Timeline for Including a reference to the proposed "Software Recommendations" site
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 18, 2013 at 18:06 | history | edited | nhinkleMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added link
|
| Jul 18, 2013 at 17:34 | comment | added | dtmland | @nhinkle I've also just discovered that in the "closed" explanation message that I linked to in my question it includes a link to that very blog post! (embarrassed that I missed that...) | |
| Jul 18, 2013 at 17:30 | comment | added | dtmland | @nhinkle I've marked your answer as correct. I'm wondering if it would be possible that you could include that blog link somehow in your post? (making it easier for someone to stumble upon it) | |
| Jul 18, 2013 at 17:29 | vote | accept | dtmland | ||
| Jul 18, 2013 at 17:27 | comment | added | dtmland | I wish I had seen it before posting this question. Although, if I hadn't perhaps the "Software Recommendations" site would have aimlessly lingered on? | |
| Jul 18, 2013 at 17:24 | comment | added | dtmland | @nhinkle That blog post is enlightening. Now I see what you mean about not fitting into "Stack Exchange's style and mission". | |
| Jul 18, 2013 at 17:21 | comment | added | nhinkle Mod | It's likely that the people who are invested in this proposal honestly don't realize that the scope of such a site doesn't fit well into Stack Exchange's paradigm. I'm planning to start an Area 51 discussion about that proposal, with particular reference to the semi-official blog post on shopping questions on Stack Exchange. | |
| Jul 18, 2013 at 17:13 | comment | added | dtmland | @KronoS Well, if what you say is correct, then I should probably study the Area51 terms a little more. Also, I will likely retract my follow status for the "Software Recommendations" site, as I don't want to contribute to something that is destined to fail. | |
| Jul 18, 2013 at 17:04 | comment | added | James Mertz | @dtmland No. There's a lot that goes into defining the site even before it's launched. A site has to have a clear goal, great example questions, and a well formed definition before even being considered for creation. Once it's running it's still graded on number of questions and answers and their ratio as well as traffic and avid users. | |
| Jul 18, 2013 at 17:00 | comment | added | dtmland | @KronoS But user activity/contribution IS the only factor that determines the successfulness of an Area51 site. Is it not? | |
| Jul 18, 2013 at 16:55 | comment | added | James Mertz | @dtmland User activity isn't and shouldn't be the only factor in determining the successfulness of an Area51 prop. Software Rec will never make it through as a site. It goes against everything that SE stands for. | |
| Jul 18, 2013 at 16:52 | comment | added | dtmland | Yes, but doesn't minimal user activity indicate a poor proposal? If lots of people are looking for such a site, and they find it, then user activity will likely increase and eventually the site will progress to the higher stages. Why would you want to prevent someone from finding such a site? | |
| Jul 18, 2013 at 16:47 | comment | added | nhinkle Mod | @dtmland there's no automatic restriction on proposing sites on Area 51. Lots of poor proposals get created. Thousands of sites get suggested, very few of which even make it to private beta, even fewer of which go through public beta and make it to graduation. | |
| Jul 18, 2013 at 16:46 | comment | added | dtmland | If the site will never fit within the scope of Stack Exchange's style and mission, why was it allowed to be created? | |
| Jul 18, 2013 at 16:40 | history | answered | nhinkleMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |