The pragmatic answer is that these overly-broad tags will tend to be overused (and used inconsistently), so we should probably do without them entirely. 

The problem with overly broad tags is that, in finding them, the author doesn't feel compelled to drill down into what the question is actually about, so you end up with a site where most of the questions are tagged in **only the most superficial sense.**

> [tag:book] [tag:question] [tag:american] [tag:novel] &larr; <sub>a minor exageration, but we've actually seen this</sub>

### The Counter-Argument Considered

Over the long haul, we might (just might) accumulate the *tiniest* sliver of question about the actual *subject* of "Russian literature" (as a collective whole). But what is way more likely to happen is folks will label every question that happens to have a Russian author as "Russian literature" and be done with it. That's not a useful way to attract a very targeted search into your site. 

<sub><sup>*</sup> Russian literature is just an example.</sub>

### But I'm only interested in Russian literature

I can appreciate that folks have various areas of interest; it's just not a great way to divvy up a site. I might only be interested in the classics (for example); someone else in satire; someone else will want to see only non-fiction. We had a site where proponents insisted that questions agreeable to vegetarians be labeled as such. It didn't work. 

We already allow for questions grouped by title and author. Beyond that, you simply have too many axes to divvy up content before you run out of tags (and make tagging itself too onerous)&hellip;

&hellip;so I suggest **avoiding this class of *"coincidental tags"*** and sticking to tags where the [subject of {x}] is directly addressed in the question.