Timeline for Graduation, site closure, and a clearer outlook on the health of SE sites
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 15:49 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/ with https://hermeneutics.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jun 23, 2015 at 18:54 | comment | added | Robert Cartaino | @Powerlord What about them? What we are working on right now amounts to removing the 'beta' label much much sooner and getting rid of the graduation label entirely. Some of the details may change, but those two meta responses pretty much captured the crux of it. | |
| Jun 23, 2015 at 18:47 | comment | added | Powerlord | @RobertCartaino So, what about sites that have been in beta since 2010 or so? And yes, those do exist. | |
| Jun 4, 2015 at 23:58 | comment | added | Sklivvz Mod | @RobertCartaino maybe we could review a beta site after say, a year, and remove the beta label if it does not graduate, while also running an election. | |
| Jun 3, 2015 at 14:23 | comment | added | Manishearth | @RobertCartaino what about meta.stackexchange.com/questions/211640/… ? | |
| Jun 2, 2015 at 18:43 | comment | added | Catija | @RobertCartaino for me anyway, the site design will always be the least important, particularly if it's the only part that takes significant time to implement. | |
| Jun 2, 2015 at 18:41 | comment | added | Robert Cartaino | @Catija I'm trying to unbundle many of the features of graduation to allow sites to benefit from the features they need, like elections, but I think a custom design will always be part of that top-tier level (i.e. "graduation"). | |
| Jun 2, 2015 at 18:28 | comment | added | Catija | @RobertCartaino I understand that there's a difference between sites that will never graduate and sites that will and I'm ok with the concept of some sites never graduating. I think removing the beta tag would be great. But... is there a reason that these non-"beta", non-graduated sites shouldn't get some of the benefits deemed part of "graduating"? There are, particularly, many sites that are "slated for graduation" that haven't yet due to web-design, so they've been waiting for (in some cases) years in "limbo" because the design process is so slow. | |
| Jun 2, 2015 at 18:08 | comment | added | Robert Cartaino | @Catija No, at about 90 days (TBD) a site would stop being labeled "in beta". Sites get the benefits of graduation when they graduate. Read the original post and then my comment again. There is a large middle class of sites that may never graduate at all. That doesn't mean they are eternally in "beta testing". That's what we have now — to anyone not reading this thread, "beta" sound like these sites are never finished, and that's not true at all. It's the unfortunate use of the label itself that is entirely wrong and misleading. | |
| Jun 2, 2015 at 17:49 | comment | added | Catija | @RobertCartaino But when do the other "graduated" benefits come in? I'm not sure that 60-90 days is long enough for the graduated rep levels to be reached by a sufficient group... is it long enough for Meta participation to be strong enough for mod elections? I feel that these two, in particular, would suffer under a short beta and that something more like 6-12 months would be preferable. | |
| Jun 2, 2015 at 12:01 | comment | added | Robert Cartaino | @T.E.D. A "beta" site is analogous to the software development model. The beta of a site is when it is still in its formative stages, subject to abrupt changes, and they're still trying to figure out what it is all going to be about. Once a site has settled in to what is pretty much going to be forever, it's time to remove that largely misnomered "beta" label. Typically that happens about 60-90ish days in. That is just my opinion. | |
| Jun 2, 2015 at 9:41 | comment | added | T.E.D. | @David - You are absolutely right. I'd say that entire question is about my question/point. It isn't posed that way (shame), but that's what it boils down to. | |
| Jun 2, 2015 at 9:35 | comment | added | Dɑvïd | @T.E.D. - Funny you should ask that. I'm not Robert Cartaino (you might already have noticed), but the related thread is addressing exactly your question. | |
| Jun 2, 2015 at 9:30 | comment | added | T.E.D. | @RobertCartaino - But then what does "beta" mean? I guess that's what you folks need to decide. As far as I can tell, the only obvious difference is that moderators are appointed rather than elected. | |
| Jun 1, 2015 at 21:31 | comment | added | Robert Cartaino | For what it's worth, I've been pushing (what seems like forever) to have the beta label removed when a site is no longer "in beta". We're slowly warming up to the idea... but beyond that, I don't yet know how far I can push this idea that long-standing beta sites are essentially "finished." I envision allowing communities to do minor look-and-feel tweaks: coming up with a logo, a byline under the title, maybe changing a few key graphic elements — it would be more like skinning a site than a complete redesign, but like I said, let's get that meaningless "beta" label removed first! Amen. | |
| Jun 1, 2015 at 20:56 | comment | added | Malachi | sucked me back to Hermeneutics...lol. I thought that site was a graduated site. I may have to get more involved there. | |
| S Jun 1, 2015 at 20:22 | history | suggested | Susan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
comment link wasn’t working after title changed
|
| Jun 1, 2015 at 20:02 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jun 1, 2015 at 20:22 | |||||
| Jun 1, 2015 at 19:40 | history | answered | Dɑvïd | CC BY-SA 3.0 |