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?
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?
What should be done in these cases? Should we just wait and let the site open? Should we train some monkeys to write que …
4y ago
A site may be effectively dead in terms of new valid contributions. That is unfortunate, and may reflect badly on the re …
1y ago
If the goal is to collect knowledge and information about at topic, and when new information stops appearing, then it's …
4y ago
3 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.
A site may be effectively dead in terms of new valid contributions. That is unfortunate, and may reflect badly on the rest of the Codidact network. A user visiting Codidact for the first time, may be provided a bad first impression, if the Codidact site they visited, has been inactive for a while. In addition, potential answerers may be tempted to not revisit the site. Users unaware of the larger Codidact network, and the prosperity of the other sites, may be led to believe that Codidact is a lost cause, and that other sites are not worth visiting.
If a community can no longer sustain the moderation of its own site, the site should be locked down into a read-only mode. This will ensure that the knowledge gathered on the site, remains accessible, but will also prevent bad actors from abusing the site for their own purposes, such as misinformation, spam and rude content.
A site in this state can either remain in this state indefinitely, be reopened, or permanently closed down.
A site should only be permanently closed down if the site no longer serves any purpose in being open, would inflict harm by continuing to exist, or for other reasons, is deemed unfit for reopening.
A site should be reopened if it passes the requirements for new site creations; it needs an active community that is capable of moderating it, as well as provide content for it. It is pointless to reopen it without a dedicated user base providing new content; the motivation to continue moderating it without proper contributions, will eventually decline.
A site in the locked down mode, should provide easy access to an explanation of why the site is locked down (for instance, a link to an explanation page, in a banner). This page should explain that this specific site is locked down, but reassure the user that the other Codidact sites are still well alive. In addition, the user should perhaps be able to sign up for a notification in case the site ever reopens, as well as be linked to resources useful for flagging interest in having the community reopened.
0 comment threads
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.
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.
0 comment threads
1 comment thread