Post History

Our site incubator concept needs a re-think

<h2>Background</h2>

Starting new sites here at Codidact has evolved over time, mostly as we got experience and realized we needed to do something different.  

Originally, new sites would be proposed here on meta, kicked around, then fully created if it felt right.  That sortof worked when Codidact was new, but we found sites were being launched without sufficient commitment and interest from users.  These sites are still here, but have very low activity.

The current incubator system was developed in response to that.  A <a href="https://proposals.codidact.com">site</a> was create just for starting new sites.

<h2>The current system</h2>

If you have an idea for a new site, you write it up in the <a href="https://proposals.codidact.com/categories/66"><i>Descriptions</i></a> category.

Users can indicate their interest and expected level of commitment to the proposed site by selecting one of several "reactions".  Currently, the choices are <i>Casual browser</i>, <i>Active user</i>, or <i>Subject matter expert</i>.  The users that "signed up" with each reaction are shown at the top of the site proposal so that everyone can see the level of interest.

To define the site better, questions are asked in the <a href="https://proposals.codidact.com/categories/67">Incubator Q&A</a> category.  Each question is tagged with the special tag unique to each proposed site.  Voting is largely used to get people's opinions of whether the question is a good fit for the proposed site.  Reasons why and arguments for or against fit are in comments.  Answers are written as if the question were on the real site.

Hashing out the site definition is done in the <a href="https://proposals.codidact.com/categories/68">meta</a> category.  People can argue for or against changes to the existing proposal, with voting used to get a sense of how the community feels about each issue.  Proposals can then be edited accordingly.

<h2>Existing problems</h2>

Let's understand that the design of the current system was well-meaning, and in response to experience with the previous system.  However, now that we've had some experience with this system, several problems have become apparent:<ul>

<p><li><b>Who/when edits the proposal?</b>  There have been good discussions in meta about details of various proposals.  However, what constitutes a consensus such that the site proposal should be changed?  What does it mean when a change gets 3 upvotes and 1 or two downvotes? Keep in mind that the original proposer presumably agrees with the proposal, so 3-1 vote tally is really 3-2 users for/against.  What threshold is sufficient?  Who gets to decide that?  Anyone can edit the proposal, but when should they?</p>

<p><li><b>Huge barrier to "outside" people.</b>  There are a lot of mechanics around trying to "use" any of the proposed sites.  Those already here at Codidact for other reasons can generally figure it out.  However, consider the experience of someone outside being told of a new site with a topic that interests them.  This person may not be used to computer forums or Q&A sites, or particularly tech-savy.  I'll use someone who is interested in invasive species as an example, since there is a <a href="https://proposals.codidact.com/posts/292572">meta discussion</a> about that:</p><ol>

<li>OK, I've read the site proposal and the rules make sense.  What's this "proposal" thing?  I thought I was going to an invasive species forum.

<li>Huh? I can't just ask a question here?  I have to go to this other "category" thing?

<li>There is nothing about invasive species here!  I don't care about how to make kelp grow less tall, fixing corrupt data in some game, resurrecting long-dead people.  What the ...?  I must not be in the right place.

<li>OK, I have to post my question here, but it has to be "tagged".  What's a tag?  What tag am I supposed to use?  How was I supposed to know this before getting a nasty-gram message in a comment?

<li>It's a day later.  Where did my question go?  All I see is babble about psychic powers to move stuff around, some philosophy BS about Kant (who the heck is that?), people underground not knowing a war is over, blah, blah, blah.

<li>Olin told me this place was for discussing invasive species.  I'll never believe anything that guy says again.  I'm outta here!

</ol>

Actually, I can't envision anyone making it to step 6.  Most will be lost by step 3.

<li><b>Substantially new topics have no chance.</b>  Since only existing Codidact users are going to have any impact on proposed sites, the only possible new sites are somewhat close to other topics users are already here for.  For example, <a href="https://proposals.codidact.com/posts/292424">Worldbuilding</a> might work because enough people here for Scientific Speculation could be interested.  It's no surprise that Worldbuilding has gotten way more action than Invasive Species, for example.

<li><b>Nobody outside will ever find a proposed site.</b>  Even ignoring the large barrier to participation of outside people, how are they ever going to discover a possible new site?  There is little focused on the specific topic for search engines to guide you too.  There isn't a whole site proclaiming to be about "Invasive Species", for example, just a site proposal.

</ul>

<h2>The question</h2>

Let's hear some ideas for a better way to start new sites.