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,...


30

Creating a 'slush pile' for miscellaneous questions goes squarely against the purpose for which Stack Exchange was created. Our goal is not to create "general sites" for technology or anything else. Instead we create very specific sites for each community's area of expertise. See About Stack Exchange. That's why instead of allowing questions on any topic, ...


18

The SE model works well by attracting experts. In short, how do you attract experts on (by definition) the broadest possible topic in the universe?!


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

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

But it is also a bit more specific. Politics is not political science. Is this group for discussing things like electoral systems or Congressional rules? Or is it for discussing the practical implications of those things. I think that if it were entitled political science, would be followers would feel like they couldn't contribute or benefit to that sort of ...


7

As reported from the FAQ, there is a limit of 5 up-votes per proposal, and a limit of 30 votes per day. This means that you could up-vote 5 questions for a proposal, and down-vote 25 questions the first day; down-vote 30 questions of the same proposal the next days. While I would expect serial down-votes for a proposal's questions to be detected, I feel ...


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 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 ...


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

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 ...


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

I, too, prefer the term Politics over Political Science. Political Science ideally abstracts policy and personality, focusing strictly on process. Politics is where the rubber of Political Science literally hits the roads of (Insert Country Here). Politics is far more practical. I suspect, however, the concern is in describing "What is Politics?" in ...


3

This site is full of legitimate questions about clarifying the subjects of these proposals. It would not be possible to parse the English language to separate a questions about whether a subject would be on topic and asking a question about the subject itself. Our devs are good but they're not that good. I'm not sure anyone is. It just would not be ...


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

Long story short — unless there are extraordinary, game-changing circumstances that warrant adding a custom domain name, we simply aren't doing custom domain names for any sites as a matter of policy. Here's a bit of background: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/103542/98786 https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/103686/98786


2

The changes to Area 51 are designed to require a broader base of users to support the founding of the site. In previous iterations of Area 51, too few people have been able to push a proposal through, creating a site that struggles… usually irrecoverably. This would only allow fewer users to do more work; the opposite of what we are actually looking ...


2

I remove hundreds of abandoned or nonviable proposals each month. If I left them simply [closed], more than 85% of the listings would be filled with junk. Besides, I don't want to create a head-on-a-stick environment where once-tried proposals are met with "We already tried that; it didn't work. Go home!" If a proposal doesn't work, it doesn't mean it can ...


2

We discussed the idea of an Area 51 feed, but we decided against it. Area 51 isn't an expert-followed Q&A site like those you cited. Area 51 doesn't really have a core community of "proposal followers" — and if there is one, I'm not sure we want to necessarily encourage that avocation. Proposals are supposed to be created and supported by groups ...


2

Unfortunately, the reputation model of the Stack Exchange Q&A does not map very well to the site-creation process of Area 51, so it's not really something you should expect to accumulate in the context of this site. We simply rely on a different model. Proposals are meant to be developed by the audience who will actually use the site. Area 51 has ...


2

Thank you for the suggestion. Your idea has merit, but the Area 51 system is in the sunset of its development so we will not be adding additional features/badges to this system until a next-generation system has been developed. You can read the latest on the future of site creation here: What's going on with Area 51? It is highly unlikely that a next-...


1

We do not support HTTPS yet, we are working on performance problems associated with it before it is enabled. We do not link you to this anywhere yet, for a reason. If you use https://area51.stackexchange.com then be prepared for breaks until we're ready.


1

The premise of purposely asking off-topic questions to define what the site is NOT about has been largely deprecated. We don't do that anymore. But if you're genuinely interested in exploring those edge cases to see if a topic will be well received on the new site, you have to ask the question to have the discussion. Honestly, the entire concept of ...


1

Because example questions should be like headlines: you see a few words and you build yourself an expectation what can be the question about. Of course it is difficult to ask question which will be understood as you wish, when you have only question headline, and not body, like on normal SE. But you have only 5 questions per proposal and you are expected to ...


1

Area 51 has it's share of usability problems (and we are addressing them), but we are not going to provide a blind link to join a proposal that allows a users to click without seeing what the proposal is about. Too much potential for abuse.


1

While I don't necessarily believe we need to rename this proposal to Political Science, I'm going to note that the current top 5 upvoted questions are political science questions. Not only that, political science deals with both the theoretical as well as the practical side of politics. While it would suggest academic discussion, you can't have good ...


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