Timeline for Why did Theoretical Physics fail?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
33 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 18, 2020 at 19:14 | comment | added | Sidharth Ghoshal | Why was the site shutdown even if it didn't have a lot of traffic? It costs next to nothing to host, and for whatever low storage/electricity costs that stackexchange has to pay, as long as traffic is within some fraction of that it would seem unnecessary to have killed it off. Like why does stackexchange even delete sites in the first place? | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:57 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:32 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/ with https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 16:38 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 27, 2014 at 17:58 | comment | added | user206222 | Because Toilet Paper SE was doomed to fail. | |
| Aug 16, 2012 at 20:33 | history | edited | This_is_NOT_a_forum | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Introduced the abbreviation for the site in question.
|
| May 27, 2012 at 17:29 | history | edited | jscs | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Grammatizing
|
| May 27, 2012 at 13:15 | answer | added | bobobobo | timeline score: -4 | |
| May 27, 2012 at 10:22 | answer | added | Alex 'qubeat' | timeline score: -6 | |
| May 6, 2012 at 17:09 | comment | added | Alex 'qubeat' | @PiotrMigdal, In fact, I do not know, all that is too subjective, let's wait and see if idea about new place will work | |
| May 6, 2012 at 16:47 | comment | added | Piotr Migdal | @Alex'qubeat' As I said, judging by people who participated it discussions on meta; from a longer perspective it might look slightly more optimistic. And as I said, I shouldn't have used the expression 'no-one from the community'. | |
| May 6, 2012 at 16:40 | comment | added | Alex 'qubeat' | @PiotrMigdal, TP contained about 1000 people, how much of them perceived such opinion? Did someone performed some investigation? | |
| May 6, 2012 at 13:50 | comment | added | Piotr Migdal | @Alex'qubeat' You are right; I was too enthusiastic with the extrapolation of my skepticism. However, when there were discussions on meta.TP.SE, most contributors perceived that we were not growing in any way. | |
| May 6, 2012 at 13:26 | comment | added | Alex 'qubeat' | @PiotrMigdal, "no-one was surprised"? May be I am being too naive, but I still hoped on something until have not seen the closed site | |
| May 6, 2012 at 12:36 | history | edited | Piotr Migdal | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
hard-copied opinion from a now-dead link
|
| May 2, 2012 at 18:32 | answer | added | Moshe | timeline score: 21 | |
| Apr 29, 2012 at 15:41 | answer | added | Zo the Relativist | timeline score: 2 | |
| Apr 27, 2012 at 16:29 | answer | added | Werner Schmitt | timeline score: 13 | |
| Apr 27, 2012 at 16:08 | comment | added | Rosinante | Because Einstein was wrong? | |
| Apr 27, 2012 at 5:28 | answer | added | Kaveh | timeline score: 18 | |
| Apr 26, 2012 at 17:31 | answer | added | Noah Snyder | timeline score: 22 | |
| Apr 26, 2012 at 16:39 | answer | added | Peter Shor | timeline score: 28 | |
| Apr 26, 2012 at 8:13 | history | edited | Piotr Migdal | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added remarks
|
| Apr 26, 2012 at 7:03 | comment | added | Dilaton | Since the lack of incoming good questions was always an issue, I wonder if allowing some questions from reasonably advanced students of the "on topics" and otherwise well enough educated people could not have increased the traffic (without doing too much damage to the level or purpuse of the site) and saved TP.SE. The large barrier to ask here, as perceived from afar, may have contributed to the low inflow of good questions. I have myself a small number of questions at P.SE that could not be answered there because they are ... well ... still open / research level ... | |
| Apr 26, 2012 at 2:35 | answer | added | Hans de Vries | timeline score: 11 | |
| Apr 26, 2012 at 0:36 | answer | added | Shog9 | timeline score: 32 | |
| Apr 25, 2012 at 22:29 | comment | added | Piotr Migdal | @MichaelMrozek - closing is only a symptom (no-one from the community was surprised). The question is on its underlying cause (i.e. why the site haven't succeed). | |
| Apr 25, 2012 at 22:24 | comment | added | Michael Mrozek | This is probably covered by the newest blog post | |
| Apr 25, 2012 at 22:24 | comment | added | Dennis | According to Theoretical Physics - Area 51, the main problem were questions per day (1.6, while a healthy beta should have at least 15) and visits per day (256, while healthy beta should have at least 1,500). Theoretical Physics is probably just too narrow to survive on SE. | |
| Apr 25, 2012 at 22:21 | history | edited | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' |
edited tags
|
|
| Apr 25, 2012 at 22:05 | comment | added | Cody Gray | Sounds to me like it was "too close to Physics". | |
| Apr 25, 2012 at 21:58 | history | asked | Piotr Migdal | CC BY-SA 3.0 |