Timeline for Should we rename or remove the "beta" label?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
29 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 18, 2021 at 11:45 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://blog.stackoverflow.com with https://blog.stackoverflow.com
|
|
| Jun 3, 2020 at 13:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jan 14, 2019 at 17:14 | comment | added | Robert Cartaino | @MonicaCellio I'm back and writing up a comprehensive (sane <grin>) new site lifecycle workflow again as we speak. Completion and implementation would likely be a few months out — I don't even know if it will be any better received than last time — but honestly, you probably know more about when/how partial graduation exceptions occur than myself. | |
| Jan 13, 2019 at 21:44 | comment | added | Monica Cellio | @RobertCartaino I think we both agree that the "beta" label lingers far too long and well past the point where there's anything provisional about a site. Yet the label sticks like tar to sites for years past when it should have been shed, harming the sites in the process. Is there anything you can do to help with the really egregious cases, even if your teammates resist solving the general problem? | |
| Nov 27, 2017 at 20:44 | comment | added | Monica Cellio | @RobertCartaino related: meta.stackexchange.com/q/303727/162102 | |
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 15:44 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.money.stackexchange.com/ with https://money.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Nov 22, 2016 at 14:52 | history | edited | Robert Cartaino | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 23 characters in body
|
| May 4, 2016 at 16:33 | history | edited | Robert Cartaino | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 28 characters in body
|
| Apr 13, 2016 at 15:35 | history | edited | Robert Cartaino | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Jan 4, 2016 at 20:50 | history | edited | Robert Cartaino | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 24 characters in body
|
| Jun 3, 2015 at 21:08 | comment | added | Monica Cellio | @Davïd meta.stackexchange.com/questions/257828/… | |
| Jun 3, 2015 at 19:16 | comment | added | Monica Cellio | "2.0" also runs into SE 1.0 vs SE 2.0. Technically, everything you see on SE now is SE 2.0. There was an earlier phase where SE licensed the software to people running their own sites; those were the SE 1.0 sites. I believe all of those have now either migrated to SE 2.0 (e.g. Mi Yodeya) or shut down. I think you're on to something with "Can we do something about the 'graduated' label?". | |
| Jun 3, 2015 at 19:06 | comment | added | Dɑvïd | @MonicaCellio Quite right - I didn't really think it through sufficiently, and the analogy does break down too quickly. I think there are aesthetic reasons for rejected "forked", too, so the reasons begin to pile up. The only other programming analogy that comes to my mind is some form of "2.0" language, but that's a bit ambiguous and easily confused with other "2.0" usages. So maybe "promoted" does it? Or "upgraded"? or "enhanced"? Maybe we need a thread like this one, but: "Can we do something about the 'graduated' label?"! | |
| Jun 3, 2015 at 14:56 | history | edited | Robert Cartaino | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Jun 3, 2015 at 13:35 | history | edited | Robert Cartaino | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 15 characters in body
|
| Jun 3, 2015 at 13:16 | comment | added | Monica Cellio | @Davïd to me, "forked" means the original is still around, like when vendors fork an OS or a platform to make their own customizations. When a site graduates it's transformed, not forked -- there's still just one site. (No I'm not suggesting "transformed" as the term. Maybe "promoted"?) | |
| Jun 3, 2015 at 6:29 | comment | added | Dɑvïd | If the programming analogy persists, then perhaps what we think of as "graduation" fits into the flow (as its terminus) this way: proposal ⟹ [private|public] beta ⟹ stable ⟹ forked! That is, "forking" a site indicates that it is hived off, tweaked into a new but related form, building on what went before but now in a new idiom. ... Maybe? :) | |
| Jun 2, 2015 at 21:55 | history | edited | Robert Cartaino | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Jun 2, 2015 at 21:48 | history | edited | Robert Cartaino | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| Jun 2, 2015 at 21:41 | comment | added | Robert Cartaino | @MonicaCellio The premise of removing that beta label sooner rather than later is to get rid of that angst when sites are wondering if we're going to shut them down. "Why are we still in beta? What's left for us to do? What are we doing wrong?" Coming out of beta testing (per Ana's post) is tantamount to saying, finally, "you're clear, carry on." | |
| Jun 2, 2015 at 21:28 | comment | added | Monica Cellio | @RobertCartaino oh, I think I see what you're saying. Yes, past a certain point a site's future existence isn't in question (absent some catastrophic change), but "beta" doesn't only mean "not sure we're gonna make this real"; it also means "we're still building major parts". As soon as a site settles down I agree it should lose the "beta" label; it's just that, with one exception, the sites I've participated on have needed more than 90 days to get there. I don't think we disagree in principal; I just think the marker should be a little farther out, or evaluated per-site. | |
| Jun 2, 2015 at 21:22 | comment | added | Robert Cartaino | @MonicaCellio Put a big ol' set of quote around the word "done". All site are perpetually 'under construction', but that doesn't mean they are still in "beta testing." That was the entire purpose of Ana's post, to say that once a site reaches this point, it would take a pretty big cliff to get it closed. So it's not "in testing" and they don't need the label that says (in software parlance) "this is not fully-functional <strike>software</strike> site." | |
| Jun 2, 2015 at 21:01 | comment | added | Monica Cellio | 90 days seems awfully fast to call a site "done". Even on Worldbuilding, which hit the ground running and never looked back, I don't think we would have merited that status then. (By a few months later, yes -- you could graduate Worldbuilding today, metrics-wise.) But most betas I've been on have spent more than three months figuring out what they should be. Have I seen a disproportionate sample, or would 180 days be a better milepost than 90 days? I realize that we are quibbling over details; I like the broad idea. | |
| Jun 2, 2015 at 20:42 | history | edited | Robert Cartaino | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Jun 2, 2015 at 20:37 | comment | added | Catija | @HomegrownTomato Knowing the other side of the argument would be interesting, particularly as it doesn't make sense to me why the design and the other benefits be inexorably linked. | |
| Jun 2, 2015 at 20:34 | comment | added | user259867 | You've been a long-time proponent... from which I gather there are some long-time opponents, too. I hope we'll hear their side of the argument. | |
| Jun 2, 2015 at 20:29 | history | edited | Robert Cartaino | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body
|
| Jun 2, 2015 at 20:21 | history | answered | Robert Cartaino | CC BY-SA 3.0 |