I maintain the Robotics Toolbox for MATLAB, and although I have my own support forum (tiny.cc/rvcforum) I've noticed quite a few support questions on SE which are hard for me to find. A new tag might help that, but there is a complication because there are two robotics toolboxes for MATLAB, mine, and the MathWorks.

So maybe the tag would be clearer as "corkeroboticstoolbox".

Disambiguiting the two toolboxes might be a useful community wiki post but (a) I don't actually know how to see those, (b) not sure I have the superpower to create one.

Status completed

The and tags have been created.


Tags are created on use, but new members of Robotics often don't have the 150 reputation currently required to create new tags, so rely on on those of us with the privilege to add appropriate tags to questions, either as suggested edits, or direct edits (with Edit questions and answers privilege, currently at 1000 reputation).

From a few quick searches, it looks like it would be a good idea to use tags to separate out the two libraries and avoid confusion. As such, as a domain expert, I would be happy for your to review likely questions and add tags as appropriate.

There are currently 126 questions tagged with the tag, and doing a search for corke currently pulls up 26 questions, not all of which are tagged with the tag. Meanwhile matlab toolbox shows 79 results, matlab toolbox corke finds 7 and the robotics-library tag also shows 7.

At the moment, if you start typing matlab in the Tags textbox, only gets suggested, so I would suggest adding matlab- to the start of both toolbox tags. I don't think we need robotic in there as our site is Robotics. Obviously toolbox needs to be in there, as does something to differentiate your toolbox from the the mathworks one. I think corke is fine for question about your toolbox, but I'm not sure about the other.

My suggestions would be and either , or .

If you can add these tags to existing questions, I would be happy to Approve tag wiki edits (currently 1500 reputation) on your suggestions, though it probably won't be long before you hit that reputation anyway. *8')

It would also be worth adding a mention of the other toolbox to both tag wikis so that you can't read the description of one without seeing a mention of the other. This is especially important if we go for and as we don't want people accidentally selecting one tag when then intended to select other.

Note that once we have differentiated tags, we can always add synonyms like and later.

One final point that is worth mentioning are the suggestions on What kind of behavior is expected of users? and How not to be a spammer.

You should disclose your affiliation in your answers, so now might be a good time to edit your answers to mention you are the developer of the software.

As it is in your interest and the sites to have well tagged questions, I'm glad that you brought this up, I'm happy to let you know that you already have the ability to fix most of this yourself (the question tags), and I'll happily support you with few bits you can't fix without help (the tag wiki edits).

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Thanks @MarkBooth, I'll do this over coming days. I think I like matlab-system-toolbox for the MathWorks developed one. 1500 points is a bit of a way off actually, if you grant that right I'll have a first go at descriptions for both, with cross referencing as you suggest. As for affiliation, my developer status is already mentioned on my profile, but are you suggesting I put a signature on each answer I give related to the Toolbox? $\endgroup$ Jul 29 '19 at 3:49
  • $\begingroup$ Mark, there are a ton of official Matlab toolboxes, so I think it's important to include the robotics word in the tag to differentiate the Robotics System Toolbox from the other toolboxes (see especially under "Application Products or Ctrl+F "toolbox" and scroll around). There are other robotics-friendly toolboxes that aren't the Robotics System toolbox exactly (signal processing, control system, data acquisition, sensor fusion, etc.). $\endgroup$
    – Chuck
    Jul 29 '19 at 12:09
  • $\begingroup$ So, to differentiate the Robotics toolbox(es) from the other toolbox, I think we should include the Robotics in the name. The naming is so similar (Robotics Toolbox vs Robotics System Toolbox) that I would vote for something like matlab-robotics-toolbox-corke and matlab-robotics-toolbox-mathworks. They're long tags, but the tag limit is 35 characters, so it should be doable. I personally have to Google the name every time to be sure which toolbox is being referenced because I can never keep it straight. $\endgroup$
    – Chuck
    Jul 29 '19 at 12:20
  • $\begingroup$ Then I'd vote for the synonyms to be robotics-toolbox-corke and robotics-toolbox-mathworks and then finally the official names, robotics-toolbox and robotics-system-toolbox. $\endgroup$
    – Chuck
    Jul 29 '19 at 12:23
  • $\begingroup$ Finally, @PeterCorke - Yes, I think something like a signature or brief introduction is what Mark is talking about. The iRobot employees (Steve and Ben) will generally do the same when they leave answers regarding questions about iRobot devices (Create/Create2, Roomba, etc.). You're a robotics legend and so I think a lot of users may not realize it's actually you answering the question about your software. $\endgroup$
    – Chuck
    Jul 29 '19 at 12:34
  • $\begingroup$ Good ideas @Chuck, I concur with your suggestions. I haven't really used matlab much, so this is outside of my sphere of expertise. $\endgroup$
    – Mark Booth Mod
    Jul 29 '19 at 19:44
  • $\begingroup$ Given that I've been here 6 years a 9 months and only have 3k5 rep, and you've accumulated 1k1 rep in 10 months, I don't think it will be too long @PeterCorke especially if this works and questions relevant to you become more visible to you. *8') As Chuck says, a couple of lines of boiler plate mentioning you are the developer is all you need to add to answers. Thanks for putting the time in on this. $\endgroup$
    – Mark Booth Mod
    Jul 29 '19 at 19:49
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for putting in the 6.75 years! I think we have a plan. $\endgroup$ Jul 29 '19 at 19:51

You must log in to answer this question.

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