Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

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 Why don't we just make communities for every launched stack?

Parent

Why don't we just make communities for every launched stack?

+1
−14

Rather than reinvent each community, why don't the admins just create a community for each subject that Stack launched a site for?

Such as statistics, interpersonal skills, workplace, law, philosophy ....

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

1 comment thread

General comments (1 comment)
Post
+4
−1
why don't the admin[s] just create a community for each subject that Stack launched a site for?

Because content doesn't create a community. Engaged users do.

If sites here are just clones of elsewhere, then there is no point for a core group of users to be here. In fact, having content here be largely copies from elsewhere will actually drive those necessary core users away.

Even if new people happen to stumble on this site, all those attribution links will surely cause them to at least check out the other site. Once that happens, they are unlikely to come back. Why should they? All the activity and original copies of the content are Over There.

In case there is still any doubt, look at our experience here. We have 10 non-meta sites today. Of those, the three that heavily imported content from elsewhere (Writing, Outdoors, Scientific Speculation) are in the bottom 4 of activity and nearly dead.

The folks over at Writing are actually discussing deleting some of the imported content.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

General comments (1 comment)
General comments
Olin Lathrop‭ wrote about 4 years ago · edited about 4 years ago

Whoever downvoted, it would be interesting to hear exactly what you disagree with. This is a good debate to have. However, it's not clear what to make of something as broad as an unexplained downvote on the aggregate of 5 paragraphs. Do you disagree with all of it? Just one point? If so, which? Did I get a fact wrong? As we are learning that imported content doesn't work, it's important to hear different insights into the issue.