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 See all your notifications »
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.

Launching a new community with enough contributors even though disagreements exist

+2
−2

Suppose that I have suggested a community idea which has been heavily downvoted.

Now, if I can gather enough people interested in contributing to the community regularly, then will this idea be planned to launch by the community team while it has many downvotes?

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 (9 comments)

1 answer

+6
−0

One of the things we look for in a new site is enough interested participants to make it viable. We now ask people to make their interest known, because votes don't necessarily correlate with intended participation. Sometimes an upvote means "I want this" and sometimes it means "yeah, that sounds like a good idea (but not my area and I wouldn't participate)". Votes, by themselves, don't mean much.

What is much more important than voting is the feedback that a proposal gets -- positive, negative, and absent. We read all the answers and comments. If people have reasons for opposing a proposal and express them, we consider that. If they just downvote, that's much weaker signal -- same as with upvotes. A controversial proposal will lead us to tread more carefully, but downvotes alone aren't what blocks proposals.

In general we want communities to define their own scopes and identities. However, as hosts of a network of communities, we also pay some attention to the bounds among communities. If a new site overlaps an existing one without clear differentiation, that's going to confuse our users so we'll ask for more work to be done. For example, we have an Outdoors site; if somebody proposed an Extreme Sports site, scope to include hang-gliding and bungee-jumping and rock-climbing without a harness, we'd ask them to address the overlap. We have a Writing site; if somebody proposed a Technical Communications site, we'd likewise ask them to address that overlap. That one actually happened on SE, but SE didn't address the overlap, instead allowing a site to proceed that was 95% a subset of another one. The new site failed in private beta and lots of people were frustrated by the whole thing. We don't want to repeat that mistake.

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

1 comment thread

General comments (3 comments)

Sign up to answer this question »