepts. As one data point, the proposed tags would be lost on me.