My opinion: Yes, tags really need to be streamlined! However, users are not going to naturally think of the word "tech" when they're asking questions about IME, fonts, etc.
If a question is poorly tagged, there are often additional issues like poor titles, spelling and grammar errors, or it being off-topic yet not (yet) closed. So they're often best off being individually edited (gradually [maybe 3-4 at a time] so as to not flood the front page), rather than bulk retag.
Going through these tags, these are my thoughts:
multimedia is already gone (it was a buzz word back in the 90s, but I feel people use it less nowadays); there are suitable alternative tags, like audio. (I recall editing these questions yesterday maybe.) Done.
ocr is also already gone. Done.
online (5 Qs) should be edited away: it's too vague. Done. The questions are:
- Are there online resourses that automatically translates English to classical Chinese?
- What's the format of official "online" HSK tests?
- When searching in Chinese, why do things always come up in traditional characters?
- What does 'duang' mean in 'online Chinese'?
- Is There A Chinese Version of Urban Slang Dictionary?
technology (18 Qs)
also looks like an excessively vague tag: there are questions about online resources, software, hardware, and questions about Chinese words that relate to technology. It's simply too unspecific for users to use. It's clearer now:
For questions about terminology that pertains to applied sciences, as IT and software, electronics, engineering in general, medical sciences, etc. For pure science, use the [terminology] tag alone.
I'm fairly sure we don't need both input-methods and ime; maybe this would be a useful synonym. (This probably deserves an independent meta post.) Done.
technical doesn't seem too bad: it's for technical language, specific to some domain. (Although maybe we could live without it; perhaps it's a "meta tag", like advanced.) It was edited away here: What's the difference between [terminology] and [technical]? Burninate [technical]? Done.
cc-cedict is one I created anticipating asking a lot of CC-CEDICT definition questions, but they don't seem to be arising. It's probably fine to merge it into definition: since most of the questions are mine, and I don't think anyone would miss it. Done.
software, fonts, websites and ime (xor input-methods) seem reasonable to me; these are the kinds of words people will search for. (Although I wonder how many questions about e.g. software get the tag software.)
The main challenge, I feel, is maintaining them. It's not that difficult to change the tags so that they're correct momentarily, but ensuring they stay that way long-term is not easy.
In general, I encourage users to be active with retagging, editing, and curation in general: If we make a mistake, it can be quickly fixed (there's lots of eyes). If we leave the site neglected over time, it's a lot harder to fix.