- In the question Why do we need a separate site for EmacsWhy do we need a separate site for Emacs it was clear that one UX problem is the lack of tag and search/sort/filter/grouping capabilities that cross the existing sites. Emacs questions (like questions on many topics) are spread across SO, SU, U&L and Tex (in proportions approximately equivalent to the proportions of traffic that each of those sites receive.) There is no easy way (or at least no easy-to-find way) for Emacs experts to see all the newest or most active Emacs question across all the sites in one place without a bunch of noise from non-Emacs questions. Additionally:
- High rep users of the emacs tag on one of those sites may (or may not) have equivalent rep on any of the other sites (thus review queue rights, let alone mod rights).
- It is impossible to mark duplicates cross site. (Thus garbage accumulates).
- It is non-trivial to migrate cross-site.
- Cross posting is illegal.
- Each site has different tag wikis, different ideas about what is on and off topic, and different pages to see who the high-rep tag users are.
- chat rooms are associated with sites, so even if an "Emacs" chat room were started on SO, it is not clear that the users who accidentally find SU first would be able to find the SO Emacs chat room.
- there is a site (Area 51) to propose new break-offs of SO, but no site for SE users with similar interests to find each other (an Area minus 51, as it were.)
- In the answers to What to expect in the Emacs private betaWhat to expect in the Emacs private beta it became apparent that there is a perception that much of the closing as "off-topic" is done in the review queues by users who do not have high-rep in the tag in question. We can all tell the difference between a question that is too-broad and one that is not, but perhaps the "off-topic" close reason should be restricted to users with sufficient tag scores for some tags?
- It seems useful to me to step back and ask the question, "what is motivating people to propose new splinter sites, and then join and work to make those new splinters succeed?" (And sometimes they succeed magnificently.) Is it just that sometimes we need to expand the scope or audience of a tag or two? If so, isn't there some relatively easy fix for that problem other than starting an entire new site? I'd suggest that there's a stronger motivation than scope expansions, though. For better or worse human beings naturally like to form teams (or cliques) that come together and take pride in cooperatively building something together. I suspect that most of the activity on Area 51 is actually a pent-up demand for some kind of way of forming teams or other cooperative expert sub-communities on SO. There have been some proposals for adding some relatively small social networking capabilities (and also this) that might be a more effective way of addressing that demand.
replaced http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/ with https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/
- In the question Why do we need a separate site for Emacs it was clear that one UX problem is the lack of tag and search/sort/filter/grouping capabilities that cross the existing sites. Emacs questions (like questions on many topics) are spread across SO, SU, U&L and Tex (in proportions approximately equivalent to the proportions of traffic that each of those sites receive.) There is no easy way (or at least no easy-to-find way) for Emacs experts to see all the newest or most active Emacs question across all the sites in one place without a bunch of noise from non-Emacs questions. Additionally:
- High rep users of the emacs tag on one of those sites may (or may not) have equivalent rep on any of the other sites (thus review queue rights, let alone mod rights).
- It is impossible to mark duplicates cross site. (Thus garbage accumulates).
- It is non-trivial to migrate cross-site.
- Cross posting is illegal.
- Each site has different tag wikis, different ideas about what is on and off topic, and different pages to see who the high-rep tag users are.
- chat rooms are associated with sites, so even if an "Emacs" chat room were started on SO, it is not clear that the users who accidentally find SU first would be able to find the SO Emacs chat room.
- there is a site (Area 51) to propose new break-offs of SO, but no site for SE users with similar interests to find each other (an Area minus 51, as it were.)
- In the answers to What to expect in the Emacs private beta it became apparent that there is a perception that much of the closing as "off-topic" is done in the review queues by users who do not have high-rep in the tag in question. We can all tell the difference between a question that is too-broad and one that is not, but perhaps the "off-topic" close reason should be restricted to users with sufficient tag scores for some tags?
- It seems useful to me to step back and ask the question, "what is motivating people to propose new splinter sites, and then join and work to make those new splinters succeed?" (And sometimes they succeed magnificently.) Is it just that sometimes we need to expand the scope or audience of a tag or two? If so, isn't there some relatively easy fix for that problem other than starting an entire new site? I'd suggest that there's a stronger motivation than scope expansions, though. For better or worse human beings naturally like to form teams (or cliques) that come together and take pride in cooperatively building something together. I suspect that most of the activity on Area 51 is actually a pent-up demand for some kind of way of forming teams or other cooperative expert sub-communities on SO. There have been some proposals for adding some relatively small social networking capabilities (and also this) that might be a more effective way of addressing that demand.
- In the question Why do we need a separate site for Emacs it was clear that one UX problem is the lack of tag and search/sort/filter/grouping capabilities that cross the existing sites. Emacs questions (like questions on many topics) are spread across SO, SU, U&L and Tex (in proportions approximately equivalent to the proportions of traffic that each of those sites receive.) There is no easy way (or at least no easy-to-find way) for Emacs experts to see all the newest or most active Emacs question across all the sites in one place without a bunch of noise from non-Emacs questions. Additionally:
- High rep users of the emacs tag on one of those sites may (or may not) have equivalent rep on any of the other sites (thus review queue rights, let alone mod rights).
- It is impossible to mark duplicates cross site. (Thus garbage accumulates).
- It is non-trivial to migrate cross-site.
- Cross posting is illegal.
- Each site has different tag wikis, different ideas about what is on and off topic, and different pages to see who the high-rep tag users are.
- chat rooms are associated with sites, so even if an "Emacs" chat room were started on SO, it is not clear that the users who accidentally find SU first would be able to find the SO Emacs chat room.
- there is a site (Area 51) to propose new break-offs of SO, but no site for SE users with similar interests to find each other (an Area minus 51, as it were.)
- In the answers to What to expect in the Emacs private beta it became apparent that there is a perception that much of the closing as "off-topic" is done in the review queues by users who do not have high-rep in the tag in question. We can all tell the difference between a question that is too-broad and one that is not, but perhaps the "off-topic" close reason should be restricted to users with sufficient tag scores for some tags?
- It seems useful to me to step back and ask the question, "what is motivating people to propose new splinter sites, and then join and work to make those new splinters succeed?" (And sometimes they succeed magnificently.) Is it just that sometimes we need to expand the scope or audience of a tag or two? If so, isn't there some relatively easy fix for that problem other than starting an entire new site? I'd suggest that there's a stronger motivation than scope expansions, though. For better or worse human beings naturally like to form teams (or cliques) that come together and take pride in cooperatively building something together. I suspect that most of the activity on Area 51 is actually a pent-up demand for some kind of way of forming teams or other cooperative expert sub-communities on SO. There have been some proposals for adding some relatively small social networking capabilities (and also this) that might be a more effective way of addressing that demand.
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
- In the question Why do we need a separate site for Emacs it was clear that one UX problem is the lack of tag and search/sort/filter/grouping capabilities that cross the existing sites. Emacs questions (like questions on many topics) are spread across SO, SU, U&L and Tex (in proportions approximately equivalent to the proportions of traffic that each of those sites receive.) There is no easy way (or at least no easy-to-find way) for Emacs experts to see all the newest or most active Emacs question across all the sites in one place without a bunch of noise from non-Emacs questions. Additionally:
- High rep users of the emacs tag on one of those sites may (or may not) have equivalent rep on any of the other sites (thus review queue rights, let alone mod rights).
- It is impossible to mark duplicates cross site. (Thus garbage accumulates).
- It is non-trivial to migrate cross-site.
- Cross posting is illegal.
- Each site has different tag wikis, different ideas about what is on and off topic, and different pages to see who the high-rep tag users are.
- chat rooms are associated with sites, so even if an "Emacs" chat room were started on SO, it is not clear that the users who accidentally find SU first would be able to find the SO Emacs chat room.
- there is a site (Area 51) to propose new break-offs of SO, but no site for SE users with similar interests to find each other (an Area minus 51, as it were.)
- In the answers to What to expect in the Emacs private beta it became apparent that there is a perception that much of the closing as "off-topic" is done in the review queues by users who do not have high-rep in the tag in question. We can all tell the difference between a question that is too-broad and one that is not, but perhaps the "off-topic" close reason should be restricted to users with sufficient tag scores for some tags?
- It seems useful to me to step back and ask the question, "what is motivating people to propose new splinter sites, and then join and work to make those new splinters succeed?" (And sometimes they succeed magnificently.) Is it just that sometimes we need to expand the scope or audience of a tag or two? If so, isn't there some relatively easy fix for that problem other than starting an entire new site? I'd suggest that there's a stronger motivation than scope expansions, though. For better or worse human beings naturally like to form teams (or cliques) that come together and take pride in cooperatively building something together. I suspect that most of the activity on Area 51 is actually a pent-up demand for some kind of way of forming teams or other cooperative expert sub-communities on SO. There have been some proposals for adding some relatively small social networking capabilitiessome proposals for adding some relatively small social networking capabilities (and also thisthis) that might be a more effective way of addressing that demand.
- In the question Why do we need a separate site for Emacs it was clear that one UX problem is the lack of tag and search/sort/filter/grouping capabilities that cross the existing sites. Emacs questions (like questions on many topics) are spread across SO, SU, U&L and Tex (in proportions approximately equivalent to the proportions of traffic that each of those sites receive.) There is no easy way (or at least no easy-to-find way) for Emacs experts to see all the newest or most active Emacs question across all the sites in one place without a bunch of noise from non-Emacs questions. Additionally:
- High rep users of the emacs tag on one of those sites may (or may not) have equivalent rep on any of the other sites (thus review queue rights, let alone mod rights).
- It is impossible to mark duplicates cross site. (Thus garbage accumulates).
- It is non-trivial to migrate cross-site.
- Cross posting is illegal.
- Each site has different tag wikis, different ideas about what is on and off topic, and different pages to see who the high-rep tag users are.
- chat rooms are associated with sites, so even if an "Emacs" chat room were started on SO, it is not clear that the users who accidentally find SU first would be able to find the SO Emacs chat room.
- there is a site (Area 51) to propose new break-offs of SO, but no site for SE users with similar interests to find each other (an Area minus 51, as it were.)
- In the answers to What to expect in the Emacs private beta it became apparent that there is a perception that much of the closing as "off-topic" is done in the review queues by users who do not have high-rep in the tag in question. We can all tell the difference between a question that is too-broad and one that is not, but perhaps the "off-topic" close reason should be restricted to users with sufficient tag scores for some tags?
- It seems useful to me to step back and ask the question, "what is motivating people to propose new splinter sites, and then join and work to make those new splinters succeed?" (And sometimes they succeed magnificently.) Is it just that sometimes we need to expand the scope or audience of a tag or two? If so, isn't there some relatively easy fix for that problem other than starting an entire new site? I'd suggest that there's a stronger motivation than scope expansions, though. For better or worse human beings naturally like to form teams (or cliques) that come together and take pride in cooperatively building something together. I suspect that most of the activity on Area 51 is actually a pent-up demand for some kind of way of forming teams or other cooperative expert sub-communities on SO. There have been some proposals for adding some relatively small social networking capabilities (and also this) that might be a more effective way of addressing that demand.
- In the question Why do we need a separate site for Emacs it was clear that one UX problem is the lack of tag and search/sort/filter/grouping capabilities that cross the existing sites. Emacs questions (like questions on many topics) are spread across SO, SU, U&L and Tex (in proportions approximately equivalent to the proportions of traffic that each of those sites receive.) There is no easy way (or at least no easy-to-find way) for Emacs experts to see all the newest or most active Emacs question across all the sites in one place without a bunch of noise from non-Emacs questions. Additionally:
- High rep users of the emacs tag on one of those sites may (or may not) have equivalent rep on any of the other sites (thus review queue rights, let alone mod rights).
- It is impossible to mark duplicates cross site. (Thus garbage accumulates).
- It is non-trivial to migrate cross-site.
- Cross posting is illegal.
- Each site has different tag wikis, different ideas about what is on and off topic, and different pages to see who the high-rep tag users are.
- chat rooms are associated with sites, so even if an "Emacs" chat room were started on SO, it is not clear that the users who accidentally find SU first would be able to find the SO Emacs chat room.
- there is a site (Area 51) to propose new break-offs of SO, but no site for SE users with similar interests to find each other (an Area minus 51, as it were.)
- In the answers to What to expect in the Emacs private beta it became apparent that there is a perception that much of the closing as "off-topic" is done in the review queues by users who do not have high-rep in the tag in question. We can all tell the difference between a question that is too-broad and one that is not, but perhaps the "off-topic" close reason should be restricted to users with sufficient tag scores for some tags?
- It seems useful to me to step back and ask the question, "what is motivating people to propose new splinter sites, and then join and work to make those new splinters succeed?" (And sometimes they succeed magnificently.) Is it just that sometimes we need to expand the scope or audience of a tag or two? If so, isn't there some relatively easy fix for that problem other than starting an entire new site? I'd suggest that there's a stronger motivation than scope expansions, though. For better or worse human beings naturally like to form teams (or cliques) that come together and take pride in cooperatively building something together. I suspect that most of the activity on Area 51 is actually a pent-up demand for some kind of way of forming teams or other cooperative expert sub-communities on SO. There have been some proposals for adding some relatively small social networking capabilities (and also this) that might be a more effective way of addressing that demand.
rewrote third bullet in response to @AirThomas's spot-on comment that I went off the rails there.
- In the question Why do we need a separate site for Emacs it was clear that one UX problem is the lack of tag and search/sort/filter/grouping capabilities that cross the existing sites. Emacs questions (like questions on many topics) are spread across SO, SU, U&L and Tex (in proportions approximately equivalent to the proportions of traffic that each of those sites receive.) There is no easy way (or at least no easy-to-find way) for Emacs experts to see all the newest or most active Emacs question across all the sites in one place without a bunch of noise from non-Emacs questions. Additionally:
- High rep users of the emacs tag on one of those sites may (or may not) have equivalent rep on any of the other sites (thus review queue rights, let alone mod rights).
- It is impossible to mark duplicates cross site. (Thus garbage accumulates).
- It is non-trivial to migrate cross-site.
- Cross posting is illegal.
- Each site has different tag wikis, different ideas about what is on and off topic, and different pages to see who the high-rep tag users are.
- chat rooms are associated with sites, so even if an "Emacs" chat room were started on SO, it is not clear that the users who accidentally find SU first would be able to find the SO Emacs chat room.
- there is a site (Area 51) to propose new break-offs of SO, but no site for SE users with similar interests to find each other (an Area minus 51, as it were.)
- In the answers to What to expect in the Emacs private beta it became apparent that there is a perception that much of the closing as "off-topic" is done in the review queues by users who do not have high-rep in the tag in question. We can all tell the difference between a question that is too-broad and one that is not, but perhaps the "off-topic" close reason should be restricted to users with sufficient tag scores for some tags?
- ThroughoutIt seems useful to me to step back and ask the discussion onquestion, "what is motivating people to propose new splinter sites, and then join and work to make those new splinters succeed?" (And sometimes they succeed magnificently.) Is it just that sometimes we need to expand the Emacs proposalscope or audience of a tag or two? If so, isn't there some relatively easy fix for that problem other than starting an entire new site? I'd suggest that there's a stronger motivation than scope expansions, though. For better or worse human beings naturally like to form teams (and almost every proposalor cliques) that come together and take pride in the "Technology" sub-areacooperatively building something together. I suspect that most of the activity on Area 51) it is clear thatactually a pent-up demand for some kind of way of forming teams or other cooperative expert sub-communities on SO. There have been there is a demandsome proposals for Social Network-like features on StackOverflow so that experts in certain sub-areas can easily find each other and communicateadding some relatively small social networking capabilities. Yes, I know StackExchange is not a social network, but perhaps you should listen to what your users are actually saying? People use Area 51 to form expert social sub-communities on StackExchange because there is no other way to form social sub-communites on StackExchange.(and also this) that might be a more effective way of addressing that demand.
- In the question Why do we need a separate site for Emacs it was clear that one UX problem is the lack of tag and search/sort/filter/grouping capabilities that cross the existing sites. Emacs questions (like questions on many topics) are spread across SO, SU, U&L and Tex (in proportions approximately equivalent to the proportions of traffic that each of those sites receive.) There is no easy way (or at least no easy-to-find way) for Emacs experts to see all the newest or most active Emacs question across all the sites in one place without a bunch of noise from non-Emacs questions. Additionally:
- High rep users of the emacs tag on one of those sites may (or may not) have equivalent rep on any of the other sites (thus review queue rights, let alone mod rights).
- It is impossible to mark duplicates cross site. (Thus garbage accumulates).
- It is non-trivial to migrate cross-site.
- Cross posting is illegal.
- Each site has different tag wikis, different ideas about what is on and off topic, and different pages to see who the high-rep tag users are.
- chat rooms are associated with sites, so even if an "Emacs" chat room were started on SO, it is not clear that the users who accidentally find SU first would be able to find the SO Emacs chat room.
- there is a site (Area 51) to propose new break-offs of SO, but no site for SE users with similar interests to find each other (an Area minus 51, as it were.)
- In the answers to What to expect in the Emacs private beta it became apparent that there is a perception that much of the closing as "off-topic" is done in the review queues by users who do not have high-rep in the tag in question. We can all tell the difference between a question that is too-broad and one that is not, but perhaps the "off-topic" close reason should be restricted to users with sufficient tag scores for some tags?
- Throughout the discussion on the Emacs proposal (and almost every proposal in the "Technology" sub-area of Area 51) it is clear that there is a demand for Social Network-like features on StackOverflow so that experts in certain sub-areas can easily find each other and communicate. Yes, I know StackExchange is not a social network, but perhaps you should listen to what your users are actually saying? People use Area 51 to form expert social sub-communities on StackExchange because there is no other way to form social sub-communites on StackExchange.
- In the question Why do we need a separate site for Emacs it was clear that one UX problem is the lack of tag and search/sort/filter/grouping capabilities that cross the existing sites. Emacs questions (like questions on many topics) are spread across SO, SU, U&L and Tex (in proportions approximately equivalent to the proportions of traffic that each of those sites receive.) There is no easy way (or at least no easy-to-find way) for Emacs experts to see all the newest or most active Emacs question across all the sites in one place without a bunch of noise from non-Emacs questions. Additionally:
- High rep users of the emacs tag on one of those sites may (or may not) have equivalent rep on any of the other sites (thus review queue rights, let alone mod rights).
- It is impossible to mark duplicates cross site. (Thus garbage accumulates).
- It is non-trivial to migrate cross-site.
- Cross posting is illegal.
- Each site has different tag wikis, different ideas about what is on and off topic, and different pages to see who the high-rep tag users are.
- chat rooms are associated with sites, so even if an "Emacs" chat room were started on SO, it is not clear that the users who accidentally find SU first would be able to find the SO Emacs chat room.
- there is a site (Area 51) to propose new break-offs of SO, but no site for SE users with similar interests to find each other (an Area minus 51, as it were.)
- In the answers to What to expect in the Emacs private beta it became apparent that there is a perception that much of the closing as "off-topic" is done in the review queues by users who do not have high-rep in the tag in question. We can all tell the difference between a question that is too-broad and one that is not, but perhaps the "off-topic" close reason should be restricted to users with sufficient tag scores for some tags?
- It seems useful to me to step back and ask the question, "what is motivating people to propose new splinter sites, and then join and work to make those new splinters succeed?" (And sometimes they succeed magnificently.) Is it just that sometimes we need to expand the scope or audience of a tag or two? If so, isn't there some relatively easy fix for that problem other than starting an entire new site? I'd suggest that there's a stronger motivation than scope expansions, though. For better or worse human beings naturally like to form teams (or cliques) that come together and take pride in cooperatively building something together. I suspect that most of the activity on Area 51 is actually a pent-up demand for some kind of way of forming teams or other cooperative expert sub-communities on SO. There have been some proposals for adding some relatively small social networking capabilities (and also this) that might be a more effective way of addressing that demand.
Loading