12

O conteúdo das perguntas vai depender fundamentalmente das dúvidas dos utilizadores que coloquem as questões e, indirectamente, dos que derem as respostas. Numa primeira fase não convirá muito estabelecer limites rígidos.


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 ...


8

The closed questions still have a use: they serve as a reference for what kinds of questions should not be asked on the new site. On some of the betas I've seen, whenever there is an extended discussion on whether some topic should be allowed or not, the on/off topic questions from the Definition stage are referenced (along with relevant meta discussions ...


7

There is a network effect that multiplies the value of each users' participation when they work together to build a larger site, so having the same number of users spread across several smaller sites does not simply redistribute the value of each participant. But as I wrote in "Apparently This is a Duplicate", sometimes a case to be made that members of an ...


5

You are correct that some of these questions may not technically be closed as an "exact duplicate" on the actual site — but for the purpose of presenting the strongest possible Definition for this proposal, the linked questions generally cover much the same topic space, even if they're not technically exact duplicates. Why "Top Example Questions" ...


4

Few suggestions. Question: What programming languages can I use to create a smart contract? It's a list question, see: What is the definition of a list question? These kind of questions are usually not constructive. Question: What is the best language to learn for beginning developers that want to work with Hashgraph? It's a subjective question, and ...


4

This unravels a general discoverability problem inherent to what Area 51 is about. On the one hand, you want your example questions to show there's enough unique content to justify the creation of a new site… yet you don't want these (hypothetical) cross-site closures to become an all-out moratorium against every question which just happens to be on ...


3

I'm not sure that lengthening would really help the situation much. The level of activity of each proposal can vary and you don't want to have a situation where 5 people with close vote permissions close an example question despite broader community support. Honestly, it really kind of seems that close votes don't make much sense in Area 51. Each site is ...


2

Per your flag, I have un-deleted that post. That post was removed inadvertently when one of the linked proposals expired and the underlying discussions were cleaned up. Sorry about the confusion.


1

The discussion zone is a forum for discussing proposed sites. While it uses the same Q&A format, the meta side of Area51 (or any site) is not a site of it's own. This close reason is used when a person posts an example question as a discussion for the Area 51 proposal. We don't answer proposed site questions, discussion/meta is a forum, there is ...


1

The code that runs the proposal process was based on the original Stack Exchange software. Since it was split off long before the close system was redesigned, those changes are not easily retrofitted back here. But once the dust settles on the new closure system, I'll see if changing the text (not the behavior) of the menus makes sense. But it's not likely ...


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