Timeline for Area51: allow answers much earlier
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 3, 2020 at 13:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Nov 29, 2010 at 10:46 | vote | accept | Reinstate Monica - Goodbye SE | ||
| Nov 29, 2010 at 10:46 | comment | added | Reinstate Monica - Goodbye SE | @Robert Cartaino - after much thought I'm reluctantly marking this as my accepted answer. You made a good argument and I cannot think of a better response right now. Thanks. | |
| Nov 22, 2010 at 18:09 | comment | added | Reinstate Monica - Goodbye SE | @Robert Cartaino - got it, thanks again. | |
| Nov 22, 2010 at 17:15 | comment | added | Robert Cartaino | @Mark Robinson : That first group of sites was created mostly by our Stack Overflow audience. Those 33 sites have since expanded our audience outside our core programmer group. We need to bring that new audience back to Area 51 so they may support our next generation of even-more diverse sites. We have only very recently started promoting Area 51 back to the newer Stack Exchange sites. | |
| Nov 22, 2010 at 16:20 | comment | added | Reinstate Monica - Goodbye SE | @Robert Cartaino - thanks again. One more question: what do you mean by "Our next task is to bring back the more versatile audience of those 33 sites we've created since."? | |
| Nov 22, 2010 at 15:54 | comment | added | Robert Cartaino | @Mark Robinson: In five months, Area 51 has proposed, defined, promoted, built, and launched 33 pretty darn successful sites. Sure, I'll call that bar "about right." Those 33 sites were created by some fraction of the 6.7 million people visiting one site, Stack Overflow. Our next task is to bring back the more versatile audience of those 33 sites we've created since. That's all part of attracting the right type of activity and what we are working on with the enhancements to Area 51. | |
| Nov 22, 2010 at 15:44 | comment | added | Robert Cartaino | @Mark Robinson: In SE 1.0 times, we created about 2,840 sites under the "let's see if these will work" model. Out of those, MAYBE 10 were viable (I am being extremely generous here). Creating "trial" sites with a 99.6% failure rate did immeasurable damage to the concept and the brand. We won't be doing that again. | |
| Nov 21, 2010 at 18:37 | comment | added | Reinstate Monica - Goodbye SE | continued... @Robert Cartaino - by "strict", I mean binary. I think a site could evolve over time. I like the new ideas you are having (departments) but I still think you need more people looking at Area51. Do you agree? One other question - do you agree that we do have a problem with sites taking off or do you, as @Jon B says, think that "the bar is ... about right"? | |
| Nov 21, 2010 at 18:33 | comment | added | Reinstate Monica - Goodbye SE | @Robert Cartaino - thanks for the really well thought through answer. You've given me plenty to think about. Disclaimer I wasn't around during the Stack Exchange 1.0 times, nor at the start of Area51 so I bow to your knowledge there (and your general A51 experience). But I think your objections can all be answered. Yes, why not have the definition phase a trial version of the site. But you don't vote on how good a question is but on its relevance - as A51 now does. OK, don't throw away content; just close it. I think the current way of working is too strict; this way allows evolution. | |
| Nov 21, 2010 at 6:36 | history | edited | Robert Cartaino | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 3 characters in body
|
| Nov 21, 2010 at 4:54 | history | edited | Robert Cartaino | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 27 characters in body; added 2 characters in body
|
| Nov 21, 2010 at 4:18 | history | edited | Robert Cartaino | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 54 characters in body
|
| Nov 21, 2010 at 4:12 | history | edited | Robert Cartaino | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 108 characters in body; added 11 characters in body; added 1 characters in body
|
| Nov 21, 2010 at 4:02 | history | answered | Robert Cartaino | CC BY-SA 2.5 |