Timeline for Can Stack Exchange follow a more generic approach?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
39 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 13:38 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 13:35 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 9:16 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| Feb 17, 2012 at 4:58 | history | edited | randomMod |
edited tags
|
|
| Aug 25, 2011 at 8:08 | history | edited | Gulshan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
updated the proposal.
|
| Nov 2, 2010 at 8:53 | comment | added | Robin Green | If you want to use a site more along these lines, try Quora.com - it has hierarchical tags and it's for just about anything. I recommend it. However, an initial problem is always going to be critical mass: Stack Overflow has a critical mass of programmers, whereas Quora has more of a critical mass of tech startup people (a heavily overlapping group, but not the same thing). | |
| Oct 26, 2010 at 21:08 | comment | added | Aarobot | Dear God, not this suggestion again. I'll spare you the downvote simply because you've at least attempted to offer a practical system; in spite of that, it's still a horrible idea because the kinds of community members the sites need to attract would not be even the slightest bit interested in a mega-site (many are already disillusioned with sites the size of Stack Overflow and were hoping for something more niche via Area51). | |
| Oct 26, 2010 at 20:21 | comment | added | uɐɯsO uɐɥʇɐN | I really appreciate the fact that you have really thought this through. | |
| Oct 26, 2010 at 19:45 | answer | added | Ivo FlipseMod | timeline score: 4 | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 17:09 | history | edited | Gulshan | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 185 characters in body
|
| Oct 22, 2010 at 14:36 | history | edited | Gulshan | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 823 characters in body
|
| Oct 22, 2010 at 9:51 | comment | added | Pekka | @Gulshan I see what you mean, but that would probably bring a load of technological problems. Scalability. The possibility of different rule sets. etc. etc... | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 9:45 | comment | added | Gulshan | @Pekka I think still there will be many sites, not just one. Almost same as now. And this whole idea can be implemented in the core without even notifying the present users. I am feeling that the "One site" is a misleading name for this idea. And everyone is making the same mistake. | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 9:33 | comment | added | Pekka | I'd +1 for a very nicely put and thought-through proposal; but -1 because I don't like merging the sites. SO should have "tag communities" to avoid splinter sites from getting created (see e.g. testing.SE). Other than that, I'm fine with the separation | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 9:18 | history | edited | Gulshan | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 833 characters in body; added 1 characters in body
|
| Oct 21, 2010 at 16:28 | comment | added | Gulshan | So many upvotes and downvotes!! | |
| Oct 21, 2010 at 16:27 | comment | added | Gulshan |
@Grace Note Backward compatibility is always a pain. We may start making totally new structure. Or, a SuperUser tag can be added to all the questions belonging to Superuser.
|
|
| Oct 21, 2010 at 15:56 | comment | added | Grace Note StaffMod | Under this system, how would we identify the questions that would fit in Super User's community? Computer software and hardware is partly covered by a lot of other communities such as Gaming and AskUbuntu; how is Super User going to establish itself while still getting the tightly focused scope that it desires? Since those other sites will use [hardware] and [software] tags, it seems less than usable to try and focus on those tags... but then what is left for Super User? | |
| Oct 21, 2010 at 15:34 | history | edited | Gulshan | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 351 characters in body
|
| Oct 21, 2010 at 14:57 | history | edited | Gulshan | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 12 characters in body
|
| Oct 21, 2010 at 14:24 | comment | added | Gulshan | @Pollyanna To be honest, I am not a web developer. Even I know very less about APIs. So, I tried to find a way everyone can use. Not just the programmers. The whole idea was just not for solving the small problem you stated. I felt like "it would be better to manage it in this way". And I shared my idea with the community so that others can also think about this. | |
| Oct 21, 2010 at 14:05 | comment | added | Pollyanna | @Gulshan - You are coming up with quite complex (and certainly non-user-centric) "fixes" for problems your proposal raises. The current system is already better than your proposal even without the flaws people are bringing up, but the flaws and their fixes are making your proposal worse - much worse. You have come up with this large, complex proposal to fix one small problem: " I am getting a bit confused, maintaining so many different accounts and sites " This is a significant over-reaction to a relatively small problem. Why can't you fix this with a custom site using the API? | |
| Oct 21, 2010 at 13:52 | comment | added | Gulshan | @Pollyanna When tags will be categorized as said in "tag inheritance" user will not tag questions as we do now.May be they will choose tags from a tree. Or when a tag is added, all/immediate parents can be shown to choose the right one. Or there may be special notes for the ambiguous tags. | |
| Oct 21, 2010 at 13:47 | comment | added | Pollyanna | @Popular Demand: Yeah, it can be worked out. Until I tag that crochet thread with "C++", then use my programming 10k privileges to sully it, retag it back, and otherwise disrupt the site. This new super site would be significantly harder to moderate... | |
| Oct 21, 2010 at 13:45 | comment | added | Pollyanna | @Gulshan "The ambiguous tag problem can be resolved easily by adding prefixes with the tab names." Who is going to explain to new users that they can't use the generic "baking" tag, and must use the specially prefixed one, which won't be intuitive at all? Are you just shoving all the tagging work onto the community? | |
| Oct 21, 2010 at 13:39 | answer | added | Pollyanna | timeline score: 30 | |
| Oct 21, 2010 at 13:32 | answer | added | Pops | timeline score: 11 | |
| Oct 21, 2010 at 13:16 | comment | added | Gulshan | @Popular Demand Then the privileges can be classified. Some will be available with overall reputation. And some will be with tag-specific reputation. | |
| Oct 21, 2010 at 13:09 | comment | added | Pops | @Gulshan, now that, I do have a problem with. Use of rep for privileges is predicated upon some degree of familiarity with the subject matter. On a site like the one you're proposing, it would be possible to earn a lot of rep answering questions about programming and then use it to incorrectly edit/close questions about horse breeding, which is not okay. I suppose that could be worked out, though. | |
| Oct 21, 2010 at 13:04 | comment | added | Gulshan | @Popular Demand I think the overall reputation can be used for privileges. The overall rep indicates someone contribution to the site, while the tag-specific rep indicates the knowledge and reliability of someone regarding the specific matter. I don't want recipes from a web developer. I can not think of any special rules for now. But I am quite sure some situation will come imposing special rules for a specific community. You can guess a "Super tag" means a different community. | |
| Oct 21, 2010 at 12:59 | answer | added | George Stocker | timeline score: 0 | |
| Oct 21, 2010 at 12:52 | comment | added | Gulshan | @Bobby Not everyone will agree. And you have the right to disagree and downvote. But better to express logics. The ambiguous tag problem can be resolved easily by adding prefixes with the tab names. | |
| Oct 21, 2010 at 12:47 | comment | added | Pops | @Gulshan, wow, this is the first "one site" proposal I've seen that has a non-zero chance of working (and I've seen lots of "one site" proposals). I have some questions, though. Early on, you say rep and other stats will be recorded for the whole site, but later you say that subsites will display tag-specific stats. Which number is used for privileges, and what's the point of having the other one? You also say "Some special rules can be applied to these "Super tags" if needed"; what kind of special rules? | |
| Oct 21, 2010 at 12:45 | comment | added | Time Traveling Bobby | -1 because I disagree with the overall idea. Having one 'super-site' seems like a bad idea to me and would lead to utter chaos (some tags are very ambiguous, f.e. baking might also mean to fixate particle animations in 3D-Modelling). | |
| Oct 21, 2010 at 12:32 | history | edited | Pops | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
copy editing
|
| Oct 21, 2010 at 10:40 | comment | added | Gulshan | @Tadeusz A. Kadłubowski Actually the examples are flawed, not the concept IMHO. Probably this can be resolved by choosing distinct tag names like VB.net and VB6. And also less common scenarios can be overlooked. | |
| Oct 21, 2010 at 10:25 | comment | added | Tadeusz A. Kadłubowski | Your tag inheritance concept is flawed. Baking can refer to a car paintjob process. VB can refer to pre-.NET era VB6. | |
| Oct 21, 2010 at 9:14 | history | asked | Gulshan | CC BY-SA 2.5 |