1

I've seen that there are at least 50 pages of proposed betas.. I think Area51 is experimenting 2 problems. 1 is the fragmentation of effort, and the other is the inability to attract people attention on the proposal which are not already winning.

I try to explain better my hypothesis. At the beginning there were a few pages and probably many users focused their vote on a few communities.

After some times the number of proposed communities grew more and more and users stopped going over the 3rd.. 4th or 8th page.

But actually between the proposal in the 3rd page and the one in the 50th page there are 3 votes of difference..

So my question here is: what about showing to the user the proposal in a random sorting?

2

There's a fallacy in your suggestion about the role of Area 51.

You're envisioning Area 51 as a community of users whose role is to think up ideas for sites, and then work on the ones they like the most to get them created. If that were the case, then yes, certainly we are spreading our efforts way too thin to get anything done.

But your premise is not correct.

Area 51 is a place where existing communities can come in from the Internet to take advantage of Stack Exchange when they feel our platform will make their subject better. If the proposal author does not already have a community behind them, it is their job (or anyone who wants the site) to go out and find the community to build it.

Long gone are the days when you can expect to throw a proposal up in Area 51 and have it created solely out of the interest of the folks here. So no, I don't think creating more churn in the proposal listings will help any significant number of people "discover" a site they can help build. The proposal listings aren't designed to help attract an audience. It hasn't been that way since the earliest, earliest days when there was so much pent up demand from the Stack Overflow audience to create sites they were already interested in.

2
  • That's really interesting. I'd like to advantage of you to ask a questions. Have you ever considered of taking into considerations a evidence based approach? I mean SE holds community with a relevant scientific background. Which me, you, moderators and administrators simply don't have. Having so many specialists why not involving them into considerations. Why don't "move" this kind of considerations that we are doing here in a section like Cross Validated or Cognitive Science? There are many guys on SE which, for work, replaced opinions with scientific references. Why not involve them at all? – Revious Oct 1 '14 at 21:11
  • 1
    What I mean is: "Long gone are the days when you can expect to..." is an opinion. A scientific background would immediately put it under harsh questions to see if there is any logical and scientific validated facts suggesting that this approach leads to any advantage. Mine is not a critic.. But I've seen many aspects in which SE is very closed, and I would be curious to see if the most scientifically skilled members of the community (which are not me, the community manager, or who puts the money) share the ideas behind those positions. Just to have comparison of idea on what could be improved – Revious Oct 1 '14 at 21:13

You must log in to answer this question.

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