Welcome to Codidact Meta!
Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.
Comments on Our site incubator concept needs a re-think
Parent
Our site incubator concept needs a re-think
Background
Starting new sites here at Codidact has evolved over time, mostly as we got experience and realized we needed to do something different.
Originally, new sites would be proposed here on meta, kicked around, then fully created if it felt right. That sortof worked when Codidact was new, but we found some sites were being launched without sufficient commitment and interest from users. These sites are still here, but have very low activity.
The current incubator system was developed in response to that. A site was created just for starting new sites.
The current system
If you have an idea for a new site, you write it up in the Descriptions category.
Users can indicate their interest and expected level of commitment to the proposed site by selecting one of several "reactions". Currently, the choices are Casual browser, Active user, or Subject matter expert. The users that "signed up" with each reaction are shown at the top of the site proposal so that everyone can see the level of interest.
To define the site better, questions are asked in the Incubator Q&A category. Each question is tagged with the special tag unique to each proposed site. Voting is largely used to get people's opinions of whether the question is a good fit for the proposed site. Reasons why and arguments for or against fit are in comments. Answers are written as if the question were on the real site.
Hashing out the site definition is done in the meta category. People can argue for or against changes to the existing proposal, with voting used to get a sense of how the community feels about each issue. Proposals can then be edited accordingly.
Existing problems
Let's understand that the design of the current system was well-meaning, and in response to experience with the previous system. However, now that we've had some experience with this system, several problems have become apparent:
- Who/when edits the proposal? There have been good discussions in meta about details of various proposals. However, what constitutes a consensus such that the site proposal should be changed? What does it mean when a change gets 2 upvotes and 2 downvotes? Keep in mind that the original proposer presumably agrees with the proposal, so 2-2 vote tally is really 3-2 users for/against. What threshold is sufficient? Who gets to decide that? Anyone can edit the proposal, but when should they?
-
Huge barrier to "outside" people. There are a lot of mechanics around trying to "use" any of the proposed sites. Those already here at Codidact for other reasons can generally figure it out. However, consider the experience of someone outside being told of a new site with a topic that interests them. This person may not be used to computer forums or Q&A sites, or particularly tech-savy. I'll use someone who is interested in invasive species as an example, since there is a meta discussion about that:
- OK, I've read the site proposal and the rules make sense. What's this "proposal" thing? I thought I was going to an invasive species forum.
- Huh? I can't just ask a question here? I have to go to this other "category" thing?
- There is nothing about invasive species here! I don't care about how to make kelp grow less tall, fixing corrupt data in some game, resurrecting long-dead people. What the ...? I must be in the wrong place.
- OK, I have to post my question here, but it has to be "tagged". What's a tag? What tag am I supposed to use? How was I supposed to know this before getting a nasty-gram message in a comment?
- It's a day later. Where did my question go? All I see is babble about psychic powers to move stuff around, some philosophy BS about Kant (who the heck is that?), people underground not knowing a war is over, blah, blah, blah.
- Olin told me this place was for discussing invasive species. I'll never believe anything that guy says again. I'm outta here!
Actually, I can't envision anyone making it to step 6. Most will be lost by step 3.
- Substantially new topics have no chance. Since only existing Codidact users are going to have meaningful impact on proposed sites, the only possible new sites are somewhat close to other topics users are already here for. For example, Worldbuilding might work because enough people here for Scientific Speculation could be interested. It's no surprise that Worldbuilding has gotten way more action than Invasive Species, for example.
-
Nobody outside will ever find a proposed site. Even ignoring the large barrier to participation of outside people, how are they ever going to discover a possible new site? There is little focused on the specific topic for search engines to guide you too. There isn't a whole site proclaiming to be about "Invasive Species", for example, just a site proposal.
A search engine might point you to a specific question in the Incubator Q&A category, but then what? Answering the question may not be so bad, but what if you want to ask a different question? Now there are a lot of things you need to know you really have no way to know you don't know, and it looks like you ended up in a pile of drivel.
The question
Let's hear some ideas for a better way to start new sites.
I agree we want to make it easier for those being recruited for a specific proposal to be able to focus on that proposal …
3mo ago
I think that a lot of the current approach mostly works. Once you've gotten here, if you have an interest in other topi …
3mo ago
Here is a mechanism that addresses some of the problems: Each proposed new site is a full site in the structural sens …
3mo ago
I don't know whether I like the following idea better or worse than the current approach with a tag for each proposed co …
3mo ago
Post
I don't know whether I like the following idea better or worse than the current approach with a tag for each proposed community, but I agree we could benefit from discussion of new ideas, so here's an idea to discuss. Maybe discussion will lead to something better than either.
Category per proposed community
Process
- If I have an idea for a new community, I add a description to the Descriptions category (as currently).
- A moderator sees the new description and responds by creating a new category with that name, with the first paragraph of the description as the category description at the top of the page.
- A link can now be added from the post in the Descriptions category to its new dedicated category.
- Anyone can now add example questions to this category, and answer them and vote and comment on them.
Less Codidact experience needed
This means that the category only contains questions for this specific proposed community, and there is a community-specific description at the top of the category page, so people unfamiliar with Codidact can be given a link directly to the category and not have to find their way from the Descriptions category.
Meta
Should Meta questions be asked
- In the existing Meta category
- In the relevant proposed community category with the tag "meta"?
- In an individual community-name-meta category per proposed community?
I'd lean towards one of the first two, to keep the number of categories down.
Tags
Currently all questions are in one category, so a tag name that happens to apply to two or more proposed communities will either have a description that only applies to one of them (whoever edited first), or have sections for different communities, making it confusing for people not experienced with how Proposals works.
With a category per community, there could also be a tag set per category (the software already supports this - it's an option an admin can select). This way, a tag in the Invasive Species category has a description unique to that category, even if a tag with the same name also exists in Board Games or Politics.
1 comment thread
0 comment threads