If anything, my personal preference would be to actually reduce the number of tags. I feel that if something can't be categorized within 3 tags, then there isn't enough clarity in the question. So, in my opinion, 5 is already a little too much, and 10 is simply excessive.

@JasonBassford This will never do for science-based SE sites. Sciences use such specific wordings, because they need to do so in explaining and describing things in detail. Have you seen the titles of most scientific papers? They are extremely long, filled with scientific wording. I believe it would make sense to raise the tag limit.

@SonictheStay-HomeHedgehog No, because I already read that and I thought there was a lot of important arguments that had not been discussed, such as the one I posted above now. In sciences, it is absolutely essential to use descriptors that amount to more than just five when identifying or categorizing things.

@LukasExemplar Anything more than 5, and tags become meaningless. Tags are meant to narrow the focus of searches, not simply have you list every word or possible relationship to the subject of your question.

There isn't a keratin tag. If you created one, there would then only be one follower, you. There are many tags now that only have single-digit followers because they are so seldom used and quite niche. The extra people who would have your tagged post turn-up in their feed depends on them following it in the first place, there would be no advantage in it's creation if there would be few followers.

@Bitterdreggs. That was a hypothetical. I did not say there is literally a keratin tag. On a biology or science-related site, however, you would see so many specific tags, many of which would most definitely be followed.

Do you have a few examples of questions that you feel required access to more than 5 tags?

@Spevacus Yes. If I have a question on the worldbuilding site talking about the evolutionary steps leading to single-colour, metallic iridescence in chitinous exoskeletons, I'd like to use these tags: evolution, skeleton, bone, iridescence (though there is not one, so I might not), biochemistry, chemistry, science-based, hard-science. And that's it.

Or endoskeletons too, for instance if a species evolved horns and I wanted them to shine golden.

@LukasExemplar In that example, biochemistry, chemistry, science-based, and hard-science can all be conflated simply to chemistry. There is no reason to have 4 different tags when one will do. Also, having both skeleton and bone is superfluous. Assuming both tags have considerable use, pick one. (But I suspect if both do have considerable use, one is already set as being equivalent to the other—adding both will not make any difference to a search, which will look for the general taxonomy anyway.)

I was more hoping for already existing questions that you felt would benefit from this change, but I'll take that as an example on its own. Do you not feel that "evolution," "skeleton," "hard science," and "biochemistry" handle that question? The others seem fringe if not unrelated. "Biochemistry" and "chemistry" seem to be almost synonymous with the former obviously being more specific and relevant in this case. "Skeleton" implies "bone," and "hard science" doesn't seem very necessary. "Science-based" is already implied by "hard science."

@LukasExemplar Searches also already do look at words in the body of questions and answer. You can search on any of those words, and have the question come up. Just because it's not in a focused tag does not mean it won't be found.

@JasonBassford Ok. What about this: I want to ask in a biology site about how the light is manipulated in the exoskeleton of chrysina resplendens? Then I want to tag it with: iridescence, polarization, light, chitin, nano-structures, exoskeleton, entomology.

@Spevacus On the worldbuilding site that we already have, "hard-science" is very necessary in such a question as that tag is meant for answers giving concrete evidence such as graphs or images explaining how, for instance, a certain mechanism even works.

@LukasExemplar What possible reason can you have for all of those tags? What purpose will it serve? What will fail to function if you can't use all of them? I should note that Worldbuilding and other science sites have existed for years without any kind of a problem related to a lack of tags.

@JasonBassford I am a strong follower of the act of categorization, as it helps people in the future tremendously when researching. I use them myself extensively when researching scientific subjects. For instance, on Google I will often input ten or more words enclosed by quotations marks.

I agree with you. That was one of the four I recommended.

@Spevacus Yes, but there are vastly not as many people reading that tag as there are people reading the "science-based" one, and one of the rules of thumbs on the site is to always include more tags than the "hard-science" one. It should never stand alone. I would remove "chemistry" though. But maybe not. Because people reading "biochemistry" tag might think "Hey, that's not how it usually is on Earth, so I don't think it's possible." So even if it is possible their answer could end up being wrong.

@LukasExemplar "For instance, on Google I will often input ten or more words enclosed by quotations marks." And you can still do the same thing here, effectively. Google doesn't search for tags, it searches for words in bodies of text. Which is what you can do here too. Even if we had no tags at all, you could still search for and find the questions and answers in the database.

@JasonBassford Does SE allow for searching with quotation marks, in case I want a very specific term, such as "Grammy Award for Best Engineered Album"? EDIT: Nevermind, I just figured it out myself :D

@LukasExemplar Yes, it does. You put exact phrases inside quotation marks. You can review the search help for all of the possible search syntax. Tags are not meant for searching, specifically, although you can enter them as part of a search query. They are meant to build a general taxonomy. They serve a related but different purpose than just looking for specific posts.

@JasonBassford I know. I edited my comment saying I found out right after I posted my question. Anyway, I still think we should at least raise it to 10. Also, I search with tags on these SE sites all the time using the brackets, as well as the quotations. But I do not think many others necessarily do that. EDIT: Also, this question is not a duplicate question at all. The one linked asked why the number of tags are this. I am asking whether we can change it.

I even clicked no to my question being a duplicate of the question.