Error and crash tags, are they really useful?

Question

I've seen this question but I'm still not convince about the usefulness of those tags. The meta Question itself recognize that the tag could not survive alone in any question which is specifically prohibited by the tag creation page:

... tags that cannot stand alone as the only tag on a question, are not allowed.

so, why should they exist? Also, isn't more useful if the tag instead of identify the symptoms try to identify the causes?

This tag represents an abnormal state of (any) software, something that should not occur or that is not reproducible (unless it's a bug). A crash is simply a result of an error (in loose terms, a problem) and the cause/solution is relative to the technology at hand (meaning that other tags would be more relevant). Error represents another problem... either cause by the user or the program itself but it's more relevant to tag the question with the piece of software causing the error rather than just informing that I had an error.

To put it in simple terms, let consider the following:

• My app crash each time I startup.
• My kernel crash each time I startup.
• My boot crash each time I startup.
• My apache crash each time I startup.
• My ruby application crash each time I startup.
• My php crash each time I execute X script.

Now lets say:

• My app throws error each time I startup.
• My kernel throws error each time I startup.
• My boot throws error each time I startup.
• My apache throws error each time I startup.
• My ruby application throws error each time I startup.
• My php throws error of syntax each time I execute X script.

Each permutation tells that it vaguely describe the problem but I could already find that in the question body/title itself.

BTW, most of SE sites are trying to get rid of those tags:

• Ask Ubuntu (both crash and error)
• Super User (got rid of a similar tag)
• Stack Overflow (error)

Answer 1

Since no one has answered and others have also upvoted, I may as well post an answer.

So, no, I don't think these tags are in any way useful, they don't impart any information and seem to add complexity rather than clarity. So, let's burninate them!

---

Update 2016-06-10

The error tag has now been blacklisted:

Answer 2

I've seen your question but I'm still not convinced by the uselessness of crash. Ok, maybe it should be renamed investigating-a-crash. The tag means “this question is about investigating a crash”. It has a clear meaning, so it isn't a meta-tag. It's useful in a search: “Apache crashes” isn't the same problem as “Apache isn't doing what I want it to do”.

I do agree that error is too unspecific and should be burninated. Unlike crashes, errors are pervasive, and they're ambiguously defined (what messages count as errors as opposed to normal diagnostics?). Before burninating we should review the uses, as some questions should be tagged error-handling or return-status or perhaps others.

Answer 3

I came across this question after I noticed that error did not have a tag description, and after viewing some posts that it might be a good candidate for burnination.

I added a description to error, so it is less likely to be used again, burned ~285 tags changed ~15 into error-handling, return-status, stderr and some others (for the two questions with only the error)

From the original 303 posts with error there are now two left that are merges and that I cannot edit. That also solves the problem of how to keep the tag from disappearing (with its description) and then being recreated without its current excerpt:

THIS IS NOT THE TAG YOU ARE LOOKING FOR. The tag [error] is so generic that it has no value in identifying questions. Please don't use this tag. You might be looking for [error-handling] or [return-status], otherwise tag with the name of the program or the action that caused an error condition or error message.