Previous Run: Gamification
What went wrong the last time and what can we do to solve those problems?
Screenshots of the Community team feedback.
Part of the problem is/was that many people (including myself), are either complete novices to gamification, or are/were in the process of implementing game elements for the first time. This led to one of the main knocks of there not being enough "real world" examples and problems for the community to hash over.
I believe the quote from the meta post was concerning not enough questions about problems from people actually implementing gamification systems/concepts. If we had had more of those questions with solutions and analysis from the get go, it might have gone a lot differently in the evaluation.
So what can we do?
We can either introduce our own systems and problems on an up front basis, rather than theoretical questions, or we can gather real world examples from various sources and figure out/ask how to adapt them for X situation.
We can reach out to current gamification leaders, and encourage them to support the proposal and (hopefully) eventual beta.
We can reach out to fellow managers that are considering the systems and implementation and encourage them to follow as well.
If we can get a higher percentage of people that are actually implementing the system compared to those of us that are on the lower slopes of the learning curve, then I think we can approach the "real world" solution repository that they seem to want to be emphasizing.
Expand the proposal to a taxonomically broader scope. I feel if the proposal failed as a result of low activity, starting it up again immediately under the same conditions isn't going to yield a better result. If anything, I should suspect that previous supporters have lost faith and backed out.
I feel it would be wiser to cast a larger net this time. I believe the next higher taxonomic scope above gamification would be "Behavioral Economics" (though admittedly, I base this assertion on all of 15 minutes of research) - this is in fact what I believe the proposal should become.
Behavioral economics and the related field, behavioral finance, study the effects of social, cognitive, and emotional factors on the economic decisions of individuals and institutions and the consequences for market prices, returns, and the resource allocation. The fields are primarily concerned with the bounds of rationality of economic agents. Behavioral models typically integrate insights from psychology with microeconomic theory; in so doing, these behavioral models cover a range of concepts, methods, and fields.
In this scenario, gamification would become a tagged focus of the SE site rather than the entire scope. I don't know much about gamification, but I struggle to come up with tags that would exist to classify questions under the topic of Gamification, which to me indicates that the scope may be too narrow.
I am going to point this question to my other related answer:
The thing we need is exposure. We have to get as many individuals involved in the topic as possible; not just those interested in learning what the (horrible) term means. To quote that answer:
What we need are users interested in gamification. People asking and answering questions about gamification in use... not just the idea of gamification.
If we have some known expert part of gamification group then we could be more helpful to users. One of such name I have Yu-Kai. If he can be motivated to spare some of his time for our group, that can be fantastic.