Apparently there's a tag .

My personal tagging choice has been + . I think this covers graph algorithms pretty well.

Do we need/want a dedicated tag ? If not, can we keep it as a synonym in some way?

  • $\begingroup$ Follow-up question: if we keep graph-algorithms, revisit the question if we need graphs. $\endgroup$
    – Raphael
    Commented Aug 19, 2015 at 12:23
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Regarding graphs, please add links to relevant old meta discussions when reopening a discussed topic: 1, 2. $\endgroup$
    – Kaveh
    Commented Aug 19, 2015 at 23:17

1 Answer 1


Not that this really adds a lot, but it at least gives a place for people to vote in favour of discarding and using + .

My perspective is that this is the more flexible route. We need a tag for algorithms (of course), and a tag for things-to-do-with-graphs (side note, I still think it's productive to have separate and tags, in reference to Kaveh's comment), so is simply adding a superfluous tag that may make searching harder; someone looking for a graph algorithm has two fairly natural routes via tags using + , and could possibly split the group of questions that should be found together.

Anyway, the votes for this answer can help decide.

  • $\begingroup$ Note to self: if/when we implement this, revisit search-algorithms (cf here). $\endgroup$
    – Raphael
    Commented Sep 9, 2015 at 10:25

You must log in to answer this question.

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