Timeline for Why do we need the trilogy instead of just one site?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jan 18, 2021 at 12:27 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackexchange.com/ with https://stackexchange.com/
|
|
May 23, 2017 at 12:36 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
Apr 13, 2017 at 12:41 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://codereview.stackexchange.com/ with https://codereview.stackexchange.com/
|
|
Apr 13, 2017 at 12:14 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://serverfault.com/ with https://serverfault.com/
|
|
Mar 20, 2017 at 10:17 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://superuser.com/ with https://superuser.com/
|
|
Nov 1, 2015 at 17:14 | history | edited | Ray | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 283 characters in body
|
Nov 1, 2015 at 17:09 | comment | added | Ray | @quid AHHHHHH yes!!!! This is great. | |
Nov 1, 2015 at 17:00 | comment | added | quid | On your last comment: it is possible to aggregate the questions from different sites. Go to stackexchange.com choose "filtered questions" and choose what you want. | |
Nov 1, 2015 at 16:37 | comment | added | Ray | @Pëkka I don't doubt or make claim that the choice was arbitrary or willy nilly. I claim that it is not the optimal solution for a healthy chunk of the community. If not merge, why not have a site with the ability to have an aggregate site for those who wish to see all activity across all sites they participate? | |
Nov 1, 2015 at 16:29 | comment | added | Pekka | Each of these splits has a long and painful history. Neither site was created just willy nilly. | |
Nov 1, 2015 at 16:26 | comment | added | Ray | @IlmariKaronen Just as an earlier comment pointed out, there aren't many wikipedia sites, just one. The concept of creating sites as sub communities assumes there isn't a greater combined community better served by a single site. With this, sub communities like DBA just put their filters on and ignore outside stuff, while those who want to participate cross category aren't prevented to do so. I see no negative to a single site, other than the desire of the creators to have multiple sites. | |
Nov 1, 2015 at 16:21 | history | edited | Ray | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 302 characters in body
|
Nov 1, 2015 at 16:17 | comment | added | Ray | @IlmariKaronen yep, you're correct, I confused what Server Fault was for, which is at the core of my preference for a single site. Just make one site with sub categories where you can have an aggregated view and filter like we do tags what you want to see. You can also aggregate the reputation so you can see someone's full system reputation, or sub category reputation. The problem with 'if in doubt, go to the site, open the "help" menu in the top bar, click "Help Center"' you need to at least know there is a site maybe about X, Y or Z before you can go check. | |
Oct 30, 2015 at 22:09 | comment | added | Ilmari Karonen | Of course, nowadays there are a bunch of other SE sites more or less related to so software development besides those you mentioned, like Software Engineering, User Experience, Software Quality Assurance & Testing, Webmasters, Information Security and even Software Recommendations. Most of those (except maybe Programmers, for which see here) should have reasonably obvious scopes; if in doubt, go to the site, open the "help" menu in the top bar, click "Help Center" and select "What topics can I ask about here?" | |
Oct 30, 2015 at 22:03 | comment | added | Ilmari Karonen | Unless their scope has broadened significantly since I lasted looked, that's not what Server Fault is for. Basically, SF is for professional sysadmins, just like DBA is for, well, DBAs. Are you either? If not, skip those sites. That leaves you with SU ("How do I use program X?"), SO ("How do I write a program to do X?") and CR ("Does my program to do X look good to you?"). | |
Oct 30, 2015 at 21:16 | history | answered | Ray | CC BY-SA 3.0 |