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
Here is a mechanism that addresses some of the problems:
- Each proposed new site is a full site in the structural sense. It has all the proposed categories, including meta.
- These sites would be in a single container that is at the same level as the full sites. This container would be called Experimental sites.
- Experimental sites are run a bit differently than full sites. They don't yet have much of a user base, and there will be more diverging opinions on the direction the site should take.
The proposers would be the moderators. Users don't earn abilities. They can only be granted them by the moderators, including the moderator ability.
I know this goes against the user-driven philosophy, but it is worth it to have a coherent vision of what the site should be. Design by committee doesn't really work. If someone or a group comes here with a vision for a new site, we should give them a chance to prove themselves before assuming certain things don't work or should be different. We don't want the original proposers getting disillusioned and leave.
Of course there would still be meta discussions about how the site should be formed, but it is up to the original proposers what suggestions to accept or not.
- Anyone can propose a new competing site with a somewhat different focus than another experimental site. This is how we get around problems of point 3, above. If someone proposes something really crazy and won't listen to advice, then those who feel strongly about it can and should propose a different version. Let the marketplace decides which wins. Perhaps in some cases the sites diverge so far that they become viable as distinct full sites.
The point is to give each idea a chance instead of trying to mold them, then let the different ideas compete to decide which to finally promote, if any.
A big advantage of this scheme is that an experimental site looks and feels like a full site from within, especially to users unfamiliar with Codidact. It's a level down in the tree structure, but you don't care or even know if you're just given a URL to check out. Eventually some of those "outside" users might pop up a level and explore, becoming more active Codidact-wide users. By that time, they'd understand about full and experimental sites.
Response to comments
wondering if this new community would have links to the existing communities in the drop down at the top right of the page
I hadn't thought about that. My first reaction is that from an experimental site, you'd see the other experimental sites, with a single entry to go to the full sites. From a full site, it's the other way around.
Does the "level" at which these communities sit make any difference? Is this suggestion practically equivalent to letting anyone make a new community, but with the founder able to hand out abilities?
I think it's important to segregate the experimental sites from the full sites. The experimental sites are by definition half-baked. They could easily appear as noise to many users, reflecting badly on all of Codidact. It should take deliberate action to see the "mess".
Segregating the experimental sites also makes it easier to understand that rules might be different, and that some proposals might turn out to be silly ideas in the long run. After all, they are experiments.
I envision the main page that lists the experimental sites having a disclaimer at the top, pointing to help files that explain the situation in more detail. The main page for each category in the experimental sites should also have an obvious warning or disclaimer that you're in a experimental zone.
The current Proposals community was intended to avoid creating new communities before they are ready, which end up with almost zero activity. Does putting new communities in a container at a different level from existing communities change this?
The new communities are created either way. In the current system they are less obvious and harder to find, but they are still essentially there. They are also in a single container when viewing the list of full sites.
By putting experimental communities in their own area, it makes it clear they are different from the full communities. One of those differences is that we expect the volumes to be low.
Having an experimental site mostly look and feel like the final site will be important to pointing potential users to them. Because of that, I expect these experimental sites to grow faster than our current proposed sites. None of those have more than a small handful of posts, and most of those are from users already at Codidact for other reasons. That's a recipe for failure.
3 comment threads
0 comment threads