Over time, many proposals have been closed & deleted after they've gone stagnant.

Some of those proposals have later been re-created, with the hope that they'll have better luck on their second try.

As a mod, I can see the example questions from previous incarnation of proposals—and some of those questions were darn good.

So, I'm wondering: would the community find it useful if I took 1-5 highly voted on/off topic questions from failed proposals and added them to recreated proposals?

Some current examples of recreated proposals:

Answers to quibbles I think might come up:

  • No, they will not start with their previous vote count; they'll start at 0 just like all the others.
  • Yes, if they're up-voted again, I would get some (probably small) amount of rep.
  • Yes, it's entirely possible that questions of yours might re-appear, and not under your name. If you want your question to be re-added by you, keep a list (outside of SE) of questions you've added to proposals, and then you can re-add if and as necessary. This is separate from that.
  • No, I will not go digging around trying to find some question you vaguely recall.
  • I won't add more than five of them, and I'd only pick the ones that:
    • I thought were solid
    • Had 2+ upvotes
    • All votes were on or off topic (no NAGE's, no splits)
  • Yes, I linked above to Google's caches of old proposals, so no, there's nothing to stop you from doing the same thing (and imo, please do!)

Your thoughts, concerns, quibbles, suggestions, interest?

2 Answers 2


I say DO IT!!

But I have to say I share warren's concerns

What if you are injecting artificial interest into proposals that the stack exchange community has decided are uninteresting and unworthy of attention. Not to mention that sometimes the proposal questions have little bearing on a site after it gets launched. Sometimes the top questions are ruled off-topic.

  • What if you are injecting artificial interest into proposals that the stack exchange community has decided are uninteresting and unworthy of attention. If the SE community thinks the proposal is uninteresting, no one will vote on the added questions, and no harm done. If there isn't a sustainable community out there who wants the proposal to succeed, I could add hundreds of questions and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. But I hate seeing good solid boundary-defining questions just go down the drain when they could be useful, instead.
    – Dori
    Commented Apr 6, 2011 at 6:17
  • @Dori - thats a good point, go for it. Commented Apr 6, 2011 at 13:38
  • what if the "artificial interest" is merely because folks that should be interested, aren't on Area51?
    – warren
    Commented Apr 6, 2011 at 17:35
  • yeah, I mean that's always going to be an X factor. We are also limited by the current Stack Exchange audience which provides the bulk of the initial userbase. I think there are a lot more proposals that would be successful if we had the attention of the whole internet, but since there are a lot of second-rate wiki Q and A sites it can be hard to be noticed in the crowd. Will things change dramatically so that the people who should be interested will come here and participate? I don't know. Commented Apr 6, 2011 at 17:39

If the questions get re-added by the "original" askers, then I don't see an issue with it. If, on the other hand, a question I asked that had 10 votes (say) gets reasked in the new proposal by someone else and then it moves all the way to >=20, then it'd seem like the proposal was allowed to go stale/die just so someone else could get the rep on the questions.

With the recent spate of deletions of proposals (because they went stagnant) just to have them get recreated, I'm starting to lose faith in the Area51 concept. It's almost as bad (maybe even worse) than having to close constant duplicates that get added (primarily by low-rep users).

  • it'd seem like the proposal was allowed to go stale/die just so someone else could get the rep on the questions - this is the problem I have with many conspiracy theories: it'd take a lot of work to pull off, with the possible return being somewhere between zero and not much (note: not saying this is a conspiracy theory; just that if someone did think that, it'd have a similar effect). How would interested users be kept from following? And kept from voting? And kept from adding example questions? All for a tiny chance of earning some rep, which has no actual real-world value?
    – Dori
    Commented Apr 6, 2011 at 6:07
  • Big picture answers to paragraph 1: ① keep track of your questions, so that you can re-ask them in this situation, ② If this situation re-occurs, look for your old questions in Google's cache and then re-ask them, or ③ make sure the proposals you care about don't go stagnant in the first place—go out and sell them to colleagues, ask questions, vote, and get people excited about joining.
    – Dori
    Commented Apr 6, 2011 at 6:11
  • As for paragraph 2, it's outside of this particular discussion—but I agree it's a discussion worth having. If you have any ideas, please let me know, because SE's currently got me trying to figure out how we can improve things from our side.
    – Dori
    Commented Apr 6, 2011 at 6:14
  • Re para 2: Robert has said he wants a clean slate here - cf. meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/71630/… Commented Apr 6, 2011 at 8:16
  • @Dori - it's also possible that while we're out there "selling" the proposal, the folks we're selling it to just "don't get" Area51. Certainly most of my many friends that homeschool (or did) aren't as likely to participate in a proposal environment whereas they would in a live Q&A.
    – warren
    Commented Apr 6, 2011 at 13:49
  • @Dori - also consider: why would I want to "keep track" of all of the questions I have asked as samples elsewhere when I do not have to do that for any other SE site? Questions shouldn't "go away" if/when a proposal is marked inactive. Also, marking a proposal inactive and putting it in a different view (one wherein users who hadn't noticed it go inactive could reactivate it with some threshold of activity) rather than being deleted.
    – warren
    Commented Apr 6, 2011 at 16:21

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