MOD POST: Tags!

[zarhooie]

Hey omnomnomers! This is your friendly mod, zarhooie here with an update on how to tag your entries.



As mentioned previously, tagging is pretty important for a community like this one. The general tagging rules are pretty simple. As they currently stand, the tagging rules (from this post):

3- Tags! As of *right now,* please tag things however you see fit. If that involves listing every ingredient, that's ok. If you just want to slap a "vegan, gluten-free" label on there, that's ok too. The two things I ask: Please tag with the type of meal (main dish, appetizer, snack, dessert) and the approximate prep time, rounded to the nearest 15th minute (15 minutes, 26 hours). Past those two things, I'd encourage you to list gluten-free, vegetarian/vegan, nut-free, type of meat and temperature served (cold, hot, warm). Those aren't required.

damned_colonial and I discussed the time thing and we think that it might be more useful if things were rounded to the nearest half hour rather than the nearest 15 minutes. Or maybe it would be more helpful if quick recipes were labeled "quick" and the not-quick recipes were labeled "not quick"? I'm not sure so I'd like to put it to a vote. Poll. Thing. In addition, I'd like to see if an "easy" tag would be helpful.

Poll #116

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 62

View Respondents

Time estimate tags should be in...

View Answers

...15 minute intervals (current)
40 (70.2%)

...30 minute intervals (proposed)
17 (29.8%)

The "quick"/"not-quick" tag...

View Answers

...is a good idea and should replace time estimate tags
8 (13.6%)

...is a good idea and should be used with time estimate tags
40 (67.8%)

...is a stupid idea and should be burned
7 (11.9%)

...is something else that I shall describe in comments
4 (6.8%)

An "easy" tag would be...

View Answers

...really helpful!
50 (84.7%)

...really not-helpful!
9 (15.3%)

The tag and/or tag set that I'd find most useful on omnomnom would be...

View Answers

THIS. IS.

View Answers

TICKY BOX.
52 (100.0%)

Thanks guys!

Kat
Community Admin

Comments

[arboretum]

I think under an hour I would be interested in the difference between 15 and 30 minutes, but if I'm already spending over an hour on the thing, I probably don't care about details like that...

there is no such option!!! XD

also, I don't feel strongly about the quick/not-quick or easy tags, but I would probably use them if they were implemented!

[cheyinka]

For me the ideal would go :15, :30, :45, 1:00, 1:30, 2:00, 3:00, more than 3 hours, because like you said, arboretum, for me there's a difference in the 15-minute increments under an hour, but beyond that, I'm already spending a good chunk of time on whatever omnommery is involved.

I've also been reading time as "total time from walking into the kitchen to sitting down with a plate or bowl", though.

[arboretum]

yes, that is precisely how I would have divided it up if I had been more articulate :D :D

[celtic_maenad]

Ooh, that's an excellent breakdown! I third this suggestion!

[matgb]

I agree—if I want to make a steam pudding, it'll take me ten minutes including microwave time, but if I want to bake bread we're talking several hours and a good book as well.

Quick snack, doable in the lunch hour, doable in a couple hours, takes half a day is pretty much what I need to know.

[stultiloquentia]

Quick clarification of "prep time": do you mean prep time or prep + baking time? For eg., should I file my muffins under (figuring rounding up is better than rounding down) "15 min" or "45 min"?

[zarhooie]

...that's a good question. Do what you think is best!

[rainbow]

I usually go by prep time and then note the additional baking time in the recipe.

[distractionary]

... honestly I think I would probably end up tagging with both.

[cleverthylacine]

...I am not sure I trust anyone else to define "quick" or "easy" in the same way I do. What my stepmum considers quick and easy is insanely complex to me, and what I consider quick and easy is beyond the capability of my mother?

IDK. For me quick is whether or not I can get it together while waiting for someone to finish their RP tag, for other people quick is less than 2 hours?

[florahart]

I'd go with more like
15 m
30 m
45 m
1 hour
1.5 hr
2 hr
3 hr
>3 hr

I don't think quick would be that helpful if there are timestamps, and what constitutes not quick to me might not to someone else (or might not on a Saturday versus a Wednesday or whatever)

I think a tag that indicates something about like, number of dishes involved (not specifically, but like, one dish versus bowl and pan versus you're going to need 6 small bowls, a double boiler, and a large and small pan). I don't know what to call those.

I think easy and not easy is hard for experienced cooks versus novices to agree on. I mean, I think (I hope) we all think cinnamon toast, the kind where you sprinkle cinnamon sugar on buttered toast, is very easy, but we might not agree on what constitutes easy once we get to, say, quick breads. It might make more sense to institute a set of "levels" tags that all start with the word level so it's easy to find them, and have them be, say, level: top ramen; level: kraft mac n cheese; level: lasagna; level: manicotti; level: ravioli from scratch. I mean, something that goes all along one sort of spectrum--noodles is the first thing that came to mind, but it could as easily be some other continuum.

Or not.

As in anything, I promise to remain unoffended if suggestions are unuseful.

[arboretum]

re: it being hard for novices vs experienced cooks to agree on easy vs not easy, that's a really good point!

I think levels is a possible solution, but then in that case I think it'd be helpful if we could find some way of defining the levels that didn't require you to know actually how hard it was to make manicotti -- for instance, I don't even know what manicotti is kfjgljfgj. /o\ But possibly everyone else does. I was in college before I knew what brussels sprouts actually looked like, though, so I am probably an odd case. (I always thought they were a synonym for broccoli kfjgkdjfgdfg.)

[rainbow]

I prefer 15 minute intervals. I have energy issues, and anything over 15 minutes of prep time is "too long" for me. YMMV.

And that relates to quick/not quick. For me, less than 5 minutes is quick. For someone who can get around more easily, 20 minutes might be quick.

And easy is another issue. For me throwing together a daube, making stock, making hummus, making roux, etc., are mindless and easy. I don't think they would be to someone who's a beginning cooker -- but I don't *know*. Everyone's idea of easy varies.

Tags!!

[beet]

I am very excited at the thought of tag organizing the recipes!

I'd prefer a "quick" or "fast" tag--and no need for an opposite one, imo. If it is not tagged "quick" or "fast" then it is not one of those.

The time ratings seem like they could get confusing where you have things that might need to marinate or sit, etc. So, while technically they might take 6 hours to prepare, they actually take a half hour to cook. And in any case, when I am worried about time, I only care if it is fast or not. Not whether it takes 45 mins vs 1.5 hrs.

I'd also be up for a "fancy" or tag that would indicate impressive dishes with which to wow your friends and mother-in-law.

Re: Tags!!

[zarhooie]

Like http://omnomnom.dreamwidth.org/2950.html#comments

Re: Tags!!

[beet]

LOL! Yes!

Although, I'm not sure if (for me) this would be "impress your friends" or "terrify your friends" this sounds so tasty! I might have to work up the nerve to set my kitchen on fire!

Re: Tags!!

[boosette]

(I love your username. Especially roasted with crumbled gorgonzola and rosemary.)

Re: Tags!!

[beet]

Mmmmm! Beets are *so* good! And what is it about rosemary that makes things leap to life?

Hilariously, I was not actually thinking of the food when I chose this name. It emerged as a nickname from my previous username, Betrue-->Bt.

[highlander_ii]

I like the 15 minute intervals.

'quick/not quick' is probably a little too subjective

'levels' might work out nicely. Possibly following similarly to what FoodNetwork.com uses? I know they use 'easy' / 'intermediate' / 'advanced' - but I'm not entirely sure what their criteria are.

[cheyinka]

I commented above about time, but I like the idea of an "easy" tag - not with a "medium" or "hard" one, just the "easy" one - because even if my idea of easy is not your idea of easy, if I'm not feeling terribly adventurous I can look at only the easy recipes.

I also think it might be useful to have a "no strange utensils" tag, though I don't think that's what it should be called, and I don't know what should qualify. :)

[zarhooie]

I can see having a "special equipment" tag, but then we'd need to clarify what counts as special equipment. In my kitchen, a spaetzel press and a wire egg slicer are standard. In your kitchen, they probably aren't.

This is a good idea though; I'd like to think it over a bit before I put it to the community at large.

[sarisia]

Maybe there could be a standardized header? Like:

[Title of Recipe]
Time: [estimate to nearest increment]
Feeds: [number of people]
Special equipment: [identified at the author's discretion]

[zarhooie]

Hmm... That's not a bad idea.

[damned_colonial]

Wait! Wait! That's not what I meant! What I meant was, it's useful to know if something is "quick" (<= 30 mins) or not, but that other time things are not so useful. So it seemed to me as if having a "30 minutes" tag for "can be done within this time" would be useful, but that all other time tags are less useful. Which I guess is the same as saying that there should be a "quick" tag, where "quick" is defined as "30 minutes or less".

[zarhooie]

Oh. Oops. :-/ Maybe you should have done this after all.

I'm thinking a re-poll next week wouldn't be a bad idea, incorporating some other stuff that I want to talk to you about.

[phoenixsong]

"Quick" and "easy" really are relative terms, and trying to objectively determine that seems like opening a couple cans of worms.

If we're already using time increments to tag recipes, I think "quick" and/or "easy" also become redundant or superfluous. Not that I consider this a particularly "advanced" cooking community, but if someone is beyond the boilingwater stage, I think they can probably determine for themselves if a recipe really is "quick" or "easy" based on reading the recipe for themselves.

tl;dr: I'm a picky tagger.

[sarisia]

Time estimates: I think the 15 minute intervals are good, up to a certain point. Maybe around 2 hours. Then, 30 minute increments. This might be me just being picky, but I think past 2 hours and... really if that much time is going to be dedicated to cooking and clean-up anyways, another fifteen minutes here or there won't make too much of a difference.

And rounding up, of course, is always preferable to rounding to the nearest increment since it's always nice to have extra time instead of less.

As for the "quick"/"not-quick" tag.... Well, personally, I feel it's going to be a pointless tag if we're going to be using time estimates. And in the interests of accuracy as well as the potential for having lots and lots of posts, a "quick" tag could become rather packed with recipes. I think people usually know how much time they have available and how much they're willing to dedicate to a particular meal and will be able to use the time estimates appropriately.

Besides that, "quick" to one person may be different than it would be to another. I don't want recipes for 1hr cook times mixing in with my 5-10 minute meals.


....and I really should revise my vote on the "easy" tag. I said "really helpful" but now I'm thinking "not helpful" for the same reasons as I think the "quick" tag wouldn't be helpful. (Different definitions for the same word. Like "frequently". Numbers are always more accurate than words.)


Also, in the interests of making the tags easier to use, I might suggest-
This: "ingredient: pasta"
Instead of: "pasta"

This: "holiday: easter"
Instead of: "easter"

This: "time: 1 hour"
Instead of: "1 hour"

That way, all the time estimates would be under a time estimates column, all the ingredients would be listed together, etc. And when a searcher goes to the tags list, they'll get something like what can be seen on my tags page.

That would leave some extras out there that I wouldn't know how to categorize. Such as: lesson, feeds 5, prep, and skill. "Skill" and "lessons", for instance, can be consolidated. And "feeds 5" seems useless when any recipe can be adjusted appropriately for the amount of food each cook needs to make. Otherwise, we'd have tags for any number of people that each recipe cooked for from one to hundreds. I can only assume that the readers of Omnomnom can do basic arithmetic. And lastly, I want to get rid of the "holiday food" tag myself and specialize it to "holiday: passover" or "holiday: christmas"...

...and I think that's it.

Re: tl;dr: I'm a picky tagger.

[sarisia]

And then I realize that the first half of my comment has all been addressed by other commenters, and I'm okay with that. At least I know I'm not the only one.

Re: tl;dr: I&#39;m a picky tagger.

[zarhooie]

I'd rather have you say it again, tbh. Thanks for your thoughtful reply. (Wow, my customer service skillz are coming in handy here...)

[eleanorjane]

Late to the party, as I only just discovered this comm, but:

Could the time tags be discussed in terms of 'prep time' and 'cooking time'?

Eg I don't care if something takes six hours to cook, provided I don't have to be on my feet for more than twenty minutes - whereas other people might not care if they have to be on their feet for an hour straight, but they don't want the cooking to take any extra time because they have to have dinner on the table before 8pm - or whatever.

Maybe "Prep time: under 30 min/30-60 min/1-2hrs/2+ hrs" and "Cook time:" broken up similarly?

(frozen)

[zarhooie]

It's on the list. :)