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

57%

+2 −1

Q&A Our site incubator concept needs a re-think

Here is a mechanism that addresses some of the problems: Each proposed new site is a full site in the structural sense. It has all the proposed categories, including meta. These sites would be i...

posted 1mo ago by Olin Lathrop‭ · edited 1mo ago by Olin Lathrop‭

Answer

#5: Post edited by

Olin Lathrop‭ · 2024-09-15T17:23:17Z (about 1 month ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

Here is a mechanism that addresses some of the problems:<ol>
<li>Each proposed new site is a full site in the structural sense. It has all the proposed categories, including meta.
<li>These sites would be in a single container that is at the same level as the full sites. This container would be called Experimental sites.
<li>Experimental sites are run a bit differently than full sites. They don't yet have much of a user base, and there will be more diverging opinions on the direction the site should take.
The proposers would be the moderators. Users don't earn abilities. They can only be granted them by the moderators, including the moderator ability.
I know this goes against the user-driven philosophy, but it is worth it to have a coherent vision of what the site should be. Design by committee doesn't really work. If someone or a group comes here with a vision for a new site, we should give them a chance to prove themselves before assuming certain things don't work or should be different. We don't want the original proposers getting disillusioned and leave.
Of course there would still be meta discussions about how the site should be formed, but it is up to the original proposers what suggestions to accept or not.
<li>Anyone can propose a new competing site with a somewhat different focus than another experimental site. This is how we get around problems of point 3, above. If someone proposes something really crazy and won't listen to advice, then those who feel strongly about it can and should propose a different version. Let the marketplace decides which wins. Perhaps in some cases the sites diverge so far that they become viable as distinct full sites.
The point is to give each idea a chance instead of trying to mold them, then let the different ideas compete to decide which to finally promote, if any.
</ol>
A big advantage of this scheme is that an experimental site looks and feels like a full site from within, especially to users unfamiliar with Codidact. It's a level down in the tree structure, but you don't care or even know if you're just given a URL to check out. Eventually some of those "outside" users might pop up a level and explore, becoming more active Codidact-wide users. By that time, they'd understand about full and experimental sites.
<h2>Response to comments</h2>
<blockquote>wondering if this new community would have links to the existing communities in the drop down at the top right of the page</blockquote>
I hadn't thought about that. My first reaction is that from an experimental site, you'd see the other experimental sites, with a single entry to go to the full sites. From a full site, it's the other way around.
<blockquote> Does the "level" at which these communities sit make any difference? Is this suggestion practically equivalent to letting anyone make a new community, but with the founder able to hand out abilities?</blockquote>
I think it's important to segregate the experimental sites from the full sites. The experimental sites are by definition half-baked. They could easily appear as noise to many users, reflecting badly on all of Codidact. It should take deliberate action to see the "mess".
Segregating the experimental sites also makes it easier to understand some of the rules might be different, and the some might turn out to be silly ideas in the long run. After all, they are experiments.
I envision the main page that lists the experimental sites having a disclaimer at the top, pointing to help files that explain the situation in more detail. The main page for each category in the experimental sites should also have an obvious warning or disclaimer that you're in a
experimental zone.
<blockquote>The current Proposals community was intended to avoid creating new communities before they are ready, which end up with almost zero activity. Does putting new communities in a container at a different level from existing communities change this?</blockquote>
~~The new communities are created either way. In the current system they are less obvious and harder to find, but they are still essentially there.~~
By putting experimental communities in their own area, it makes it clear they are different from the full communities. One of those differences is that we expect the volumes to be low.
Having an experimental site mostly look and feel like the final site will be important to pointing potential users to them. Because of that, I expect these experimental sites to grow faster than our current proposed sites. None of those have more than a small handful of posts, and most of those are from users already at Codidact for other reasons. That's a recipe for failure.

Here is a mechanism that addresses some of the problems:<ol>
<li>Each proposed new site is a full site in the structural sense. It has all the proposed categories, including meta.
<li>These sites would be in a single container that is at the same level as the full sites. This container would be called Experimental sites.
<li>Experimental sites are run a bit differently than full sites. They don't yet have much of a user base, and there will be more diverging opinions on the direction the site should take.
The proposers would be the moderators. Users don't earn abilities. They can only be granted them by the moderators, including the moderator ability.
I know this goes against the user-driven philosophy, but it is worth it to have a coherent vision of what the site should be. Design by committee doesn't really work. If someone or a group comes here with a vision for a new site, we should give them a chance to prove themselves before assuming certain things don't work or should be different. We don't want the original proposers getting disillusioned and leave.
Of course there would still be meta discussions about how the site should be formed, but it is up to the original proposers what suggestions to accept or not.
<li>Anyone can propose a new competing site with a somewhat different focus than another experimental site. This is how we get around problems of point 3, above. If someone proposes something really crazy and won't listen to advice, then those who feel strongly about it can and should propose a different version. Let the marketplace decides which wins. Perhaps in some cases the sites diverge so far that they become viable as distinct full sites.
The point is to give each idea a chance instead of trying to mold them, then let the different ideas compete to decide which to finally promote, if any.
</ol>
A big advantage of this scheme is that an experimental site looks and feels like a full site from within, especially to users unfamiliar with Codidact. It's a level down in the tree structure, but you don't care or even know if you're just given a URL to check out. Eventually some of those "outside" users might pop up a level and explore, becoming more active Codidact-wide users. By that time, they'd understand about full and experimental sites.
<h2>Response to comments</h2>
<blockquote>wondering if this new community would have links to the existing communities in the drop down at the top right of the page</blockquote>
I hadn't thought about that. My first reaction is that from an experimental site, you'd see the other experimental sites, with a single entry to go to the full sites. From a full site, it's the other way around.
<blockquote> Does the "level" at which these communities sit make any difference? Is this suggestion practically equivalent to letting anyone make a new community, but with the founder able to hand out abilities?</blockquote>
I think it's important to segregate the experimental sites from the full sites. The experimental sites are by definition half-baked. They could easily appear as noise to many users, reflecting badly on all of Codidact. It should take deliberate action to see the "mess".
Segregating the experimental sites also makes it easier to understand that rules might be different, and that some proposals might turn out to be silly ideas in the long run. After all, they are experiments.
I envision the main page that lists the experimental sites having a disclaimer at the top, pointing to help files that explain the situation in more detail. The main page for each category in the experimental sites should also have an obvious warning or disclaimer that you're in a
experimental zone.
<blockquote>The current Proposals community was intended to avoid creating new communities before they are ready, which end up with almost zero activity. Does putting new communities in a container at a different level from existing communities change this?</blockquote>
The new communities are created either way. In the current system they are less obvious and harder to find, but they are still essentially there. They are also in a single container when viewing the list of full sites.
By putting experimental communities in their own area, it makes it clear they are different from the full communities. One of those differences is that we expect the volumes to be low.
Having an experimental site mostly look and feel like the final site will be important to pointing potential users to them. Because of that, I expect these experimental sites to grow faster than our current proposed sites. None of those have more than a small handful of posts, and most of those are from users already at Codidact for other reasons. That's a recipe for failure.

#4: Post edited by

Olin Lathrop‭ · 2024-09-15T17:15:37Z (about 1 month ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

Here is a mechanism that addresses some of the problems:<ol>
<li>Each proposed new site is a full site in the structural sense. It has all the proposed categories, including meta.
<li>These sites would be in a single container that is at the same level as the full sites. This container would be called Experimental sites.
<li>Experimental sites are run a bit differently than full sites. They don't yet have much of a user base, and there will be more diverging opinions on the direction the site should take.
The proposers would be the moderators. Users don't earn abilities. They can only be granted them by the moderators, including the moderator ability.
I know this goes against the user-driven philosophy, but it is worth it to have a coherent vision of what the site should be. Design by committee doesn't really work. If someone or a group comes here with a vision for a new site, we should give them a chance to prove themselves before assuming certain things don't work or should be different. We don't want the original proposers get disillusioned and leave.
Of course there would still be meta discussions about how the site should be formed, but it is up to the original proposers what suggestions to accept or not.
<li>Anyone can propose a new competing site with a somewhat different focus than another experimental site. This is how we get around problems of point 3, above. If someone proposes something really crazy and won't listen to advice, then those who feel strongly about it can and should propose a different version. Let the marketplace decides which wins. Perhaps in some cases the sites diverge so far that they become viable as distinct full sites.
The point is to give each idea a chance instead of trying to mold them, then let the different ideas compete to decide which to finally promote, if any.
</ol>
A big advantage of this scheme is that an experimental site looks and feels like a full site from within, especially to users unfamiliar with Codidact. It's a level down in the tree structure, but you don't care or even know if you're just given a URL to check out. Eventually some of those "outside" users might pop up a level and explore, becoming more active Codidact-wide users. By that time, they'd understand about full and experimental sites.

Here is a mechanism that addresses some of the problems:<ol>
<li>Each proposed new site is a full site in the structural sense. It has all the proposed categories, including meta.
<li>These sites would be in a single container that is at the same level as the full sites. This container would be called Experimental sites.
<li>Experimental sites are run a bit differently than full sites. They don't yet have much of a user base, and there will be more diverging opinions on the direction the site should take.
The proposers would be the moderators. Users don't earn abilities. They can only be granted them by the moderators, including the moderator ability.
I know this goes against the user-driven philosophy, but it is worth it to have a coherent vision of what the site should be. Design by committee doesn't really work. If someone or a group comes here with a vision for a new site, we should give them a chance to prove themselves before assuming certain things don't work or should be different. We don't want the original proposers getting disillusioned and leave.
Of course there would still be meta discussions about how the site should be formed, but it is up to the original proposers what suggestions to accept or not.
<li>Anyone can propose a new competing site with a somewhat different focus than another experimental site. This is how we get around problems of point 3, above. If someone proposes something really crazy and won't listen to advice, then those who feel strongly about it can and should propose a different version. Let the marketplace decides which wins. Perhaps in some cases the sites diverge so far that they become viable as distinct full sites.
The point is to give each idea a chance instead of trying to mold them, then let the different ideas compete to decide which to finally promote, if any.
</ol>
A big advantage of this scheme is that an experimental site looks and feels like a full site from within, especially to users unfamiliar with Codidact. It's a level down in the tree structure, but you don't care or even know if you're just given a URL to check out. Eventually some of those "outside" users might pop up a level and explore, becoming more active Codidact-wide users. By that time, they'd understand about full and experimental sites.
<h2>Response to comments</h2>
<blockquote>wondering if this new community would have links to the existing communities in the drop down at the top right of the page</blockquote>
I hadn't thought about that. My first reaction is that from an experimental site, you'd see the other experimental sites, with a single entry to go to the full sites. From a full site, it's the other way around.
<blockquote> Does the "level" at which these communities sit make any difference? Is this suggestion practically equivalent to letting anyone make a new community, but with the founder able to hand out abilities?</blockquote>
I think it's important to segregate the experimental sites from the full sites. The experimental sites are by definition half-baked. They could easily appear as noise to many users, reflecting badly on all of Codidact. It should take deliberate action to see the "mess".
Segregating the experimental sites also makes it easier to understand some of the rules might be different, and the some might turn out to be silly ideas in the long run. After all, they are experiments.
I envision the main page that lists the experimental sites having a disclaimer at the top, pointing to help files that explain the situation in more detail. The main page for each category in the experimental sites should also have an obvious warning or disclaimer that you're in a
experimental zone.
<blockquote>The current Proposals community was intended to avoid creating new communities before they are ready, which end up with almost zero activity. Does putting new communities in a container at a different level from existing communities change this?</blockquote>
The new communities are created either way. In the current system they are less obvious and harder to find, but they are still essentially there.
By putting experimental communities in their own area, it makes it clear they are different from the full communities. One of those differences is that we expect the volumes to be low.
Having an experimental site mostly look and feel like the final site will be important to pointing potential users to them. Because of that, I expect these experimental sites to grow faster than our current proposed sites. None of those have more than a small handful of posts, and most of those are from users already at Codidact for other reasons. That's a recipe for failure.

#3: Post edited by

Olin Lathrop‭ · 2024-09-15T12:59:24Z (about 1 month ago)
Fixed name of proposed sites to "experimental".

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

Here is a mechanism that addresses some of the problems:<ol>
<li>Each proposed new site is a full site in the structural sense. It has all the proposed categories, including meta.
<li>These sites would be in a single container that is at the same level as the full sites. This container could be called Emerging sites, Experimental sites, or some such. Let's stick to names that provide a short description, not something cutesy like "Area 51" that only works if you already know what it means.
~~<li>Emerging sites are run a bit differently than full sites. They don't yet have much of a user base, and there will be more diverging opinions on the direction the site should take.~~
The proposers would be the moderators. Users don't earn abilities. They can only be granted them by the moderators, including the moderator ability.
I know this goes against the user-driven philosophy, but it is worth it to have a coherent vision of what the site should be. Design by committee doesn't really work. If someone or a group comes here with a vision for a new site, we should give them a chance to prove themselves before assuming certain things don't work or should be different. I'd hate to see the original proposers get disillusioned and leave.
Of course there would still be meta discussions about how the site should be formed, but it is up to the original proposers what suggestions to accept or not.
<li>Anyone can propose a new competing site with a somewhat different focus than another experimental site. This is how we get around problems of point 3, above. If someone proposes something really crazy and won't listen to advice, then those who feel strongly about it can and should propose a different version. Let the marketplace decides which wins. Perhaps in some cases the sites diverge so far that they become viable as distinct full sites.
The point is to give each idea a chance instead of trying to mold them, then let the different ideas compete to decide which to finally promote, if any.
</ol>
A big advantage of this scheme is that an experimental site looks and feels like a full site from within, especially to users unfamiliar with Codidact. It's a level down in the tree structure, but you don't care or even know if you're just given a URL to check out. Eventually some of those "outside" users might pop up a level and explore, becoming more active Codidact-wide users. By that time, they'd understand about full and experimental sites.

Here is a mechanism that addresses some of the problems:<ol>
<li>Each proposed new site is a full site in the structural sense. It has all the proposed categories, including meta.
<li>These sites would be in a single container that is at the same level as the full sites. This container would be called Experimental sites.
<li>Experimental sites are run a bit differently than full sites. They don't yet have much of a user base, and there will be more diverging opinions on the direction the site should take.
The proposers would be the moderators. Users don't earn abilities. They can only be granted them by the moderators, including the moderator ability.
I know this goes against the user-driven philosophy, but it is worth it to have a coherent vision of what the site should be. Design by committee doesn't really work. If someone or a group comes here with a vision for a new site, we should give them a chance to prove themselves before assuming certain things don't work or should be different. We don't want the original proposers get disillusioned and leave.
Of course there would still be meta discussions about how the site should be formed, but it is up to the original proposers what suggestions to accept or not.
<li>Anyone can propose a new competing site with a somewhat different focus than another experimental site. This is how we get around problems of point 3, above. If someone proposes something really crazy and won't listen to advice, then those who feel strongly about it can and should propose a different version. Let the marketplace decides which wins. Perhaps in some cases the sites diverge so far that they become viable as distinct full sites.
The point is to give each idea a chance instead of trying to mold them, then let the different ideas compete to decide which to finally promote, if any.
</ol>
A big advantage of this scheme is that an experimental site looks and feels like a full site from within, especially to users unfamiliar with Codidact. It's a level down in the tree structure, but you don't care or even know if you're just given a URL to check out. Eventually some of those "outside" users might pop up a level and explore, becoming more active Codidact-wide users. By that time, they'd understand about full and experimental sites.

#2: Post edited by

Olin Lathrop‭ · 2024-09-14T22:07:42Z (about 1 month ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

Here is a mechanism that addresses some of the problems:<ol>
<li>Each proposed new site is a full site in the structural sense. It has all the proposed categories, including meta.
<li>These sites would be in a single container that is at the same level as the full sites. This container could be called Emerging sites, Experimental sites, or some such. Let's stick to names that provide a short description, not something cutesy like "Area 51" that only works if you already know what it means.
<li>Emerging sites are run a bit differently than full sites. They don't yet have much of a user base, and there will be more diverging opinions on the direction the site should take.
The proposers would be the moderators. Users don't earn abilities. They can only be granted them by the moderators, including the moderator ability.
I know this goes against the user-driven philosophy, but it is worth it to have a coherent vision of what the site should be. Design by committee doesn't really work. If someone or a group comes here with a vision for a new site, we should give them a chance to prove themselves before assuming certain things don't work or should be different. I'd hate to see the original proposers get disillusioned and leave.
~~Of course there would still be meta discussions about how the site should be formed, but it is up to the original proposers to what suggestions to accept or not.~~
<li>Anyone can propose a new competing site with a somewhat different focus than another experimental site. This is how we get around problems of point 3, above. If someone proposes something really crazy and won't listen to advice, then those who feel strongly about it can and should propose a different version. Let the marketplace decides which wins. Perhaps in some cases the sites diverge so far that they become viable as distinct full sites.
The point is to give each idea a chance instead of trying to mold them, then let the different ideas compete to decide which to finally promote, if any.
</ol>
A big advantage of this scheme is that an experimental site looks and feels like a full site from within, especially to users unfamiliar with Codidact. It's a level down in the tree structure, but you don't care or even know if you're just given a URL to check out. Eventually some of those "outside" users might pop up a level and explore, becoming more active Codidact-wide users. By that time, they'd understand about full and experimental sites.

Here is a mechanism that addresses some of the problems:<ol>
<li>Each proposed new site is a full site in the structural sense. It has all the proposed categories, including meta.
<li>These sites would be in a single container that is at the same level as the full sites. This container could be called Emerging sites, Experimental sites, or some such. Let's stick to names that provide a short description, not something cutesy like "Area 51" that only works if you already know what it means.
<li>Emerging sites are run a bit differently than full sites. They don't yet have much of a user base, and there will be more diverging opinions on the direction the site should take.
The proposers would be the moderators. Users don't earn abilities. They can only be granted them by the moderators, including the moderator ability.
I know this goes against the user-driven philosophy, but it is worth it to have a coherent vision of what the site should be. Design by committee doesn't really work. If someone or a group comes here with a vision for a new site, we should give them a chance to prove themselves before assuming certain things don't work or should be different. I'd hate to see the original proposers get disillusioned and leave.
Of course there would still be meta discussions about how the site should be formed, but it is up to the original proposers what suggestions to accept or not.
<li>Anyone can propose a new competing site with a somewhat different focus than another experimental site. This is how we get around problems of point 3, above. If someone proposes something really crazy and won't listen to advice, then those who feel strongly about it can and should propose a different version. Let the marketplace decides which wins. Perhaps in some cases the sites diverge so far that they become viable as distinct full sites.
The point is to give each idea a chance instead of trying to mold them, then let the different ideas compete to decide which to finally promote, if any.
</ol>
A big advantage of this scheme is that an experimental site looks and feels like a full site from within, especially to users unfamiliar with Codidact. It's a level down in the tree structure, but you don't care or even know if you're just given a URL to check out. Eventually some of those "outside" users might pop up a level and explore, becoming more active Codidact-wide users. By that time, they'd understand about full and experimental sites.

#1: Initial revision by

Olin Lathrop‭ · 2024-09-14T22:04:00Z (about 1 month ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

Here is a mechanism that addresses some of the problems:<ol>

<li>Each proposed new site is a full site in the structural sense. It has all the proposed categories, including meta.

<li>These sites would be in a single container that is at the same level as the full sites. This container could be called Emerging sites, Experimental sites, or some such. Let's stick to names that provide a short description, not something cutesy like "Area 51" that only works if you already know what it means.

<li>Emerging sites are run a bit differently than full sites. They don't yet have much of a user base, and there will be more diverging opinions on the direction the site should take.

The proposers would be the moderators. Users don't earn abilities. They can only be granted them by the moderators, including the moderator ability.

I know this goes against the user-driven philosophy, but it is worth it to have a coherent vision of what the site should be. Design by committee doesn't really work. If someone or a group comes here with a vision for a new site, we should give them a chance to prove themselves before assuming certain things don't work or should be different. I'd hate to see the original proposers get disillusioned and leave.

Of course there would still be meta discussions about how the site should be formed, but it is up to the original proposers to what suggestions to accept or not.

<li>Anyone can propose a new competing site with a somewhat different focus than another experimental site. This is how we get around problems of point 3, above. If someone proposes something really crazy and won't listen to advice, then those who feel strongly about it can and should propose a different version. Let the marketplace decides which wins. Perhaps in some cases the sites diverge so far that they become viable as distinct full sites.

The point is to give each idea a chance instead of trying to mold them, then let the different ideas compete to decide which to finally promote, if any.

</ol>

A big advantage of this scheme is that an experimental site looks and feels like a full site from within, especially to users unfamiliar with Codidact. It's a level down in the tree structure, but you don't care or even know if you're just given a URL to check out. Eventually some of those "outside" users might pop up a level and explore, becoming more active Codidact-wide users. By that time, they'd understand about full and experimental sites.

Communities

Post History