Should we rename or remove the "beta" label?

Question

So there's news on SE's policies regarding beta sites and graduation. One important take-away was that perpetual beta status is definitely a thing, which doesn't have to mean the site isn't being successful. So some people have objected to the use of the "beta" label in these cases, and I've actually shared that sentiment for a while.

I obviously don't have data for this, but I've come to think that the beta label might actually hinder the growth of the community. Here on SE we all know that the "beta" label doesn't have to mean that the site isn't a full-fledged community. But to people not familiar with the network, especially if they're not from a tech-related background, I could see the "beta" label being daunting, as in "Oh, this is still being worked on, and isn't entirely polished yet... I'd rather wait until this is an established community." Especially since "beta" might evoke the impression that the software is still in beta, not the community (which is a legitimate assumption if you don't know the entire network behind that one beta site).

Since no one has followed the call to create a separate meta post yet, here it is. Can we do something about this? Rename "beta" to something else? Remove it entirely? (People on the network will recognise beta sites by the design.) Remove it for some semi-graduation as this answer suggested?

Answer 1

I've been a long-time proponent of removing the "beta" label when it no longer makes sense. I agree that labeling a site as "beta" creates a lot of confusion… and a certain stigma when it looks like a site is never going to <quote> "get out of beta."

But let's be careful not to replace this system with another set of labels and arcane visual queues that few people are going to understand (more on that below). This is what the basic life cycle of a site should be:

Proposal ⇒ Private Beta ⇒ Public Beta ⇒ Site

We just need to use those labels as they were actually intended. Here are the basic phases and the use of those labels as I see it:

Proposal
The Area 51 process we use to gauge interest: Yes, this needs a lot… a lot of improvement, but that is outside the scope of this post.

Private Beta
Essentially the same we have now: a two three week limited trial to see if the site can work in actual practice. The site has a 'beta' label, but a system banner more-or-less describes what is going on. I work a lot with the newer sites, and I am exploring ways to better convey the expectations and progress of a site through these phases. It's essentially a checklist or calendar of where we are and what's coming next. Stay tuned.

Public Beta
This should be a 90 day period when a site is in its formative stages. The 'beta' label is a lightweight notice to anyone who happens upon a site that this is a work in progress — that the scope, community moderation, and basic site administration is subject to change.

90 days corresponds nicely with the earliest a site would ever be eligible for graduation. Typically a graduation takes much longer, but the post that sparked this discussion (Graduation, site closure, and a clearer outlook…) describes how a site would have to be under pretty dire collapse to be closed. So the public beta is essentially the lead up to that point where we can finally say that a site is no longer "in testing"… and will be allowed to continue indefinitely.

After 90 days, remove the "beta" label; they're clear. Enjoy!

But what happened to Graduation?

I actually would like to unbundle many of the features of graduation — allow our growing middle class of smaller, non-beta, non-graduated sites to benefit from the features they need, like elections, etc. It's essentially a meritocracy where we provide access to the features you need when you have sufficient support to use them effectively. The graduation "bundle" is too restrictive; unbundle those features.

That leaves the custom site design and increased reputation levels that define "graduation." Call it whatever you want — call it a custom site, or call it nothing at all — but personally, I really dislike calling it "graduation" at all. Outside the tiny minority of people who read these meta posts, graduation is always going to sound like the ultimate goal of this entire process — you pass, or you fail:

"you are not graduating" = "you have failed"

That's the reality of the English language, so why embrace a widely misunderstood premise? I have been writing about this for years, [two], [three], [four], and expecting everyone to RTFM is an an entirely ineffective way to run a site.

Answer 2

The beta label shouldn't have to be forever. If a site is in that stable "not graduated but not in flux either" state, the label should be removed. Right now the "beta" label lingers far too long and well past the point where there's anything provisional about a site (more than eight years for some sites). Yet the label sticks like tar to sites for years past when it should have been shed, harming the sites in the process.

The distinction between beta and graduated doesn't matter to most people, but it's occasionally necessary for SE insiders to know which sites have which status so long as these categories exist, which might be changing. (Can I migrate to this site? Can I run community ads here? Is the site's scope still in flux?) This doesn't need to take the form of a great big "beta" at the top of the page, but -- if we're going to allow styling changes -- there should be something that we know to look for if a site's status is relevant. 500+ moderators need to occasionally look at sites they don't participate on because of cross-site matters; please give us a hint.

One way to do this would be to keep the current logo scheme even if other aspects of the site change. We all know that a site logo in that shade of blue with (usually) text is a beta site. If the "stats block" on a beta's front page remains (the one that links to Area 51) then that's another way to tell. There are probably other ways, but it should be passively available, not something you have to go look up in the Help Center.

Finally, I would suggest keeping the "beta" label for a site's first year. The early days of a site are when the scope, guidelines, and general character of a site are in most-active development. It's appropriate to let visitors to know that things are under active development here. Visitors who like what they see can jump in, and visitors who don't like what they see might remember, if they come across it again a year later, that it was in flux and they should take another look rather than automatically clicking away because they didn't like that site last time. (Granted, I am speculating here -- I don't have data.)

Answer 3

What does "Losing the BETA" do to a site's activity?

It is hard to anticipate the impact of the "graduation" process. The following is a SEDE query that shows the graduation impact on all the sites I am aware of that have graduated in the past 2 years or so (using this SEDE query to identify elections). Each image is a link to the SEDE query that generated the image, each date is the date of the first "election" (when the first caucus badge was issued)

pay careful attention to the scale on the left margin too, the absolute numbers can be interesting. Also, not all charts go back to the same date, so some are more 'compressed' than others.

• Movies 2014-05-21 -> 2015-02-02

  

• Expressionengine 2015-01-26

  

• Salesforce 2013-06-11 -> 2014-09-22

  

• Academia 2014-03-05 -> 2014-05-05

  I cannot find an actual date for the graduation announcement. All I can find is this: unrelated comment:

  In fact, the site has been ready for graduation for a few months now, and is held up (along with a few others) because there's a queue at the “site design” stage.

  

• Graphicdesign 2014-03-04 2014-04-21

  

• Workplace 2014-02-05 -> 2014-03-24

  

• Money 2013-03-22 -> 2014-03-24

  

• Christianity 2012-09-17 -> 2013-07-15

  

• Travel 2012-07-24 -> 2013-03-18

  

Answer 4

Let's not remove the "beta" language but rather, make it meaningful. The programming analogy has its roots in SO's raison d'être, the hoary origins of the SE network, and suggests the obvious solution.

• beta sites are "early days" sites, still finding a voice, refining what is on- and off-topic, establishing a community of users, attracting specialists and the merely curious as the stock of Q&As makes the web a better place;
• stable sites are what I think of as the "beta-forever" sites, which continue as relatively low-traffic (or <10QPD, anyway) sites, but where consistent activity builds the site's special interest resources.

My suggestion would be to demarcate the "beta" sites, perhaps by the simple expedient of the β symbol, and then quietly remove that demarcation for "stable" sites. The "stable" sites might even be blessed with some light-touch refinements.

This is simple, preserves SO/SE nomenclature, but uses it in a meanginful way, now that the whole SE ecosystem has evolved to its present state.

---

_{P.s. This Q&A is about the "beta label", not about "graduation" language, although these are related issues. Still, using "beta" meaningfully (which is the central point of this answer) implies that the term "graduation" is ill-suited to this context, and for the reasons Robert Cartaino points out. My own suggestion for a replacement term appears as a comment to his answer.}

Answer 5

I would suggest removing the "beta" label altogether, and simply let the theme indicate if is a beta site or not.

This removes the possible stigma of the "beta" label on sites drawing new visitors away, while still allowing experienced Stack Exchange users to identify it as a beta site.

Answer 6

In my mind, "Established" is the correct word to replace "Graduated."

• It suggests a site that's been here a while.
• It suggests a site that's part of the culture.
• It suggests something worthwhile.
• It suggests something relatively stable.

For public beta, "Developing" or "Growing" are my suggestions.

• It suggests something not quite finished yet.
• It suggests that effort is needed, but people are putting effort into it.
• It suggests that you're welcome to come join.

For private beta, we could just keep the name. I think it holds the connotations it needs:

• It suggests that it's currently closed off to everyone else.
• It suggests that it's in a strictly-testing phase.
• It suggests that there's a process required to get involved.

These names are both more accurate and leave us room to better define them in the coming years as Stack Exchange grows.

Answer 7

I think that removing the stigma of the 'beta' label for long terms beta sites would probably be a good thing. I'm sure there are people who haven't committed to Robotics on the assumption that it might go away.

However, I'm not sure that a single beta / established / graduated site distinction is the best option. I feel that some of the benefits of graduation should be more widely available.

Maybe, in the same way that individuals have privileges according to their personal reputation, sites should have privileges according to site statistics. maybe this is what Robert Cartaino is already suggesting, but my initial thoughts suggest something like:

Age

After a year, moderators should be asked to get the approval of the community to continue in their post. People who are no longer interested in, or have no time to continue as moderators can then step down gracefully, and people who want the position can be voted in.

While I am happy to continue to serve as a pro-tem for as long as Robotics needs me, I would feel more comfortable with a mandate from the community to continue in that role.

Users

The reputation required for privileges could be set to increase only when the number of active users at the new thresholds becomes high enough (so that you ensure that there are enough established users, and enough users with access to moderation tools after the switch).

Activity

Sites could get 'allow migration in' privs when their questions answered and questions answered percentages reach an appropriate threshold.

Finally, sites could get the redesign when they become popular enough that they become a promotional asset to the network (though I can't see any reason for not allowing community ads before this point though).

---

I should have finished reading all of the answers on Graduation, site closure, and a clearer outlook on the health of SE sites before writing this answer, as the answer by Wrzlprmft does a better job than I did above.

Answer 8

I think we should split the sites progress in five steps.

1. Chaos - The time in Area 51 where nothing is set yet other than "it might sound interesting".
2. Discord - The private beta where the basic rules are set up. Lasts a week or so.
3. Confusion - The "public beta" where new users flock to the site and the topicality of the border zones must be defined, shouldn't last too long (90 days till a year or so).
4. Bureaucracy - Thats where most sites will end. There is a steady stream of new questions and answers, the rules are pretty much set, nothing ever changes but everything works about fine.
5. Overflow - The "graduated" super sites that have their own design, domain, etc.

That way we have each step clarified by the kind of feeling one gets when interacting with them. In the first three there are too many changes in short time to keep track of everything except the really engaged. In the forth everything works as expected and in the last you get what you expect when you go on a site with > 100.000 active users.

I would suggest that question migration only works to sites of stage 4 and 5, but not below. Sites do get a little own design in stage 4.

Best of all: we get rid of this confusing "beta" notion in all places.