Sign Up Sign In

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.

Does Codidact have to be too similar to SE?


Examining Codidact communities, one can easily find out that Codidact is almost a duplicate of SE

I know that many Codidact users (or maybe all of them) are current or former SE users, so it was expectable that the Codidact community team, who have gotten into the habit of using SE networks, would create a similar website.

However, I want to know whether the SE model is the only possible best way for creating a Q&A website so that the Codidact community team had to create Codidact in such a way.

Why should this post be closed?


Can you elaborate on this and provide some examples please? I would like to hear what you have on your mind. ‭Zerotime‭ 27 days ago

@Zerotime I think it is clear enough. For example, the design of the website, the existing features such as flagging, closing, deleting, editing, voting, ... posts, using tags, reputation and privileges model, and so on. ‭MathPhysics‭ 27 days ago

Oh, that came across the wrong way. I didn't mean what's similar but rather what you would like to see differently. ‭Zerotime‭ 27 days ago

1 answer


A considerable portion of the reason we're (still) here is because we believe that SE is not the 'only possible best way'.

Currently, sure, ignoring categories (and post types), it does look not dissimilar to SE. This is a largely historical thing - QPixel was first written in its original form years ago but it won't stay like that.

As already mentioned, categories and post types are a new thing, which we could in principle extend to include other post types, such as Wiki, in the future. We're planning major changes to how gaining privileges works. 'Comments' will also get a big upheaval at some point. A more subtle thing that we've changed is how posts are ordered. It would be nice to get better image uploading capabilities at some point. The list goes on... If there's something specific you'd like, have a read through or put in a feature-request on Codidact meta.

However, we also want/have more underlying/behind-the-scenes structural changes to how things work here - we want to form a non-profit company, for one (don't underestimate the difference this causes). There will be an official way to appeal mod decisions. The people running the company will be an elected board similar to Wikimedia's. The software is open source, so it will be easy to move/create new communities elsewhere.

In short, yes, this originated from SE. But we've also taken ideas from places like WIki and Reddit, as well as our own.


Thanks for your answer. Can I conclude from your answer that the Codidact community team prefer to preserve the basic features of the SE model, which is a successful one, and try to improve them, rather than risk testing a novel idea? ‭MathPhysics‭ 27 days ago

There are basic features we want to 'preserve but improve', sure. That doesn't mean we don't want to risk testing novel ideas though (given due consideration based on the novelty/risk etc.). Honestly, if there's something you have in mind, directly asking about it here or on our Discord server will get you further than asking whether or not we might be interested in 'testing a novel idea' ‭Mithrandir24601‭ 27 days ago

I guess that depends on what you consider the basic features of the SE model. A lot of the things you mention in your comment above (flagging, closing, editing, etc.) are needed as part of the baseline for any community maintained site, c.f. Wikipedia. Rep is going away (ish). Other things will likely change over time. I would actually say for a site built primarily by people who came from SE, on software originally created as an SE clone, the overall structure is already surprisingly unique. ‭Sigma‭ 27 days ago

Sign up to answer this question »