-4

The Electronic Gadgets site was closed a decade ago while still in beta.

The "council" tried to justify, as seen on this blog post.

But many of those arguments were flawed back then. Even less sense they bear now, because:

  • The overall traffic on Stack Exchange was low by that time, compared to now, and gadgets were an expensive niche. The below normal traffic was nothing but expected by then. Needless to say, right now, the sky is the limit.

And hey... The beta stayed open for TWO months. No amount of advertising would attract people in that short window of opportunity.

  • They accuse the posts to be too wide/broad/generic. There are two possible answers to that: one beying wrong, and the other being so be it!.

Some questions would die without an answers. That's the cycle of life. Others would attract broad answers, and I can't conceive in my mind that someone could consider this to be a problem instead of a great thing, despite the attempts of explanation on the various metas.

If low traffic is the issue, then allow for broader questions. But guess what... That goes the opposite way of what they think in their minds to be a good thing. Despite the fact that we need a place to ask broad hardware question.

Which brings me to the next argument:

  • The next argument: We need it.

I will carbon copy an answer I gave just now to a person asking exactly this:

I want to assemble a kit that involves an android device and a recording hardware, but my question was kicked out by the children in command of the Hardware Recommendations site and the Electrical Engineering, and I will not post it on Android Enthusiasts, as I already know the MO of the children in charge there too. The excuse is always the same: off topic.

There was an Electronic Gadgets site here on stack exchange that was shut down by the same mindset in charge.

Source: Place to ask generic electronic hardware

  • They argument that the answers and questions would/did miss the Q&A format expected by the network.

Well... It's already a mess, as people can downvote your question for any reason (and then getting away by picking any excuse from the list).

And damn! Does this network care about appearances or about helping ? I see the former. People have good questions and nowhere to ask them. This network bashes intelligent questions for dumb reasons. How counterproductive this attitude/directive/policy is to the network is unspeakable !

  • See if you can swallow this:

    Our corporate goal [is] to“make the Internet a better place to get expert answers to your questions.” A ghost town, without traffic, does not get people answers, but it does draw a few people away from other sites that might do so

This quote came after the following:

"This isn’t an arbitrary decision"

That's what I call the definition of irony summed with the definition of non sequitur

| |
  • I love quoting myself. See this, for instance: "Well... It's already a mess, as people can downvote your question for any reason (and then getting away by picking any excuse from the list)". That's WHEN they do explain their reasoning. Not the case now, apparently. What opinion should I make from someone who does that ? (I did form an opinion. I'd be banned if I shared it though). Doesn't matter... What explanation could the guy give anyway? – Lucas BS Jun 28 at 13:52
  • 2
    It really seems like you don't understand the fundamental purpose of Stack Exchange: the creation of a repository of particular questions with particular answers that is useful long into the future. Everything you say about this proposal shows that it is not fit for the Stack Exchange model. Maybe such a site is needed. But that doesn't mean SE should or must host and manage it. – Nij Jun 29 at 0:17
  • I complain but I understand. What I say is it's irrealistic to think that every round question and answer will always fit the tight square space given. In fact, a minority of questions fit those very arbitrary restrictions. Ignoring this leads to good questions not being asked, and good answers not given. Guess not being fully helpful is the goal of stack exchange, then. – Lucas BS Jun 30 at 0:16
  • 1
    Stack Exchange does not and has never claimed to be the intended home for every question, and is quite explicit in saying that many or even most possible questions are not at home on it. You want a site that is perfect at everything, and then complain that SE is only very good at exactly what it is meant for, while ignoring how SE has chosen not to do the rest for exactly that reason. – Nij Jun 30 at 1:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .