What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 134 Stack Exchange communities.

I'm a relatively active member on mathoverflow (a pre-SE 2.0 site that won't be upgrading any time soon) and am part of a proposed new SE site on theoretical computer science in commit stage. My profile is similar to many of the committed members of this proposed site.

The problem is that while many of us are active on MO (demonstrating the ability to participate in such forums) our reputation counts are not incorporated in the progress calculations.

I understand the technical challenges with using MO reputation since it's pre-Se 2.0. This is just a request for maybe adjusting the commit calculations so that we won't actually need 1000 members (based on a 106 commit/10% progress calculation) to get the site into beta (our entire community isn't that large !)

Specifically, my understanding is "new" members with low reputation (say the 51 that area51 assigns by default after you confirm an email) are given a very tiny weight. I'm hoping that this can be changed.

share|improve this question
    
Do you have any suggestions for how this can be adjusted for SE 1.0 members without adjusting for those new to the Stack Exchange system altogether? I'm running through ideas in my head, and I can't think of a way to distinguish the two groups, save trying to bridge the SE 1.0 and SE 2.0 databases, which may not necessarily be feasible. –  waiwai933 Jun 29 '10 at 23:25
    
Don't forget the commit percentage has been multiplied by 0.9 to stop sites reaching the beta level before the software's ready. See this answer from Joel. –  ChrisF Jun 29 '10 at 23:26
1  
the 0.9 scaling doesn't affect us right now, since we are only at the 10% level. As for @waiwai933's question, I'm honestly not sure. I guess that while I understand (I think) the rationale for the formula (SE wanting to build on user experiences from the related discussion sites), I disagree philsophically - seems to me that the beta would be a good place to determine whether the alleged participation claims actually translate into reality. Again, we have a small but passionate community, and people are confused about having to wait to initiate discussions. –  Suresh Jun 30 '10 at 2:55
    
I guess it's similar for AstroAnswers -> Astronomy. And I wish I could say the same for Physics, but the two SE-1.0 sites there are rather dead... –  Tobias Kienzler Jun 30 '10 at 7:32
    
No @ChrisF these go to ELEVEN! (meta.stackexchange.com/questions/24964/…) –  Ivo Flipse Jun 30 '10 at 14:01
    
The scaling does affect you as it is being applied which has affected your calculation. –  ChrisF Jun 30 '10 at 14:18
    
@ChrisF true. I guess I meant that we're quite far away :). 11%/0.9 is still close to 11% :) –  Suresh Jun 30 '10 at 17:42

1 Answer 1

Sorry, I'm positive that this will not be implemented for the reasons you outlined (but I'm not SO staff so who knows).

Regarding the calculation, members with low rep in the SOFU system are given an extraordinary weight actually. I don't remember the actual calculation, but you can rest assured that 2 users with 100 rep outweight 1 single user with 200 rep.

Still, as you noticed, this is still far from enough to reach beta level currently. However, the required commitment is probably going to be reduced later. The authorities understandably want to ensure success for the first proposals, so they made the critical mass very big for the moment. I wonder when this will be changed to allow for more sites being established.

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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