Closed before reaching public beta?

Question

Some sites get closed while still in private beta, before even reaching public beta:

• Artificial Intelligence after 12 days
• Machine Learning after 15 days
• Game of Go after 27 days
• 3D Graphics after 33 days
• Sexuality after 13 days
• How things work after 7 days
• Personal Manufacturing after 22 days
• Electronic gadgets after 63 days
• Freelance workers after 24 days

What is the rationale of closing sites so early? Usually the official reason is that a site didn't get enough activity. However,that reason doesn't seem to be backed up by the statistics for each site. Why not give a site a chance to obtain a readership in public beta, rather than closing it already in private beta?

I quote from this answer:

So that presented us with a difficult decision: do we open this site up to the public and... Just hope folks show up? Remember, this hasn't worked at all well in the past. Or do we shut it down, with the understanding that a new site could be created in the future?

Indeed. For some sites, it hasn't worked well in the past. That's why some sites get closed in public beta. I understand the risk of sites becoming ghost towns. But what's the risk of giving a site a chance in public beta and then, if it fails, closing it a few months later?

See also:

• Is it unusual for a proposal to be closed during the private beta?
• Ridiculous Outcome for 3D Graphics site proposal
• https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/88796/172266

Answer 1

Your answer seems well covered in the various discussions you linked. Shog9's is probably closest to answer your question — https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/a/3684/5.

The premise of "if you build it, they will come" doesn't work. We tried it with thousands of sites in our previous iterations, and the failure rate was something like 99.7%. So we created this process of increasing engagement to make sure we had all — all — the pieces before we will open a new site.

A private beta is the final stage: a proof-of-concept and a proving ground. If everything else seems to work but the problem is simply "you need more users…" yes, they failed an essential part of the Area 51 process, but we are much more likely to give it more time or open the site to the public.

But more often than not, there is something else fundamentally wrong with the site concept. Maybe we got the scope wrong, maybe we didn't have the right audience to build it, or maybe the initial supporters didn't find the subject interesting and bailed. But if that restaurant isn't ready for opening day, it wont open. Saying "we'll get a better chef…" or "we'll improve the menu once we have more customers" simply does not build a strong site.

When we've erred towards these "have-faith" launches, those sites invariably limped along unrecoverably. The time to develop an idea and build the right support for it is while the site is in our labs, not after it is launched.