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 »
Blog

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

#3: Post edited by user avatar Monica Cellio‭ · 2020-08-04T17:23:29Z (over 4 years ago)
  • Our network now has eight sites (plus Meta), and we hope to see many more
  • as we continue to develop both our platform and our communities.
  • As we've worked with communities to build the sites we have now, we've
  • found ourselves adjusting how we go about deciding when a site is ready.
  • We are trying to strike a good balance between **being responsive and
  • getting out of the way** when a community is ready to proceed, on the one hand, and **not jumping the gun and creating sites before people are ready to use them**, on the other. When people come to a site that we've announced, they want to see some activity already. It's a chicken-and-egg problem, and we're trying to solve it by having some people ready to create that initial activity.
  • For a while we've judged this by voting and activity on the proposal and
  • some amount of "gut feeling". This works for proposals that take off
  • quickly, like Electrical Engineering and Judaism did, but it might not be
  • serving the longer-running proposals as well. Two months ago I was guessing
  • we'd be creating the [Tabletop Role-Playing Games](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/74852)
  • site soon and, yet, we haven't. I can't tell if we don't have the
  • interested users or if people indicated their interest by voting on the
  • proposal and are patiently waiting for us to set it up.
  • The challenge is that a vote on the proposal can mean a few different
  • things. It can mean "this sounds like a viable site". It can mean "I'm
  • passively interested; I would read that". It can mean "I am eager to build
  • this and would participate heavily". We just don't know.
  • This is why I've begun to add the following answer to proposals:
  • > Right now we don't have a good way of identifying people who would help build a new community, so let's do this: if you are interested in helping to build this site, please leave a comment describing your level of interest (casual visitor, enthusiast, expert in this topic within the site's scope, something else?). I'll edit them into the post later.
  • We don't want to create a heavyweight process or a system of quotas. We
  • do not need to see commitments from 200+ people before we'll create a site.
  • (If we did, we wouldn't have any of our current sites.) But we'd like to
  • know that a few propsective *contributors* are out there alongside the
  • readers and browsers. We're asking for the feedback publicly, in comments,
  • so the builders will know who each other are, and so they can clue us in
  • about things we wouldn't know on our own. For example, EE came to us with
  • a small group of experts; knowing that about the founders helped us move
  • quickly. Sometimes it's more about *who* than *how many*.
  • We have several suggestions that look viable but we can't tell if
  • people are interested in building them. In some cases the suggestions
  • are not very developed yet but they gained a positive response. Please
  • help refine them where you can and weigh in where you are interested:
  • - [Tabletop Role Playing Games](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/74852)
  • - [Mathematics](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/277002)
  • - [Single Board Microcontrollers](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/74991)
  • - [History](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/275968)
  • - [Medical Science](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/276933)
  • There are several more suggestions in the
  • [Site Proposals](https://meta.codidact.com/categories/10) category.
  • If you see something there that you can contribute to, please do.
  • If you've been following site proposals, you might be wondering why
  • this list doesn't include two proposals with a lot of support:
  • - We have, just today, launched
  • [Languages and Linguistics](https://languages.codidact.com/questions/277069)
  • -- it's brand new and empty right now, so if you've been waiting for it,
  • please go forth and ask and answer.
  • - We plan to launch
  • [Software Development](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/75033)
  • soon. Software Development will be both a site and an incubator; we are
  • planning from the beginning that some sites might spin off from it later.
  • We also want to work out how best to collaborate with our friends at
  • TopAnswers, who have several language-specific sites.
  • Our network now has eight sites (plus Meta), and we hope to see many more
  • as we continue to develop both our platform and our communities.
  • As we've worked with communities to build the sites we have now, we've
  • found ourselves adjusting how we go about deciding when a site is ready.
  • We are trying to strike a good balance between **being responsive and
  • getting out of the way** when a community is ready to proceed, on the one hand, and **not jumping the gun and creating sites before people are ready to use them**, on the other. When people come to a site that we've announced, they want to see some activity already. It's a chicken-and-egg problem, and we're trying to solve it by having some people ready to create that initial activity.
  • For a while we've judged this by voting and activity on the proposal and
  • some amount of "gut feeling". This works for proposals that take off
  • quickly, like Electrical Engineering and Judaism did, but it might not be
  • serving the longer-running proposals as well. Two months ago I was guessing
  • we'd be creating the [Tabletop Role-Playing Games](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/74852)
  • site soon and, yet, we haven't. I can't tell if we don't have the
  • interested users or if people indicated their interest by voting on the
  • proposal and are patiently waiting for us to set it up.
  • The challenge is that a vote on the proposal can mean a few different
  • things. It can mean "this sounds like a viable site". It can mean "I'm
  • passively interested; I would read that". It can mean "I am eager to build
  • this and would participate heavily". We just don't know.
  • This is why I've begun to add the following answer to proposals:
  • > Right now we don't have a good way of identifying people who would help build a new community, so let's do this: if you are interested in helping to build this site, please leave a comment describing your level of interest (casual visitor, enthusiast, expert in this topic within the site's scope, something else?). I'll edit them into the post later.
  • We don't want to create a heavyweight process or a system of quotas. We
  • do not need to see commitments from 200+ people before we'll create a site.
  • (If we did, we wouldn't have any of our current sites.) But we'd like to
  • know that a few propsective *contributors* are out there alongside the
  • readers and browsers. We're asking for the feedback publicly, in comments,
  • so the builders will know who each other are, and so they can clue us in
  • about things we wouldn't know on our own. For example, EE came to us with
  • a small group of experts; knowing that about the founders helped us move
  • quickly. Sometimes it's more about *who* than *how many*.
  • We have several suggestions that look viable but we can't tell if
  • people are interested in building them. In some cases the suggestions
  • are not very developed yet but they gained a positive response. Please
  • help refine them where you can and weigh in where you are interested:
  • - [Tabletop Role Playing Games](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/74852)
  • - [Mathematics](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/277002)
  • - [Single Board Microcontrollers](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/74991)
  • - [History](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/275968)
  • - [Medical Science](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/276933)
  • There are several more suggestions in the
  • [Site Proposals](https://meta.codidact.com/categories/10) category.
  • If you see something there that you can contribute to, please do.
  • If you've been following site proposals, you might be wondering why
  • this list doesn't include two proposals with a lot of support:
  • - We have, just today, launched
  • [Languages and Linguistics](https://languages.codidact.com/questions/277069)
  • -- it's brand new and empty right now, so if you've been waiting for it,
  • please go forth and ask and answer.
  • - We plan to launch
  • [Software Development](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/75033)
  • soon. Software Development will be both a site and an incubator; we are
  • planning from the beginning that some sites might spin off from it later.
  • We also want to work out how best to collaborate with our friends at
  • TopAnswers, who have several language-specific sites.
#2: Post edited by user avatar Monica Cellio‭ · 2020-08-04T17:23:07Z (over 4 years ago)
  • Our network now has eight sites (plus Meta), and we hope to see many more
  • as we continue to develop both our platform and our communities.
  • As we've worked with communities to build the sites we have now, we've
  • found ourselves adjusting how we go about deciding when a site is ready.
  • We are trying to strike a good balance between **being responsive and
  • getting out of the way** when a community is ready to proceed, on the one
  • hand, and **not jumping the gun and creating sites before people are ready
  • to use them**, on the other. When people come to a site that we've
  • announced, they want to see some activity already. It's a chicken-and-egg
  • problem, and we're trying to solve it by having some people ready to
  • create that initial activity.
  • For a while we've judged this by voting and activity on the proposal and
  • some amount of "gut feeling". This works for proposals that take off
  • quickly, like Electrical Engineering and Judaism did, but it might not be
  • serving the longer-running proposals as well. Two months ago I was guessing
  • we'd be creating the [Tabletop Role-Playing Games](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/74852)
  • site soon and, yet, we haven't. I can't tell if we don't have the
  • interested users or if people indicated their interest by voting on the
  • proposal and are patiently waiting for us to set it up.
  • The challenge is that a vote on the proposal can mean a few different
  • things. It can mean "this sounds like a viable site". It can mean "I'm
  • passively interested; I would read that". It can mean "I am eager to build
  • this and would participate heavily". We just don't know.
  • This is why I've begun to add the following answer to proposals:
  • > Right now we don't have a good way of identifying people who would help build a new community, so let's do this: if you are interested in helping to build this site, please leave a comment describing your level of interest (casual visitor, enthusiast, expert in this topic within the site's scope, something else?). I'll edit them into the post later.
  • We don't want to create a heavyweight process or a system of quotas. We
  • do not need to see commitments from 200+ people before we'll create a site.
  • (If we did, we wouldn't have any of our current sites.) But we'd like to
  • know that a few propsective *contributors* are out there alongside the
  • readers and browsers. We're asking for the feedback publicly, in comments,
  • so the builders will know who each other are, and so they can clue us in
  • about things we wouldn't know on our own. For example, EE came to us with
  • a small group of experts; knowing that about the founders helped us move
  • quickly. Sometimes it's more about *who* than *how many*.
  • We have several suggestions that look viable but we can't tell if
  • people are interested in building them. In some cases the suggestions
  • are not very developed yet but they gained a positive response. Please
  • help refine them where you can and weigh in where you are interested:
  • - [Tabletop Role Playing Games](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/74852)
  • - [Mathematics](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/277002)
  • - [Single Board Microcontrollers](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/74991)
  • - [History](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/275968)
  • - [Medical Science](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/276933)
  • There are several more suggestions in the
  • [Site Proposals](https://meta.codidact.com/categories/10) category.
  • If you see something there that you can contribute to, please do.
  • If you've been following site proposals, you might be wondering why
  • this list doesn't include two proposals with a lot of support:
  • - We have, just today, launched
  • [Languages and Linguistics](https://languages.codidact.com/questions/277069)
  • -- it's brand new and empty right now, so if you've been waiting for it,
  • please go forth and ask and answer.
  • - We plan to launch
  • [Software Development](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/75033)
  • soon. Software Development will be both a site and an incubator; we are
  • planning from the beginning that some sites might spin off from it later.
  • We also want to work out how best to collaborate with our friends at
  • TopAnswers, who have several language-specific sites.
  • Our network now has eight sites (plus Meta), and we hope to see many more
  • as we continue to develop both our platform and our communities.
  • As we've worked with communities to build the sites we have now, we've
  • found ourselves adjusting how we go about deciding when a site is ready.
  • We are trying to strike a good balance between **being responsive and
  • getting out of the way** when a community is ready to proceed, on the one hand, and **not jumping the gun and creating sites before people are ready to use them**, on the other. When people come to a site that we've announced, they want to see some activity already. It's a chicken-and-egg problem, and we're trying to solve it by having some people ready to create that initial activity.
  • For a while we've judged this by voting and activity on the proposal and
  • some amount of "gut feeling". This works for proposals that take off
  • quickly, like Electrical Engineering and Judaism did, but it might not be
  • serving the longer-running proposals as well. Two months ago I was guessing
  • we'd be creating the [Tabletop Role-Playing Games](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/74852)
  • site soon and, yet, we haven't. I can't tell if we don't have the
  • interested users or if people indicated their interest by voting on the
  • proposal and are patiently waiting for us to set it up.
  • The challenge is that a vote on the proposal can mean a few different
  • things. It can mean "this sounds like a viable site". It can mean "I'm
  • passively interested; I would read that". It can mean "I am eager to build
  • this and would participate heavily". We just don't know.
  • This is why I've begun to add the following answer to proposals:
  • > Right now we don't have a good way of identifying people who would help build a new community, so let's do this: if you are interested in helping to build this site, please leave a comment describing your level of interest (casual visitor, enthusiast, expert in this topic within the site's scope, something else?). I'll edit them into the post later.
  • We don't want to create a heavyweight process or a system of quotas. We
  • do not need to see commitments from 200+ people before we'll create a site.
  • (If we did, we wouldn't have any of our current sites.) But we'd like to
  • know that a few propsective *contributors* are out there alongside the
  • readers and browsers. We're asking for the feedback publicly, in comments,
  • so the builders will know who each other are, and so they can clue us in
  • about things we wouldn't know on our own. For example, EE came to us with
  • a small group of experts; knowing that about the founders helped us move
  • quickly. Sometimes it's more about *who* than *how many*.
  • We have several suggestions that look viable but we can't tell if
  • people are interested in building them. In some cases the suggestions
  • are not very developed yet but they gained a positive response. Please
  • help refine them where you can and weigh in where you are interested:
  • - [Tabletop Role Playing Games](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/74852)
  • - [Mathematics](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/277002)
  • - [Single Board Microcontrollers](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/74991)
  • - [History](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/275968)
  • - [Medical Science](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/276933)
  • There are several more suggestions in the
  • [Site Proposals](https://meta.codidact.com/categories/10) category.
  • If you see something there that you can contribute to, please do.
  • If you've been following site proposals, you might be wondering why
  • this list doesn't include two proposals with a lot of support:
  • - We have, just today, launched
  • [Languages and Linguistics](https://languages.codidact.com/questions/277069)
  • -- it's brand new and empty right now, so if you've been waiting for it,
  • please go forth and ask and answer.
  • - We plan to launch
  • [Software Development](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/75033)
  • soon. Software Development will be both a site and an incubator; we are
  • planning from the beginning that some sites might spin off from it later.
  • We also want to work out how best to collaborate with our friends at
  • TopAnswers, who have several language-specific sites.
#1: Initial revision by user avatar Monica Cellio‭ · 2020-08-04T17:21:55Z (over 4 years ago)
Help us help you: please show your support for site proposals
Our network now has eight sites (plus Meta), and we hope to see many more
as we continue to develop both our platform and our communities. 
As we've worked with communities to build the sites we have now, we've
found ourselves adjusting how we go about deciding when a site is ready.  
We are trying to strike a good balance between **being responsive and 
getting out of the way** when a community is ready to proceed, on the one 
hand, and **not jumping the gun and creating sites before people are ready
to use them**, on the other.  When people come to a site that we've 
announced, they want to see some activity already.  It's a chicken-and-egg
problem, and we're trying to solve it by having some people ready to 
create that initial activity.

For a while we've judged this by voting and activity on the proposal and
some amount of "gut feeling".  This works for proposals that take off
quickly, like Electrical Engineering and Judaism did, but it might not be
serving the longer-running proposals as well.  Two months ago I was guessing
we'd be creating the [Tabletop Role-Playing Games](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/74852)
site soon and, yet, we haven't.  I can't tell if we don't have the
interested users or if people indicated their interest by voting on the
proposal and are patiently waiting for us to set it up.

The challenge is that a vote on the proposal can mean a few different
things.  It can mean "this sounds like a viable site".  It can mean "I'm
passively interested; I would read that".  It can mean "I am eager to build
this and would participate heavily".  We just don't know.

This is why I've begun to add the following answer to proposals:

> Right now we don't have a good way of identifying people who would help build a new community, so let's do this: if you are interested in helping to build this site, please leave a comment describing your level of interest (casual visitor, enthusiast, expert in this topic within the site's scope, something else?). I'll edit them into the post later.

We don't want to create a heavyweight process or a system of quotas.  We
do not need to see commitments from 200+ people before we'll create a site.
(If we did, we wouldn't have any of our current sites.)  But we'd like to
know that a few propsective *contributors* are out there alongside the
readers and browsers.  We're asking for the feedback publicly, in comments,
so the builders will know who each other are, and so they can clue us in
about things we wouldn't know on our own.  For example, EE came to us with
a small group of experts; knowing that about the founders helped us move
quickly.  Sometimes it's more about *who* than *how many*.

We have several suggestions that look viable but we can't tell if 
people are interested in building them.  In some cases the suggestions
are not very developed yet but they gained a positive response.  Please 
help refine them where you can and weigh in where you are interested:

- [Tabletop Role Playing Games](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/74852)
- [Mathematics](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/277002)
- [Single Board Microcontrollers](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/74991)
- [History](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/275968)
- [Medical Science](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/276933)

There are several more suggestions in the 
[Site Proposals](https://meta.codidact.com/categories/10) category.
If you see something there that you can contribute to, please do.

If you've been following site proposals, you might be wondering why
this list doesn't include two proposals with a lot of support: 

- We have, just today, launched 
[Languages and Linguistics](https://languages.codidact.com/questions/277069)
-- it's brand new and empty right now, so if you've been waiting for it,
please go forth and ask and answer.

- We plan to launch 
[Software Development](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/75033)
soon.  Software Development will be both a site and an incubator; we are 
planning from the beginning that some sites might spin off from it later. 
We also want to work out how best to collaborate with our friends at
TopAnswers, who have several language-specific sites.