#Sometimes, but not often.

I really firmly agree with Mithrandir's post, but I wanted to extend it a bit. I won't rehash the reasons for removing these tags in general as they already do a pretty good job of it.

But I think, as I mentioned​ in a comment on their post, that there's a case to be made for certain book-specific tags.

When a work draws a lot of attention, for one reason or another, people can become pseudo-experts on that book in particular. This can happen for one of many reasons - either the book has a wide enough canon to which the idea of "broad knowledge" even applies (think LotR), or the work is typically heavily studied and/or is in some places a cultural touchstone, like The Odyssey, or The Brothers Karamazov.

These books do benefit from individual tags, for two reasons.

1. Tags for these books are more likely to directly draw in knowledgeable people.
2. These books are also most likely to be filtered by people who either don't like or aren't interested in them, and don't want to see question after question about them.

I fall into (2) for books like 1984 and Brave New World, for example.

This, I think, is a better middle ground: some book title (or series title) tags when the book has a wide canon of content or discussion, and everything else, we can just drop the tags for. It's just clutter. Trim the fat.

Sometimes, but not often.

I really firmly agree with Mithrandir's post, but I wanted to extend it a bit. I won't rehash the reasons for removing these tags in general as they already do a pretty good job of it.

But I think, as I mentioned​ in a comment on their post, that there's a case to be made for certain book-specific tags.

When a work draws a lot of attention, for one reason or another, people can become pseudo-experts on that book in particular. This can happen for one of many reasons - either the book has a wide enough canon to which the idea of "broad knowledge" even applies (think LotR), or the work is typically heavily studied and/or is in some places a cultural touchstone, like The Odyssey, or The Brothers Karamazov.

These books do benefit from individual tags, for two reasons.

1. Tags for these books are more likely to directly draw in knowledgeable people.
2. These books are also most likely to be filtered by people who either don't like or aren't interested in them, and don't want to see question after question about them.

I fall into (2) for books like 1984 and Brave New World, for example.

This, I think, is a better middle ground: some book title (or series title) tags when the book has a wide canon of content or discussion, and everything else, we can just drop the tags for. It's just clutter. Trim the fat.

#Sometimes, but not often.

I really firmly agree with Mithrandir's post, but I wanted to extend it a bit. I won't rehash the reasons for removing these tags in general as they already do a pretty good job of it.

But I think, as I mentioned​ in a comment on their post, that there's a case to be made for certain book-specific tags.

When a work draws a lot of attention, for one reason or another, people can become pseudo-experts on that book in particular. This can happen for one of many reasons - either the book has a wide enough canon for which the idea of "broad knowledge" even makes sense to talk about (think LotR), or the work is typically heavily studied and/or is in some places a cultural touchstone, like The Odyssey, or The Brothers Karamazov.

These books do benefit from individual tags, for two reasons.

1. Tags for these books are more likely to directly draw in knowledgeable people.
2. These books are also most likely to be filtered by people who either don't like or aren't interested in them, and don't want to see question after question about them.

I fall into (2) for books like 1984 and Brave New World, for example.

This, I think, is a better middle ground: some book title (or series title) tags when the book has a wide canon of content or discussion, and everything else, we can just drop the tags for. It's just clutter. Trim the fat.

#Sometimes, but not often.

I really firmly agree with Mithrandir's post, but I wanted to extend it a bit. I won't rehash the reasons for removing these tags in general as they already do a pretty good job of it.

But I think, as I mentioned​ in a comment on their post, that there's a case to be made for certain book-specific tags.

When a work draws a lot of attention, for one reason or another, people can become pseudo-experts on that book in particular. This can happen for one of many reasons - either the book has a wide enough canon to which the idea of "broad knowledge" even applies (think LotR), or the work is typically heavily studied and/or is in some places a cultural touchstone, like The Odyssey, or The Brothers Karamazov.

These books do benefit from individual tags, for two reasons.

1. Tags for these books are more likely to directly draw in knowledgeable people.
2. These books are also most likely to be filtered by people who either don't like or aren't interested in them, and don't want to see question after question about them.

I fall into (2) for books like 1984 and Brave New World, for example.

This, I think, is a better middle ground: some book title (or series title) tags when the book has a wide canon of content or discussion, and everything else, we can just drop the tags for. It's just clutter. Trim the fat.