8

Proposal: Relationships and Dating

Seeing that this site/proposal has hit the thrash once before, I figure it's a good idea now to brainstorm ideas that will send us through private beta without any bumps. Off the top of my head I can think of

Ensuring a threshold of subjective questions This site is going to be subjective. Relationships and dating cannot be fit into an equation. We must ensure that from the example questions we come close to definite questions and remove any ambiguity where possible.

Destroying troll/joke/useless questions There are going to be a few users that pop in to disrupt and take attention away from the scope and purpose of this site. Concentrating on this moves the community further away from what it needs to be done in private beta.

Ensuring everyone is on equal ground Users are going to come in from other SE sites putting down what they think we should do (haha sort of how I am doing now, yet I am aiming for objectivity as close as possible). Everyone has an opinion, but no one can define how this community should work other than you. No moderators from other sites, no employees (to an extent within the overarching scope of an SE site) no one.

Co-founder of the question-and-answer website Stack Overflow and the Stack Exchange Network.

Getting questions out earlier than later The more questions posted within the first few days, the faster the community can shape the scope and definition. That way the cream of the crop can be taken out to provide a template as to what question and answers we are looking for at the start of public beta.

Please provide constructive criticism and any more points either here or in the chatroom http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/6014/relationships-and-dating

I'm hoping many experienced users in the world of dating and relationships come forward with their thoughts now and not later on.

  • 2
    Is Atwood committed to the proposal? :) – user12775 Jan 16 '14 at 12:20
4

In my opinion, this is one of those sites that should NOT require a sourced answer for most questions. Obviously the nature of some questions will require more rigid qualifications than others, but I think most questions on this site will be answerable from personal experience and the answers will be easily ranked by the voting system without sources.

Why do I bring this up? You mention:

Users are going to come in from other SE sites putting down what they think we should do

One thing that is something of a trend on SE sites is requiring a well-sourced answer. This certainly works well for many sites, and some (such as Skeptics) cannot live without it. I don't think that this baggage is necessary on Relationships and Dating, though; and I'd hate to see it unnecessarily carried over.

  • 7
    Sure, requiring that you cite a source would be ludicrious for a site like this. At the same time, we're going to have to be real sticklers that the answer at least qualify and explain how/why their solution fulfills the original author's requirements (yes, the author will have to outline detailed requirements, or the post will likely be closed as [too broad]). Simply stated, "<x> will work <link>" will not be considered a valid answer... if this site is expected to work. – Robert Cartaino Jan 14 '14 at 20:47
  • 1
    "At the same time, we're going to have to be real sticklers that the answer at least qualify and explain how/why their solution fulfills the original author's requirements" absolutely agreed there. This is also really important: "yes, the author will have to outline detailed requirements, or the post will likely be closed as [too broad]" – called2voyage Jan 14 '14 at 20:51
  • 2
    I agree that for the most parts asking for sources is ridiculous; however, playing devil's advocate here I can see how some answers that might appear to be using psychology or science could use a reference to bolster rather than I heard it somewhere or I think they said this. Just a thought. – GµårÐïåñ Jan 15 '14 at 17:36
  • 1
    @GµårÐïåñ Absolutely, which is why I said, "Obviously the nature of some questions will require more rigid qualifications than others". – called2voyage Jan 15 '14 at 17:41
  • 1
    @called2voyage you were absolutely correct, just wanted to lend support to situations where a reference would do good, we just shouldn't require it for experiences. Although probably should have a system that identifies clearly that "THIS IS MY EXPERIENCE" and not a matter of fact. I suppose that is implied but with some people you never know. – GµårÐïåñ Jan 15 '14 at 17:43
  • 1
    @GµårÐïåñ Edits are always useful to help clear things up. – called2voyage Jan 15 '14 at 17:44
  • 1
    @called2voyage true, I suppose the mods can always agree on a system and where it seems unclear they can edit to include something that would clear it up. I just hope it doesn't result in too many unnecessary or obligatory nit picking. – GµårÐïåñ Jan 15 '14 at 17:46
  • @GµårÐïåñ This will probably be something that we'll iron out a lot in private beta and early public beta. – called2voyage Jan 15 '14 at 17:47
  • @called2voyage you are right, I am probably jaded by my experience on other SE sites :) – GµårÐïåñ Jan 15 '14 at 17:48
  • 2
    @RobertCartaino - First, +1. Good approach. Second for answers that feel that they CAN be scientifically proven or disproven, can we use the fact of the answer as "notability requirement" to ask for proof on Skeptics? – user12775 Jan 16 '14 at 12:22

You must log in to answer this question.

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