41

I think it's interesting that Robert's post above focus so much on communities - the idea that a site proposal should be made with an existing community in mind is new to me, and none of the site launches I've been part of really had a true community before the site launched. Fundamentally this is a problem because nothing in Area 51 is set up to foster ...


34

This change is now live! I will be monitoring what proposals get removed to make sure things are working as intended.


34

Going through the proposal process quickly appears to be a good signal that a proposed site is viable (because failed proposals evaporate, I don't have statistics on how many failed in private beta after making the 4/4 deadline, but I don't recall there being very many). However, the opposite situation of taking a while to go through the process doesn't ...


28

The reason for ELL is to support language learners while making ELU work for experts. Robert, you have made the point yourself: ELU never developed into a site solely for serious language enthusiasts. But this is because there was also an unfilled need for an ELL site, and people – being people – have overrun ELU trying to fill this need. You are quite ...


23

My plans are to develop an open source Chrome Extension+Firefox addon+ UserScript, that make StackExchange works in Hebrew and other RTL languages. All what it is doing is to override the style and make it RTL. And also translate some basic buttons (Questions, Answers, Ask Question, etc'...) If the team of StackExchange will see the extension and like it. ...


23

I am now assuming the there is an OR statement between the two requirements? When I read the rule I had concluded that it was Bullet One AND Bullet Two. I see http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/87955/magic is still active with 5 followers and 2 questions I see http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/87795/home-ownership is still active with 3 ...


21

This is a reasonable policy to apply to Area51 (although it was done rather abruptly). But Stack Exchange should provide some other process or mechanism to create beta sites that have a good probability of turning into avid and active SE communities even though at the outset they lack a coherent community of at least 200 people to advance them through this ...


20

In short, this undermines anything other than technology sites. And perhaps that's the point, given the structure of how Stack Overflow currently makes money. The site offers a great opportunity to sciences. The collaborative structure, the protocol keeping questions and answers on topic and useful, and the efforts to circumvent elitism all foster ...


18

Good news! — We tweaked the process a bit to avoid closing proposals soon after starting a new phase… and without adding any undue complexity. Instead of a 2-year limit, we are now going to institute proposal limit of 1 year in Definition + 1 year in Commitment This 1+1-year method takes care of two important scenarios — (1) You don't ...


18

Translated to English, this proposal is saying "StackExchange doesn't want to participate in building new communities". The community needs to be ready and Area51 doesn't want to be the tool for people to build a new community. But this is not the way StackExchange flourished. It has successfully build a communities of people around various topics. I think ...


15

Supporting a proposal successfully isn't a one click and forget it kind of deal. There are several different phases that occur during the proposal period-what is required of us in each stage is different. To support Joomla in the definition phase, we need to follow the proposal, need to ask good example questions and vote on the ones we think are suitable ...


15

I am glad you have reconsidered. You may be gratified to know that the EL&U core community has come together to try to establish a clearer distinction between the two sites. I anticipate a lot of Meta questions on EL&U as we navigate the development of this exciting new site.


15

Hopefully these changes will help, but I am skeptical. The real issue is addressed in https://stackoverflow.blog/2018/04/26/stack-overflow-isnt-very-welcoming-its-time-for-that-to-change/?cb=1. Most new proposals mean gaining non-SE users. For many, the benefits of SE's QA model do not outweigh the costs of learning a new platform (particularly for older ...


14

There is some problem with the new approach: I have seen some sites proposed under the new rules advancing to the commitment phase. In the commitment phase they fall short on the criterion "100 committers with 200+ rep on any other site"—so there is still the need of an already existing community of experienced stackexchange users. A completely new community ...


13

Hmm, just an observation, but it turns out my hypothetical scenario in the comments actually ended up being true. This proposal was closed for being just three commitments short of the required 200. Does this mean that the proposal is non-viable? Also, how did you choose the number four months, instead of, say, three or six? Just asking.


11

Sure, there's nothing inherently wrong with re-posting great example questions, if you feel they represent the site well. But consider the reason behind the closure, too. If folks didn't find the first proposal too interesting (or if the purpose was controversial, or not clear, etc), you may not want to revive the same content for a second iteration. But ...


11

The "no activity" rule is bad. You're destroying information and contributing to link rot. For example, The Armory, facing imminent failure for spending a year in Definition, was a reboot of an earlier proposal, which also failed to pass Definition before expiration, but which is presently deleted (... which was itself an attempt to reincarnate a site that ...


11

Looking at your reputation history, the problem is that you're making bad suggested questions, and suggesting questions on bad proposals. Don't do that.


9

May 12 '15: standing up a new site doesn't take a lot of work. Jun 17 '15: each new site is an enormous undertaking What happened between May and June of 2015 that changed the situation so drastically? Do you need help?


9

From Closing a Proposal After 4 Months in Definition or Commitment: Do you have a community ready to build your site? We generally expect proposal authors to have access to a community to help build your site. Area 51 cannot find that community FOR you. If so, then I think we should have a community wiki guideline for authors to find such community, ...


6

The Scientology proposal was removed after four months of receiving only 8 followers and zero questions with more than 10 votes. See How long is a proposal published. Incidentally, recent automation of the Area 51 processes has allowed us to properly close a proposal for a period of time before it is eventually removed by the Area 51 process so you could ...


6

RPG is for paper and pencil/tabletop role playing games. Arqade is for video games. There's basically no overlap between the two. There might be a few games that would qualify for discussion on both sites, but the vast majority are only on topic on one or the other. While the communities do overlap somewhat, that's not really an issue since their scopes are ...


6

After a year in development, the proposal only got about 11 of the 40 example questions needed to continue, so it was closed as no longer viable. You might be able to see it with a direct link: https://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/103075/strategy … but generally no; old proposals which have been deleted are generally no longer visible. ...


6

After two iterations in this subject space, we ultimately had to close TWO sites on this topic. We worked hard to keep the second site open with many initiatives to keep it going. During the second iteration, the bar for keeping the site open was extremely low: all they needed was a user or two to step up to check on flags and keep spam off the site (...


4

From a comment above: a moderator is supposed to enforce the rules. And the rules say that we don't allow duplicates. He allowed your site to start developing on the assumption that you would make an effort to show the distinction between ELU and ELL. In his understanding, you did not. Hence the closure. – I suppose what's bothering me most about this is,...


4

Deleted proposals are visible to high-rep users as per trusted user privilege (10k) and they're deleted because of inactivity or by different reasons (such as duplication with existing site, or other issues).


4

Yes, otherwise we're thinking of Area 51 like some sort of contest where, if you can meet the minimum requirements, the prize is a site regardless of whether that site will work or not. For as infrequently as I’m able to improve the Area 51 process (due to dev resources), when I can determine that {criteria X} no longer results in a healthy site, launching ...


4

Before in the past anyone with 2,000+ reputations could of close or reopen a proposal, but now as of a change in 2014 only administrators can close or reopen proposal. (There are really no moderators for Area 51 Stack Exchange.) See Where did the 'close' link go?


3

I think there is a flaw in trying to form a cohesive community around a group of failed proposals simply by piling them together. When you start trying to connect disparage groups under on umbrella, I think you'll find there's little passion for the umbrella as a subject. For example, when someone lives and breathes "Marketing", they're not really looking ...


3

The RPG-specific example aside, deciding what is a dupe is easier if you come at it from other other direction — Is there a substantial body of questions that isn't already well-supported on another site… is this going to bring in another audience with a different body of interests? That's the basis of deciding whether the proposal should ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible