Proposal: Retro Computing

Folks, let's vote in a smarter way, there is absolutely no need for a question to have 17 votes (as of now the top-voted one). As long as it has 10 that's enough. Save your votes for other questions. I did a brief calculation and by moving votes from the >10 ones to the <10 ones, we can at least promote 5 other questions and reach the goal faster.

*** I know this is kind of a grey area and may be frowned upon - but in terms of pure requirements it's a perfectly valid method.

  • 2
  • 3
    Gaming the requirements tends to show you don't actually have the support needed for the site to succeed.
    – fbueckert
    Commented Jan 22, 2016 at 13:22
  • 1
    It certainly weighs into the final evaluation process. Commented Jan 22, 2016 at 20:31
  • Translating Roberts comment: If your proposal is just hitting the check boxes to move to beta phase and you have posted a how to get there, like this example, it will not be advanced. They will just close the proposal. Commented Jan 25, 2016 at 22:59
  • 1
    A lot of people fail to realize this (they should save a vote for a question that's good but not >10), so.. @JamesJenkins
    – Insane
    Commented Jan 26, 2016 at 10:14
  • 2
    @Insane If that single vote is that critical to meeting the bare minimum requirements, its an extremely good sign the proposal doesn't have the support to sustain itself. Gaming the requirements just makes it easier to see.
    – fbueckert
    Commented Jan 28, 2016 at 2:30
  • 1
    I agree with the points mentioned, but frankly (this being my second proposal) I still think that Area 51 doesn't do a good enough job of explaining how things work to those new to the StackExchange model. If you're a coder you probably know how it all works, but for anyone else they've often had limited if any exposure (yes I know there are a lot of non-dev sites in the network, but they're really not something people trip over often in my experience). I don't think we're struggling, it's one of the fastest growing proposals, it's just an effort to speed things up a little.
    – Matt Lacey
    Commented Jan 29, 2016 at 6:28
  • @KubaTyszko the proposal hasn't even been around for a month yet. Many, many proposals that are older than yours have way less questions with 10 upvotes. There's really no need for remind people of this - I'd be very surprised if that proposal didn't reach the commitment phase within another month.
    – YviDe
    Commented Jan 30, 2016 at 8:14
  • 1
    there was an earlier proposal (area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/46660/retrocomputing) -- wonder if it (or its questions) can be undeleted? Commented Feb 7, 2016 at 20:55
  • I came across that searching for links to this one... surprised it never gained traction but then trying to 'advertise' these proposals is way harder than you'd think.
    – Matt Lacey
    Commented Feb 8, 2016 at 10:52
  • I'm not a fan of manipulating the system to get what anyone wants. Play by the rules or go home.
    – Citizen
    Commented Feb 13, 2016 at 3:04

2 Answers 2


Thanks for gaming the system.

We should never do that. Questions that are really high-quality should get to the top and earn our votes and just voting to get their scores closer to 10 is practically cheating. We need sites that actually have high-quality questions, not just random questions forced-pushed to the top because people didn't want to "waste" their votes.

This means in terms of requirements, you're still going to be frowned upon.

  • 2
    I agree with the mechanics of the site and what you're saying, but the problem with Area 51 is that a lot of people joining proposals are net-new to the network and as such are unfamilar with how it works (and most people are too lazy to RTFM). That means that more often than not the top questions get all the votes and they're often just the first questions posted. Gaming the site is bad, but I think it does need to offer a better introduction to the mechanics of things.
    – Matt Lacey
    Commented Feb 8, 2016 at 10:51

As a general rule yes, but the math does not necessarily follow. At the moment, there are 10 "excess" votes on questions >10.
Even if these were "reallocated" they could only bring up to 10 votes the three question below 10 (currently 9, 5 and 4).
The proposal will still need 17 more questions with 10 votes.

It is more important that everyone votes their 5 votes (if they find good on-topic questions, that is). 86 followers = 430 votes, but at the moment only ~240 votes cast.

  • well I didn't state that we will get to the goal simply reallocating votes, but just a tad faster, there are still many more questions we need, be it 17, that's better than 21-22... Commented Jan 22, 2016 at 1:12

You must log in to answer this question.

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