4

The propose new site process asks for "Please link to the organization or website organizing this effort:"

How much is that "we want to see a definite group of people who will take part" and how much is that "there must be evidence of some people who will take part" ?

The site I want to propose is about aphantasia, which is the inability of some people to visualize anything in their heads.

Research into this topic is being carried out at various universities, include Exeter in the UK: http://sites.exeter.ac.uk/eyesmind/

And it is being discussed elsewhere:

Is that enough evidence of who would be contributing to a site, or do I need to get at least one of those groups to commit to contributing?

| |
3

As far as "how much" there is only one real metric: the minimum number of commitments. A proposal needs at least 200 people committed to use the site in order to succeed at the second phase. So if a community is smaller than 200 people, a Stack Exchange site is simply not for them yet. We have closed proposals where we have noticed the listed community seemed to only consist of a dozen or so people. They need to do a bit more growing first. Past 200 people, there's really no gauging anyone does here. It's up to you and the community to ensure enough people come over and participate in the process.

Is that enough evidence of who would be contributing to a site, or do I need to get at least one of those groups to commit to contributing?

This isn't the place to create proposals just because you, personally see a benefit in having a Q&A site for a specific community. This is definitely something that should be brought up and discussed within whatever community or organization to see if those people would even be interested in a Q&A site.

I've seen countless people list subreddits as their community source, and they never go anywhere. They oftentimes just link it as evidence of an existing community without even bothering to advertise it there in any way. But you also have to consider that a community that seems to only exist on reddit is unlikely to want to move to an entirely new place or split all of their discussion between two places.

Ask what problems you are solving by creating a Q&A site. Are there gaps in participation that would be uniquely filled by our platform, or are you coming here simply because you think it's a cool idea? Would participation benefit from having a Q&A platform that disallows more discussion-y type questions, or is the existing community focused mostly on discussion and would not benefit from a Q&A format?

No matter how much evidence you have of an existing community somewhere, that is not enough to launch a site. Without the support of that community, you are likely wasting your time. Don't propose new sites and then find out that no one there is even interested in it because you never asked them first. Ask them and then, if they say it's a great idea, propose it to make it a reality.

| |
  • I haven't read the whole answer, but "So if a community is smaller than 200 people, a Stack Exchange site is simply not for them yet" is something I completely disagree with. The user is asking about how big the pre-existing organization has to be, and it's extremely unlikely that any of the recent proposals that went into Beta, had 200 people commit during the commitment phase. I say this because you can clearly see that many of the committers were long-time SE network users that selected "just curious", and never actually participated in the site. To say "an SE site is simply not for them" – Nike Dattani Oct 23 at 18:59
  • means that it's also "simply not for" many of the other sites that currently exist. – Nike Dattani Oct 23 at 18:59
  • @NikeDattani That other proposals have scraped by without bringing 200 of their own people does not mean that we should encourage more proposals to scrape by without bringing their own people. I adamantly defend that an organization of fewer than 200 people simply is not appropriate for an SE site and needs to do more growing first. How many existing SE users they manage to scrounge up is irrelevant, and holding up past proposals where the rules used to be much more relaxed is also not relevant. An organization should be able to fully staff a proposal on their own. – animuson Oct 24 at 1:33
  • It's true that proposals are expected to bring their own crowd, and now it's even more true than ever before. I certainly don't recommend anyone to make a proposal if they don't have a community of 200 people ready to help build the site. But if they don't have 200 committed users already, I don't think it's fair to say "Stack Exchange is simply not for them". I can't think of any site that brought 200 committers from a pre-existing community -- Even Drones had almost 800 committers, but the majority of them came after a famous youtuber advertised the site. Before that there was not nearly 200 – Nike Dattani Oct 24 at 3:50

You must log in to answer this question.

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