Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Post History

50%
+0 −0
Q&A How to tag distinct options/entities without giving any an implicit priority or suggested order?

Full names and arbitrary names are good solutions to the question you asked. To address the question behind the one you asked -- the implicit "superiority" in ordering -- write examples that don't ...

posted 5y ago by Monica Cellio‭  ·  edited 5y ago by System‭

Answer
#4: Post edited by user avatar Monica Cellio‭ · 2019-12-09T23:26:03Z (almost 5 years ago)
  • [Full names](https://writing.stackexchange.com/a/42806/1993) and [arbitrary names](https://writing.stackexchange.com/a/42809/1993) are good solutions to the question you asked. To address the question _behind_ the one you asked -- the implicit "superiority" in ordering -- write examples that _don't start with the first unit_. For example, I might describe a database with nodes A, B, and C, and then talk through an example where _B_ acts as the initiator in processing a query. Who says it has to be A? The names are arbitrary, after all, so don't start all your examples with the first name in your ordered set. (For that matter, why not have nodes K, L, and M?) If you have users Alice and Bob and Carol and Dan, try having Dan or Carol be the first ones to act in a scenario.
  • There is value in having sequential names in some kinds of diagrams and examples, like that database cluster (where there might be way more than three nodes). Don't make your documentation _less_ usable by talking about nodes 12, 37, 42, and 139 instead of 1-4 or A-D. But you don't always need meaningful names and you don't always need to match "first in the sequence" with "first in the example or sequence of actions".
  • [Full names](https://writing.stackexchange.com/a/42806/1993) and [arbitrary names](https://writing.stackexchange.com/a/42809/1993) are good solutions to the question you asked. To address the question _behind_ the one you asked -- the implicit "superiority" in ordering -- write examples that _don't start with the first unit_. For example, I might describe a database with nodes A, B, and C, and then talk through an example where _B_ acts as the initiator in processing a query. Who says it has to be A? The names are arbitrary, after all, so don't start all your examples with the first name in your ordered set. (For that matter, why not have nodes K, L, and M?) If you have users Alice and Bob and Carol and Dan, try having Dan or Carol be the first ones to act in a scenario.
  • There is value in having sequential names in some kinds of diagrams and examples, like that database cluster (where there might be way more than three nodes). Don't make your documentation _less_ usable by talking about nodes 12, 37, 42, and 139 instead of 1-4 or A-D. But you don't always need meaningful names and you don't always need to match "first in the sequence" with "first in the example or sequence of actions".
  • Another approach is to use words based on *function*. For example, a tax form I fill out every year has places to list two names (for joint returns), "filer" and "spouse". In the database documentation that I work on, we sometimes refer to the "initiator node" -- which could be any node in the cluster, but in the context of a particular operation, it's the one "driving" the operation.
#3: Attribution notice added by user avatar System‭ · 2019-12-08T11:05:30Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/42825
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision by (deleted user) · 2019-12-08T11:05:30Z (almost 5 years ago)
[Full names](https://writing.stackexchange.com/a/42806/1993) and [arbitrary names](https://writing.stackexchange.com/a/42809/1993) are good solutions to the question you asked. To address the question _behind_ the one you asked -- the implicit "superiority" in ordering -- write examples that _don't start with the first unit_. For example, I might describe a database with nodes A, B, and C, and then talk through an example where _B_ acts as the initiator in processing a query. Who says it has to be A? The names are arbitrary, after all, so don't start all your examples with the first name in your ordered set. (For that matter, why not have nodes K, L, and M?) If you have users Alice and Bob and Carol and Dan, try having Dan or Carol be the first ones to act in a scenario.

There is value in having sequential names in some kinds of diagrams and examples, like that database cluster (where there might be way more than three nodes). Don't make your documentation _less_ usable by talking about nodes 12, 37, 42, and 139 instead of 1-4 or A-D. But you don't always need meaningful names and you don't always need to match "first in the sequence" with "first in the example or sequence of actions".

#1: Imported from external source by user avatar System‭ · 2019-03-01T19:14:17Z (over 5 years ago)
Original score: 5