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.
Post History
I've had some thoughts about this, which I'll try to coalesce into something resembling an answer. Codidact is growing, but we're still a small project. To help us grow, we're looking to build act...
Answer
#2: Post edited
by
ArtOfCode
·
2020-06-16T12:10:33Z (over 4 years ago)
- I've had some thoughts about this, which I'll try to coalesce into something resembling an answer.
- > Codidact is growing, but we're still a small project. To help us grow, we're looking to build active, thriving communities. To that end, we're currently only creating sites that have a community already interested.
- >
- > If you have a community (anywhere from a handful of users up) looking for a site, we can host it for you. Post in this category describing the site you need, tag your post with [proposal] and we'll talk details.
- >
- > If you don't have a community, but you have suggestions for sites we could create, you can post here using the [idea] tag to gauge if others are interested in helping you build that site. We're not currently creating sites without the support of a group or community, but with luck your [idea] post here will help you find that community — then we can convert your post to a [proposal] and discuss the details.
- >
- > Thanks!
- > — The Codidact Team
- That's from our posting guidelines in the Site Suggestions category here. I think it's relevant because of that first paragraph - "we're looking to build active, thriving communities".
- What will draw people to this project? I think there's only a small handful of answers - dislike of SE, desire to build an open platform - but chief among them has to be people looking for answers to questions (or whatever other content types our communities allow). We have to be able to provide somewhere that can do that, or we don't have a community at all.
- Which leads me to my point: I think we'd be better served by starting off with a single combined community. We're small, and we don't have huge numbers of users; splitting an already small number into separate sites for separate technologies leaves us with lots of sites, but not many _communities_, and little activity. Ghost towns isn't a good look.
So, I'd propose starting with a single site. If we get enough engagement that one type of content starts to overwhelm others, we can look again and create a new site for that technology, copying all its existing posts over. Until that happens, I think the benefits of having activity to show far outstrip any potential losses from simply not being the _right kind_ of activity.
- I've had some thoughts about this, which I'll try to coalesce into something resembling an answer.
- > Codidact is growing, but we're still a small project. To help us grow, we're looking to build active, thriving communities. To that end, we're currently only creating sites that have a community already interested.
- >
- > If you have a community (anywhere from a handful of users up) looking for a site, we can host it for you. Post in this category describing the site you need, tag your post with [proposal] and we'll talk details.
- >
- > If you don't have a community, but you have suggestions for sites we could create, you can post here using the [idea] tag to gauge if others are interested in helping you build that site. We're not currently creating sites without the support of a group or community, but with luck your [idea] post here will help you find that community — then we can convert your post to a [proposal] and discuss the details.
- >
- > Thanks!
- > — The Codidact Team
- That's from our posting guidelines in the Site Suggestions category here. I think it's relevant because of that first paragraph - "we're looking to build active, thriving communities".
- What will draw people to this project? I think there's only a small handful of answers - dislike of SE, desire to build an open platform - but chief among them has to be people looking for answers to questions (or whatever other content types our communities allow). We have to be able to provide somewhere that can do that, or we don't have a community at all.
- Which leads me to my point: I think we'd be better served by starting off with a single combined community. We're small, and we don't have huge numbers of users; splitting an already small number into separate sites for separate technologies leaves us with lots of sites, but not many _communities_, and little activity. Ghost towns isn't a good look.
- So, I'd propose starting with a single site. If we get enough engagement that one type of content starts to overwhelm others, we can look again and create a new site for that technology, copying all its existing posts over. Until that happens, I think the benefits of having activity to show far outstrip any potential losses from simply not being the _right kind_ of activity.
- ---
- Having said that, I don't think we need one site for _absolutely everything_. Some topics are distinct enough to not be well-served by an umbrella site. What I'm suggesting here is one umbrella "programming" site; topics like - as aCVn has said - embedded systems, microcontroller design and programming, etc, could do with either being on-topic for Electrical Engineering, or having their own site. From your list:
- * professional coding - umbrella site
- * software engineering - umbrella site[^1]
- * computer science - umbrella site[^1]
- * cloud technologies - umbrella site[^1]
- * single-board computers - spin-off
- [^1]: For now. These are probably some of the first topics to spin off when the activity is there.
#1: Initial revision
by
ArtOfCode
·
2020-06-16T12:05:39Z (over 4 years ago)
I've had some thoughts about this, which I'll try to coalesce into something resembling an answer. > Codidact is growing, but we're still a small project. To help us grow, we're looking to build active, thriving communities. To that end, we're currently only creating sites that have a community already interested. > > If you have a community (anywhere from a handful of users up) looking for a site, we can host it for you. Post in this category describing the site you need, tag your post with [proposal] and we'll talk details. > > If you don't have a community, but you have suggestions for sites we could create, you can post here using the [idea] tag to gauge if others are interested in helping you build that site. We're not currently creating sites without the support of a group or community, but with luck your [idea] post here will help you find that community — then we can convert your post to a [proposal] and discuss the details. > > Thanks! > — The Codidact Team That's from our posting guidelines in the Site Suggestions category here. I think it's relevant because of that first paragraph - "we're looking to build active, thriving communities". What will draw people to this project? I think there's only a small handful of answers - dislike of SE, desire to build an open platform - but chief among them has to be people looking for answers to questions (or whatever other content types our communities allow). We have to be able to provide somewhere that can do that, or we don't have a community at all. Which leads me to my point: I think we'd be better served by starting off with a single combined community. We're small, and we don't have huge numbers of users; splitting an already small number into separate sites for separate technologies leaves us with lots of sites, but not many _communities_, and little activity. Ghost towns isn't a good look. So, I'd propose starting with a single site. If we get enough engagement that one type of content starts to overwhelm others, we can look again and create a new site for that technology, copying all its existing posts over. Until that happens, I think the benefits of having activity to show far outstrip any potential losses from simply not being the _right kind_ of activity.