30
No, you want to give the community a chance to vote for all questions, both up and down. The score needs to reflect (budding) community opinion.
By locking a question to a score of max 10, you remove that option. Downvoters would gain an unfair advantage, as their downvote would suddenly weigh more than the upvotes.
The voting process defines the community,...
23
Traditional localization typically entails offering one site, where the 'chrome' (or user interface elements, help text, prompts, etc) is available in multiple languages. As I looked into how other sites were offering support in multiple languages, this was the predominate way to do it. Many still have the 'countrycode.domain.com' available for search ...
22
Yes the up votes and down vote limits per proposal on Area 51 should match. This related question from Jan 2014 (I just found it) seems to indicate that those expressing a preference, prefer to match limits.
The argument is made at the related question, that matching these would deviate from the standards at Stack Exchange.
I disagree, on Stack Exchange ...
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 ...
14
Area 51 is full of ideas, and the vast majority of them will never become sites. That's okay. That is exactly what the Area 51 process is designed to determine. If you don't care for a particular idea, don't support it. Without support, it wont become a site.
There are plenty of proposals in support of specific products — I'm not seeing a case for ...
14
I'd went even further and suggest, that the limit of the downvotes should equal the number of used upvotes.
Voting on example questions has other purpose as voting on the launched sites. Here I use votes to say, which question I'd like to see on the site, and which I wouldn't like to see.
Saying what I'd like to see is more important, so the upvotes should ...
11
Martijn's post pretty much covers the pragmatic considerations, but you also have to consider the purpose of voting on questions. It's to show that is a sufficient breadth of high-quality questions to start a site. If (hypothetically) a proposal had only one decent question, you wouldn't want to simply shuffle people's votes the the next "least-objectionable"...
11
If you have specific concerns about a proposal, you should voice them in discussion. Those discussions are read and considered before a proposal becomes a site (assuming it gets that far). But having a network of users vote on which ideas don't interest them is not at all what Area 51 is about.
The creation of Stack Exchange sites is a democratic, ...
10
Yes. Any editors which are part of the vi ecosystem (especially if they share an ability to use the same commands, configs and plugins) should be included.
On the other hand "vim inspired" editors or ones with "vim modes" which only share some skin deep items but are really their own kettle of fish might be better served on other sites along with editors ...
8
I see this SE site as supporting the vi text editor community, including associated clones.
I don't believe that text editors which simply support vi hotkeys or vaguely vi-like features belong here. I also don't think applications that aren't text editors should be included.
Examples of what belongs:
vi
vim
gvim
nvi
neovim
Examples of what doesn't ...
7
Fully agree. See for instance this question:
https://mathoverflow.net/questions/182923/consistent-price-index/184376#184376
which is about economics. How much sense would it make without MathJax?
7
I don't think the speed concern of MathJax is an overwhelming one.
We will be in beta for several years if other betas are anything to go by; and by the time the traffic is even a fraction of the primary Stack Overflow site I believe the performance of MathJax library will have been improved as MathJax is an active project with rendering speed as roadmap ...
6
I marked your feature-request [status-deferred] for the simple reason that we're not likely to add any major infrastructure changes like this to Area 51. If you'd like to see why, check out this post:
Next-Generation Area 51
I agree in principle though that there should be more transparency about where the proposal went. It's just one of those features ...
6
Area 51 already works like this; exactly like the Stack Exchange Q&A sites. Any proposal (or Stack Exchange question) that has been closed can be voted to be re-opened.
It just doesn't happen very often because there isn't much of an Area 51 community to vet and micro-manage the larger body of proposals like that. It's simply easier to create a new ...
6
The purpose of these activities isn't to move the proposal along quicker. There may be better ways of making sure more questions are getting a proportionate level of attention (random sorting?), but I don't believe the suggestions above will build better proposals.
Hiding or otherwise disabling the highest-voted example questions is just a backhanded way ...
6
I am against having a beta flag.
Answers should stay valid for a longer time and such things can change fast. Many programs are labeled beta, but behave perfectly stable (many Google applications for a long time). Others are considered stable but still buggy (a lot of proprietary software shortly after release). There are also programs that worked fine once,...
6
No, a site based entirely on a survey of user opinion — and similar ideas soliciting alternative content — aren't currently a good fit for a Stack Exchange Q&A site. Apart from the technical considerations, the primary reason we don't currently host "public opinion polls" and various alternative uses for the Stack Exchange engine is the ...
6
The Area 51 process was derived from our Q&A core code, so I tend to treat requests to remove a proposal much like we do in Q&A.
Essentially, if a question proposal has no additional content, you are free to removed it. But once users start putting their efforts towards the development of that idea… the proposal becomes part of collective ...
5
That doesn't make any sense - the asker is baised towards liking his question.
And if they are doing it as a planned-bad example, it will be downvoted.
Since voting changed a while back on proposal questions, this concept is even less reasonable than it may have been when Area 51 started.
5
I wonder about yet another option:
Votes on questions that have score of 10 or more don't count towards the 5 upvotes limit.
That way we get the best of both worlds and more:
People won't feel they "lose/waste" their votes on questions that are already above 10. They can still differentiate between best questions and ones "marginally fitting". We'd ...
5
Ideally, a "commitment" should be considered fulfilled the moment they meet that criteria, and they should retain that status regardless of how the site/private beta ultimately does. Their commitment has been fulfilled.
For users who haven't (yet) fulfilled their comment when a private beta shuts down, that data should just be discarded. We simply do not ...
5
Area 51 is run on a separate system from the rest of Stack Exchange; Area 51 Discussion runs on the old version of the regular Meta Stack Exchange system.
The "new user" helpbox was added relatively recently, after the change made in the rest of the network.
As such, adding the helpbox to Area 51 would take further development work, which has already been ...
4
Area 51 is not available in the Data Explorer. The code and database running Area 51 are just too different from Stack Exchange to work with the current Data Explorer application. Area 51 started out based on Stack Exchange proper, but there are now too many differences to make it work under the same platform.
At this time, we're not likely to expend ...
4
This has been tried before, with Programmers Stack Exchange, and failed.
Initially, Programmers was supposed to be a place for non-programming-related questions asked by programmers. This was a useless mess and quickly got repurposed to pretty much what you describe: a place for subjective questions related to programming. Over time, guidelines evolved to ...
answered Aug 18 '13 at 17:50
Gilles 'SO- stop being evil'
2,1491 gold badge22 silver badges47 bronze badges
4
Note: I put in a feature request to have that changed to 10 questions/day (pending dev approval) [UPDATE: The number of questions/day has been changed to 10!]. That (revised) number is based on a scatter plot of all our sites and where they seem to fall when the site becomes "rock solid" in their category.
No, that does not mean that <10 questions per ...
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 ...
4
Quoting from What's going on with Area 51? (thanks Robert):
The gist of it is "it works well enough for the site proposal process, and we have a lot more higher priority work to do on Q&A + other projects".– Anna Lear♦
In short, it's so hardly un-updated that it's not worth the time and effort to improve it, since it somehow works. Maybe they're ...
3
The example questions are there simply to start filling in the scope for the site. I.e. "What type of questions would you like to ask?"
These aren't supposed to be fully fleshed out questions with details and background. Users don't typically know enough to avoid answering these questions as it is. This would only exasperate that problem. The purposely-...
3
The example questions are just that: examples. They exist to define the scope for the site. They define what the community thinks should be on-topic for discussion, nothing more.
3
There's always option of downvoting a question with 10 by a different user, and then the "over the cap" does matter. I'm against a hard cap, but an automatic warning that "this vote is better spent elsewhere" would be welcome.
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
