-1

When searching for questions/answers about some hardware-specific topics, would it not be useful to introduce tags for chipset vendors and models/model_families?

Like MediaTek, RockChip, RK3066, MT6582, etc.

Even GPU tags like Mali400, Vivante, etc would (imo) help.

I am not advocating Vendor tags like LG, Motorola, etc.

I think, when used correctly (and frequently corrected by knowledgeable users, if used inappropriately) chipset tags could be very useful.

Specific example: I recently acquired a cheap DualSIM Doogee Voyager2 DG310. Using that name, hardly any information can be found. Using the specific chipset name mt6582, many more relevant posts can be found, and information can be collated much easier.

I see as an added bonus the fact, that people can then better curate their list of preferred/filtered tags.

  • I personally do not find merit in your question, perhaps because there are not examples for the upper half and your specific one is not specific enough. If you were looking for device specific things, why would you go for a chipset tag which would be having all kind of models with different Android versions, may be even tweaked to certain frequencies and whatnot? What were you thinking of achieving here specifically if a chipset tag had existed? Let's say the community agrees for the tag: give us a solid example question, a wiki excerpt and full wiki and justify the tag's need... – Firelord Oct 19 '15 at 17:46
4

I wouldn't say "nothing relevant in common" as Matthew put it (especially with MTK, which has its specifics). But what I agree with: This site is for end-users, and the majority of end-users probably has no clue whether their device features a mt6582 or rk3066 chip – and if they do, they can specify such in the question's text. A tag is not very useful if ignored by the majority even if it would fit – so I agree with Matthew we don't want/need those on an end-user site (it would look different if we were a techie-centric site, sure).

  • Well, if this SE site is "just for end-user questions", I am wrong here. I started getting this impression too, when @MatthewRead removed most of the technical details from one of my questions, although was the first googleable-webpage regrouping the info I had to scrape together from several places. I consider "nothing relevant in common" factually wrong. And actually, with all the very technical posts here, most are not end-user-friendly. I also think this is the "wrong" mission, and technical questions are always good, just give end-users ways to filter complex topics, hence chipset tags – Alex Stragies Oct 19 '15 at 6:37
  • @AlexStragies, I didn't state "power users" and "technical challenging questions" are not welcome here (after all, we need people who can solve complicated issues as well). It's just not the majority and not exactly the "main focus" of this site. And tags not used are rather useless (the system would even auto-clean them). What I agree to is "nothing relevant in common" being "factually wrong" – which is why I stated these details should be included "in the question's text", as they are definitely helpful especially with less-known devices :) – Izzy Oct 19 '15 at 8:45
3

What is the actual use in grouping phones by chipset? This site is for end-users, there is going to be virtually nothing relevant in common between two phones from different manufacturers than both happen to include MediaTek chips.

You must log in to answer this question.

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