I'd like to suggest reducing the reputation required to vote-to-close a proposal from 2000 to something more affordable like 250. The majority of my flags on Area 51 act as pseudo close votes and aren't used 'to report serious problems'.

Area 51 is a unique and relatively small community so why are the privilege requirements so high? It seems ridiculous that in order to earn the rights to basic privileges you must, A: Create a unique proposal with a large audience, or B: Submit hundreds of sample questions.

| |

The whole concept of reputation in Area 51 is a bit wonky. We're not building a canon of Q&A knowledge here, so the very premise of awarding up-votes and reputation for "good contribution" is a bit forced — square peg, round hole.

All is well, though, at least for the time being. Most of the "proposal vetting" of Area 51 is handled through the discussion threads and flagging, and ultimately through end-user support for these proposal ideas. What I mean by that is, if a proposal is somehow "off," it will not get support and be "closed" anyway — I.e. cleaned up by the abandoned proposal process.

If a proposal is egregiously bad, flagging is a perfectly fine option. We'll take care of it. Also, keep in mind that when a proposal reaches about 45% commitment, that triggers a hands-on "review" of the proposal and its fitness and viability. So there is a bit of an editorial layer to make sure everything is going well when a proposal gets far enough along to be "of concern." Reading through the accumulated discussions between the followers is a big part of that process.

What I am saying is that it takes more to turn a site into a proposal than simply having it exist in Area 51. All the checks and balances we added over the years have augmented the community self-moderation. That largely makes up for the shortfalls in the current implementation.

Speaking of implementation, Area 51 is due for a next-generation upgrade. That's going to be a big project going into this year; to figure out how to make Area 51 work for a next generation of sites. That effort, more than anything else, is why I am not inclined to start kluging these band-aid fixes like changing the reputation requirements to close proposals.

| |
  • 2
    Presumably there will be a change in how reputation works for the next generation Area 51? – Ambo100 Mar 16 '12 at 13:56
  • 2
    On other SE sites, you've proven that quick, thorough moderation to quickly remove any broken windows is a great boon to a community. You seem resigned to this version of area51 having lots of "off" proposals. I suggest that you need both a site upgrade and a community/culture upgrade, and that switching reputation requirements to beta period levels would help with this process. – Kevin Vermeer Apr 6 '12 at 1:21

You must log in to answer this question.

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