Timeline for The evolution of a Proposal seems designed to drive people away
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 19, 2010 at 12:49 | answer | added | Jean Hominal | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 14, 2010 at 19:34 | comment | added | Scivitri | It's possible. But why would you go to a "New site staging zone" looking for "completed live sites" in the first place? Further, there are no current "Mission complete" stickers, so why would I assume they exist. I can hypothesize a great many things, but what is currently on the site includes nothing to indicate a live site index. It currently looks like a very robust, well-designed concept development area. A staging area. What it claims to be. And it looks like sites are removed once they complete beta. | |
| Jul 14, 2010 at 18:30 | comment | added | Grace Note StaffMod | Wouldn't a full bar be a good indication that it made it through and achieved the goal? Area 51 is a staging area for launching new Stack Exchange 2.0 sites - it's all about progress. Let's wait until we actually see a site fill that bar up. Who knows? Maybe there will be an awesome "MISSION COMPLETE" sticker on the proposal when it happens. | |
| Jul 14, 2010 at 18:27 | comment | added | Scivitri | @Grace Note, that depends whether you think Area51 is/will be a directory of live sites, or if sites will leave it's pages once they graduate to live status. There are no indicators; in word, meter or icon; that Area51 will act as an index of live sites. Everything from the tagline on indicates progress toward a goal, not records of the achievers. If you don't think it will be an index, it's fine. If it will be an index, it needs indicators of this added. | |
| Jul 14, 2010 at 17:58 | comment | added | Grace Note StaffMod | The labels and meters on the Area 51 site seem very accurate to me, but I'm able to be mistaken. What are they showing which isn't being indicated, or what isn't being shown that is indicated should be shown? | |
| Jul 14, 2010 at 17:53 | comment | added | Scivitri | @Grace Note - Asked and answered: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4/list-of-stackexchange-sites Yes, I worked on an assumption. Several, actually. First, I was mostly unaware of the 1.0 vs 2.0 system. So, I assumed the community maintained (and thus difficult and incomplete) answer above was correct. Second, that the labels and meters on the Area51 site meant what they indicated. And third, that the Area51 system was more developed than it is. It's great to know the answers to questions already; not so easy when you don't know what to ask. | |
| Jul 14, 2010 at 17:40 | comment | added | Grace Note StaffMod | @JYelton I was around when Area 51 first went public, so I admit to some early knowledge of the matter. But past that, I think that if you can't find any live sites listed, rather than running on the assumption that they aren't going to be listed, asking if they aren't going to be listed would've been a wiser idea. We are, after all, a Q&A site, and would be more than happy to field any question like "Is there a list of all current Stack Exchange 2.0 sites?". | |
| Jul 14, 2010 at 17:36 | comment | added | Grace Note StaffMod | As for having a full list of all live Stack Exchange 2.0 sites, Scivitri, there's a complete list of all live Stack Exchange 2.0 sites on the Meta About page. There's no other sites going live anytime soon, so there hasn't been a need to maintain a full list anywhere else. | |
| Jul 14, 2010 at 17:35 | comment | added | JYelton | @Grace Note: I assumed (obviously incorrectly) that I stumbled upon Area51 after some unknown number of sites had went live. Apparently, once a site goes live and has a home, future visitors won't have that potential assumption. But I think many people have had the "Oh, here's a list of ideas, I wonder where the finished ones are?" thought. | |
| Jul 14, 2010 at 17:27 | comment | added | Grace Note StaffMod | @JYelton I have no qualms with a separate tab. But I think that there's nothing to go off for thinking that the Area 51 sites will not be displayed once they exit the Public Beta and become live. The context of Area 51 as "sites which are not yet live" is because there aren't any live sites to list, not because they aren't going to list the live sites. Area 51 is about the proposals for new sites, not the trilogy. | |
| Jul 14, 2010 at 17:22 | comment | added | JYelton | @Grace Note: I agree with Scivitri, to me, a completed site list should at least be under a tab titled "Completed" or "Live." I don't see a reason to keep a live, successful site on a tab labeled "Progress." Moreover, since there are not yet any live sites (that passed through the area51 stages), it's difficult to know where they will be listed once past the proposal stage. | |
| Jul 14, 2010 at 17:21 | comment | added | Scivitri | Being new here, I'm not directly familiar with SE 1.0. Googling for a site list, I found stackexchangesites.com, which was supposedly a third-party list of sites which voluntarily registered with them. I also found a Q&A list which was a community maintained list of sites. I did not find an automatically maintained, full list of SE 1.0 sites. Also, whether it went through Area51 or not, Stack Overflow should be in any full list of sites. | |
| Jul 14, 2010 at 17:11 | comment | added | Grace Note StaffMod | Stack Overflow didn't go through Area 51. Why would it have to be listed? It was never a site proposal to begin with. Consequently, there's no reason to destroy information on the proposal that has successfully made it to live existence (which no one has yet, anyway). I always figured that once the progress bar was filled, it would sit there with its completed bar as a symbol of success. Considering the original Stack Exchange 1.0 maintained a list of Stack Exchange 1.0 sites, it makes little sense to not keep information on live new Stack Exchange 2.0 sites. | |
| Jul 14, 2010 at 17:09 | comment | added | Scivitri | Because the tab is named "Progress", something that seems to indicate "things not yet completed". There are no sites on that list which ARE completed. Every site on that list has a progress bar (fitting with the tab name) and that progress bar does not go to "Live". The greater context of Area51 is "sites which are not yet live". Sites which are KNOWN to be live (stackoverflow.com, for example) are not listed. So, to reverse your question, why would anyone ever assume that to be a permanent list of live sites? | |
| Jul 14, 2010 at 16:49 | comment | added | Grace Note StaffMod | On what grounds did you have to assume that they wouldn't be listed there? I understand your concerns but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the team is planning to obscure the information and location of the sites. | |
| Jul 14, 2010 at 16:42 | comment | added | juan | I'm guessing yes | |
| Jul 14, 2010 at 16:39 | answer | added | Pops | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jul 14, 2010 at 16:39 | answer | added | C. Ross | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jul 14, 2010 at 16:35 | comment | added | Scivitri | Everything on the progress tab is in Beta or younger. Will sites -always- be listed there? | |
| Jul 14, 2010 at 16:31 | comment | added | juan | Directory of live sites: area51.stackexchange.com/?tab=progress | |
| Jul 14, 2010 at 16:27 | history | asked | Scivitri | CC BY-SA 2.5 |