Post History

<blockquote>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?</blockquote>

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 <i>"Screw this"</i>, 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 <i>might</i> 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.