Since this site is now in beta, it it time to have these conversations with the folks who are actually building this site. Please bring your comments and discussions to the Emacs' Meta Support site so not to split these conversations. Thanks.

Proposal: Startup Business

Opening this as a place to sugest ways in which this proposal might be different from the proposal that failed in Beta.


  • 2
    this sounds identical to area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/62734/private-company - why not just get behind that one instead? – warren Dec 16 '13 at 13:50
  • 2
    @warren, I'm not sure at this point if I'm going to jump in to either one of these (I was pretty involved in the original site) but I can say this much: I prefer a name that says "startups" to one about "private business". They do have an almost identical feel though, despite the name difference. – rbwhitaker Dec 16 '13 at 17:53
  • 2
    @rbwhitaker - I'm still very disappointed that answers.onstartups was nixed. I agree with you re:naming, though :) – warren Dec 16 '13 at 20:19
  • or just bring it into a larger scope: area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/62285/… – Chad Dec 23 '13 at 19:06
  • 4
    The only thing that needs to be different is the moderation. I spent two years on the old site and it was ludicrous, a completely toxic environment, severely hostile to new users, which is why a critical mass of users never formed. – Steve Jones Jan 21 '14 at 9:43
  • @SteveJones You should make that an answer so that it can be commented and voted on. – DJClayworth Jan 21 '14 at 13:46
  • Yeah moderation is key and I think we can make that better this time around. – GµårÐïåñ Jan 21 '14 at 18:52
  • This question is really the heart of the issue here, and other than some discussion in the comments above, I don't think this has an answer yet. One simply states that it won't be any different (something has to be different) while the other is simply a comment on the site's description. If this site is going to be successful, we still need to come to a consensus on what went wrong before, and how this should be handled differently. – rbwhitaker Jan 23 '14 at 17:59

The real issue is the apparent schizophrenic nature of Stack Exchange. On the one hand, it wants to be a "go to" source of knowledge, which requires high quality questions and answers, so needs strict moderation to keep quality high. On the other hand, it wants to build communities, which can only happen if the site isn't hostile to new users. Being shot down and told you're asking your question wrong, or just having your question deleted for no good reason, is pretty hostile and likely to lead many potentially valuable new users to conclude that the site is patrolled by psychopaths and narcissists who just love clicking that "delete" button.

Unless this apparent contradiction can be overcome, I fear there is little hope for a new site. IMHO, YMMV, etc, but this opinion is based on daily contribution to answers.onstartups.com for two years and well over ten years on the Joel on Software forums.

  • 4
    Steve, the community already relocated to Bright Journey. It's alive and kicking. – Patricia. Feb 11 '14 at 20:27
  • @user3154701 Thanks, I didn't realise that. Funny that it looks so much cleaner and nicer than the official site too - much better design, lol. Can I log on with my old account somehow, or should I just start from scratch? – Steve Jones Feb 12 '14 at 8:58
  • 2
    Everyone has their account in the system already. You can just use the forgot password feature to re-claim your account! :) brightjourney.com/a/password/new – Patricia. Feb 12 '14 at 13:59
  • 2
    What I like about what I see with Bright Journey is that it is effectively the same idea without being boxed into preconceived notions, limitations, or software framework that come with being a part of Stack Exchange. SE has been great, but I don't think these communities can or should be pigeonholed like they have been. Some of the things that make Stack Overflow work make answers.onstartups.com not work. With Bright Journey, I think we'll be able to take what worked and reapply it, and then find better ways to handle the things that didn't work. – rbwhitaker Feb 14 '14 at 21:22

Actually its not. That's why I said it already exists. The stats on it are excellent, the only reason it was closed was because the average daily question was 4.8 instead of 5 which I think is a bad reason to close something with otherwise excellent stats. I think they should allow it some time and give the opportunity to promote the site instead to get questions. I wish there was a way to say that without having to open a new proposal but the system is very archaic on that front.

  • 5
    It's important to point out that the reason that the SE admins gave for closing answers.onstartups.com was not because of the amount of questions being asked, but because so many high-rep users had left and not come back for months or years. – rbwhitaker Dec 15 '13 at 21:47
  • The whole moderation on answers.onstartups.com was dysfunctional too, which drove many users away and prevented a community from forming. Wasted opportunity IMHO, but our's is not to wonder why... – Steve Jones Jan 20 '14 at 17:50
  • 1
    Yeah they left probably due to the hostile environment created by both the users and the mods, we need to find a way to engage the users that allows them to express themselves but also moderate them in such a way that doesn't create or promote hostility. Its a tough balance but we can do it if done properly. – GµårÐïåñ Jan 21 '14 at 18:54

...OTOH, please edit the summary. Currently it reads:

Startup Business

For existing and has a foundation with excellent stats only barely missing the cutoff for questions, please allow it some float to attract new audience. I will personally help in this matter by announcing it through every appropriate medium that I ...

Reboot of a site is fine, but do it right please.

  • Well unless you can provide a re-write that does it right, simply griping about how I did isn't helpful. I was simply trying to say in the description that it already exists and I am not changing anything about it and simply want it to have further consideration. I am not wanting to reinvent the wheel. – GµårÐïåñ Dec 15 '13 at 22:49
  • 3
    @GµårÐïåñ: Please reread the quote I posted. The system automatically adds "For" in the beginning and what follows is supposed to be the target audience. "For existing and has foundation..." ??? That's a gibberish. – SF. Dec 16 '13 at 9:06
  • 2
    First off let me apologize, in reading my post it sounds a lot harsher than it was meant, I hate the text medium, intent gets lost. Second, I know that the summary sucks, I was just trying to make it acknowledge that it already exists, maybe I can copy and place the old summary on this one instead, how is that? The gibberish is the result of the way the proposal form is done, have you submitted one? Its archaic and entirely too ridiculous trying to concatenate a summary uses various pieces in boxes. – GµårÐïåñ Dec 16 '13 at 10:19
  • Definitely - use the old description, and use current one as a discussion thread starter to talk how can we improve the proposal. – SF. Dec 16 '13 at 10:21
  • Done :) now how do I do the second part? – GµårÐïåñ Dec 16 '13 at 10:27
  • Almost :) "Proposed Q&A site for q&A site for..." ;) As for the second part - "create new discussion" (just like this one), "What can we do to make this proposal to succeed?" and detail the history in it. – SF. Dec 16 '13 at 10:32

You must log in to answer this question.

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