Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

Given that a proposed site is supposed to go through a "discussion" phase, I think there would be a benefit to implementing threaded comments to aid the discussion. It's currently rather hard to follow the flow of different topics of discussion when every comment is just sequential.

[Note - I am specifically talking about the site proposal discussions in Area51. This question is not a duplicate of this or this. I'm not asking for threaded comments in general on the regular trilogy sites.]

The usual argument against threaded comments that "larger comments should be posted as questions" does not work here as the only questions you can post are proposed on/off topic questions for the site, not asking questions or discussing the site proposal itself.

share|improve this question

The comment system should work similarly to how it does on all SE sites so that users can instantly use it effectively.

Unless this is going to be implemented on SE itself (which I don't think it should be), then it shouldn't on AFO either.

share|improve this answer
Why must it work the same if the way it works is not a good fit for what you are trying to achieve? The voting system on Area51 is different to everything else. I don't think uniformity is a good reason to implement something in a way that hampers discussion when discussion is the stated goal of a site proposal. – Simon P Stevens Jun 2 '10 at 16:09
@Simon: Commenting is too fundamental. For example, I was able to create links immediately on my first AFO comment. I was also able to @reply. I was hesitant to vote off-topic until I understood it didn't have a negative affect on rep (this shows how something working differently can screw you up, even when it should be "obvious"). All of these are from my experience with other SE sites; you have to be very careful in changing things to work differently. – Gnome Jun 2 '10 at 16:17
Who is calling it AFO? – C. Ross Jul 2 '10 at 17:52

Extended discussions should be taken here (metaSO).

share|improve this answer
That will just end up disconnecting the discussions from the site proposal. If that is going to be the accepted route, we need some link from the proposal to all discussions about it on metaSO. (Perhaps this could be done with standardized tags - something similar to the "related/links" lists on existing sites, but with clear tagging so you can easily bring up a list of all discussions related to a particular site proposal) – Simon P Stevens Jun 2 '10 at 16:07
You just have to put a link to the meta discussion in the comments of the Area51 question. Putting extended discussion in Area51 unduly influences voters. It is the logical equivalent of putting banners in voting booths. – Robert Harvey Jun 2 '10 at 16:17
Meta SO doesn't do threaded comments either. You can sorta fake it with answers, but that only goes one level deep... – Shog9 Jun 2 '10 at 17:10
We don't want to encourage discussions about specific proposals to bleed over into meta. It should all be self contained. If we need a better mechanism, it will be implemented in Area 51, most likely. – Robert Cartaino Jun 2 '10 at 17:30

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .