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
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
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.

What should happen with inactive communities?

+7
−0

The level of activity of the communities vary. Some are more active than others, which isn't exactly a problem. However, I'm a bit worried when a community becomes significantly less active than others and there is little original content being created by the group proposing it1.

This can mean different things, for example:

  • the suggestors don't have any questions right now
  • the suggestors don't have much time right now
  • the suggestors aren't active (anymore)

What should be done in these cases? Should we just wait and let the site open? Should we train some monkeys to write questions? Should we "freeze" the site and provide the contents for download? Should we close it down?

What do you think?

  1. I'd consider a combination of these two phenomenons "significantly less active": low number of active or new non-contest non-meta top-level posts2 and few users, where most have just 1 reputation.

Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

1 comment thread

General comments (2 comments)

2 answers

You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.

+0
−0

If the goal is to collect knowledge and information about at topic, and when new information stops appearing, then it's fine if there is no activity on the site.

But even in that case some regular maintenance in form of moderation would still be needed to remove occasional spam or revert bogus/malicious edits.

Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

+10
−0
What should be done in these cases? Should we just wait and let the site open? Should we train some monkeys to write questions? Should we "freeze" the site and provide the contents for download? Should we close it down?

Let it be.

The only real harm inactive sites are doing is to their own future. People come by, see that nothing is going on, mumble to themselves "Screw this", and don't come back.

That's a bad situation, and indicates a site was prematurely launched, or launched without proper commitment of the proposers. However, what harm is it really doing? It might build to something good over time. The upside might be small, but so is the downside.

About the only downside is that the existence of an inactive site prevents a proper launch of a similar active site. For example, it might be better in the long run to scrape away the existing Photography site, wait a few months, then launch a new Photography site for real, this time with real commitment and marketing. However, that seems way too heavy handed, at least at this point and in the absence of a group with a solid proposal to do it right.

So again, let it be. We've only been at this a few months. Even if it was ultimately decided to kill a site, it should be given substantially more time than that. The site's core group should also be given notice, present a plan for turn-around, and be given time to implement that plan. This is not something that should be done lightly, if ever.

Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

General comments (1 comment)

Sign up to answer this question »