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
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 ...
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 ...
20
We've talked a lot about this one on the Stack Exchange Community Team, and we have plenty of time before the Sexuality proposal is likely to see a private beta in which to hammer out the details. It is clear to us that there will need to be some separation between the Sexuality site and the network at large -- for example, non-PG13 question titles shouldn'...
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 ...
15
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 ...
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 ...
11
What to do now:
Just flag it for moderator attention; there are only 5 10k users who would be able to see the duplicate flag. Two of those users haven't been here for six months, and could hardly be expected to look at the review queue. Only one's been here in the last couple days, and wouldn't accomplish anything.
Why this sub-optimal solution is ...
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
We used to do that somewhat manually (close a proposal quickly if no example questions submitted). So at least, in principle, it's a good idea. But we're in the midsts of designing a next-generation Area 51 process… so while we're not likely to add this feature to the current software, something like it will almost certainly be part of version 2.0.
10
I support this; allowing 200-rep editing suggestions would encourage positive behavior, increase the usability of the website, and make it more consistent with some other SE sites such as Stack Overflow. Having historically made great proposals is essentially unrelated to making competent editing suggestions.
Moreover, it decreases the incentive to post ...
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 think forcing you to type it out is the point -- akin to a signature:
When a proposal enters the "Commitment" phase, we will present a petition for the site's creation. Interested users are asked to digitally "sign" the proposal with their full name to help assure that site will have an active community in those critical early days. While your full name ...
8
As of now, you can "update" your commitment just by visiting the proposal while logged in. This resets your commitment's decay, so its contribution to the total commitment % is the same as if you had just committed.
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 ...
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 ...
7
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 ...
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 ...
5
The whole concept of reputation in Area 51 is a bit wonky. We're not building a canon of Q&A knowledge here, so the very premise of awarding up-votes and reputation for "good contribution" is a bit forced — square peg, round hole.
All is well, though, at least for the time being. Most of the "proposal vetting" of Area 51 is handled through the ...
5
The Commitment requirements are purposely a bit obscure. Committing to a site means you agree to use the site and help build it.
Just because we're stuck with the task as measuring what that means using the tools at our disposal, that doesn't mean "using the site" should be reduced to a formula of "please ask 5 questions with at least three up-votes and ...
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
Probably because it's not really necessary?
This isn't SO, where there are a bunch of 10k users who can act on a subset of the gazillions of flags they get. On big sites, yes, it's useful to have a separate 10k flag queue where you can review flags-as-duplicates while moderators handle different matters. On small sites like most of the current SE 2.0 ...
5
I am fine if the link in Area 51 is not changed from discuss, but actually the discussion site for Area 51 is not different from a meta site for a Stack Exchange 2.0 site. In fact, in a Stack Exchange 2.0 site:
the main site is for questions about the topic assigned to the site
the meta site is (also) for discussions about the questions that have been asked ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
