Note: I wasn't sure if this belongs here, or on Meta SO, but it was about area-51, so I decide to post it here

I have noticed that when creating a proposal, there is a very limited number of characters you can put in the description. This creates a bit of a problem, because it may be hard to fit your entire idea into 250 characters. This then can create misunderstanding of what your vision of the site was, and people may close the site as "too local" or "not a real proposal" because the OP was unable to explain it well.

The reason I think it's done the way it is, is that the title of a site, unlike a question on any other SE site, is not a short title summery if it's description, it's the actual name of the site. But this leaves the description of the site, to be equivalent to the title of a regular SE question.

What I am proposing is as follows:

  • A "full description" field, that will allow you to write a description, the same length as a question (which is unlimited).
  • The "full description will be displayed underneath the short summery (what is now the description) up to 300 characters, after which it will display a "...View full description" link, that will expand when clicked.

I like the fact that there are short summaries of the site when you look at it on the list of sites, but something needs to be done to allow users to explain themselves fully and clearly, to avoid confusion.

Add a comment or answer, and let me know what you think.

2 Answers 2


@berry120's answer is, essentially, correct. The proposer is supposed to suggest the basic subject, and the actual scope and content of the site is fleshed out during definition (and early beta).

If we leave too much space to completely work out the premise of the site, authors have a tendency to delve too much into describe the entire scope and what is on and off topic. That's not what the proposal header is about. That's part of the community process.

If you wish to describe in greater detail, the vision of your site, it is perfectly acceptable to start a discussion and link to the proposal for everyone to see.


I think the idea is that the site is deliberately left quite loosely defined at the start, and then in the definition stage the example questions help to define the scope. This way it's community driven and in flux, rather than just being a very set, rigid idea at the start. The specifics can come later, if the general idea won't work then there's no point homing down to the nuances.

You must log in to answer this question.

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