Timeline for Solving the well-wisher ("sympathy commit") problem on Area 51: Investments
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jan 20, 2016 at 21:04 | comment | added | Pacerier | @Aarobot, It doesn't take folks a couple of months to forget a site. The amount of time it takes depends directly on how much activity they have done on that site. If no activity has been done, it is surprising if they would stay on even after a few weeks. I had came across many "almost done! new site launching soon" sites which I routinely forget after 3 to 5 days or less. Truth is most people have a life outside of SE/, even when they "commit" to a SE proposal. | |
| Apr 23, 2014 at 13:35 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 9:13 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| Feb 23, 2011 at 22:10 | comment | added | Jan Fabry | I noticed that this happened in the Persian IT proposal: run the example questions through a translator and you'll notice that many of them got actual answers instead of off-topic/on-topic discussions. | |
| Feb 13, 2011 at 17:44 | comment | added | jalf | The people you're trying to rule out with your proposal are the ones who want to ask/answer questions on the subject no matter what, the ones who currently rely on mailing lists and whatever else, but who would be extremely valuable to the proposed site. And the people you're trying to encourage are the ones who proposed to 14 sites before this, and who, once their proposal has been fulfilled, will commit to another one. I think the former is a more valuable type of user. | |
| Feb 13, 2011 at 17:41 | comment | added | jalf | And it's not because he "has a fleeting interest" (now that btw, is BS. You seem to use that argument to dismiss everyone and anyone who don't fit into your diagnosis). These are the most hardcore users you have, the ones who already spend a huge proportion of their time answering questions on the subject. Their interest in the subject, and in answering questions about it, is far from fleeting. But their interest in "channel #263 for questions about the subject" is very fleeting, yes, because they have 262 other channels for it already. To get those people on board, you need to deliver. | |
| Feb 13, 2011 at 17:39 | comment | added | jalf | @BS? I thought you were trying hard to be polite? ;) Here's whats BS: the process currently doesn't work, and you refuse to accept it, even when faced with concrete examples of it. Anticipation works when you have a unique proposition, something (percieved as) new for which no alternative exists. To a domain expert who's currently participating in a dozen mailing lists and forums on his subject matter, the promise that "an unknown number of months from now, a Q&A site on your area of expertise will launch" is not going to get him hooked. | |
| Feb 13, 2011 at 17:35 | comment | added | Aarobot | I'm sorry but that is such utter BS. How long do you see people waiting on tenterhooks for as soon as they hear an unverified rumour about the newest iProduct? Anticipation is more often than not a positive thing. You're asking to make the system more convenient for people who only have a fleeting interest to begin with; those are precisely the same people who I'm trying to rule out with this proposal. | |
| Feb 13, 2011 at 17:20 | comment | added | jalf | Exactly as @Yann says, in short, no matter how much you bling out the rewards on A51 for following through on a commitment, you're still reaching out to the wrong crowed: the group who hangs out on A51, rather than the group who intend to hang out on the new site. The ones who don't give a damn about A51 or what they can do there. | |
| Feb 13, 2011 at 17:17 | comment | added | jalf | @Aarobot: Meta and A51 have a lot in common: both are populated with people who want to be a part of StackExchange, people who want to say "I helped make this happen", people who are interested in playing the system, rather than asking questions on a specific topic. A new site doesn't need these generalists who are in it for the fame, it needs specialists, and those aren't attracted by a promise of gaining more power over other proposals. | |
| Feb 13, 2011 at 17:14 | comment | added | jalf | @Charles: true, but that shouldn't be the prospective user's problem. When committing, I want to use the site. Make it work! ;) And @Aarobot: a couple of months is enough to make me forget that the site existed. When I am reminded of it, it is simply "the site that didn't exist". When you want to build a community, turning people away and saying "come back later" isn't going to work. | |
| Feb 13, 2011 at 1:39 | comment | added | Yann Vernier | I find the commitment (and to some degree, even beta) phase strangely counterproductive as well. The first beta I joined (electronics), I went to the site without knowing of area 51 only to be suddenly cut off. Apparently participating in the site is forbidden without "commiting" at another site. Which is really the commitment? For the second proposal I'm following, I personally know several domain experts. They're interested in the proposed site, but have absolutely zero interest in Area51. Being counted less isn't going to attract them. | |
| Feb 5, 2011 at 19:34 | comment | added | Pops | Awarding the bounty to this post because it makes for good discussion, though I don't agree that Aarobot is wrong. Actually, I think you two are more on the same page than you realize. | |
| Feb 5, 2011 at 19:33 | history | bounty ended | Pops | ||
| Jan 28, 2011 at 22:41 | comment | added | Aarobot | Furthermore, I fail to see what meta has to do with any of this, I never mentioned it and it's not related to Area 51 at all. And, finally, your concept of "chasing rep for fame" is based on the concept of reputation as it exists today. My whole proposal is about changing what reputation means; consistently following through on Area 51 commitments would mean that the system trusts you more and would hence allow you to advance a proposal further, and that's exactly what's needed most in an Area 51 commitment; trustworthy people who will do what they say they will. | |
| Jan 28, 2011 at 22:37 | comment | added | Aarobot | Sorry, I'm not feeling this one. If a couple of months is all it takes for you to completely forget about everything you could possibly have wanted to ask, then you probably don't have much interest/expertise in the first place and shouldn't be committing. Needless to say people also usually need to answer questions to fulfill their commitment and this post says nothing about that. This suggestion simply exacerbates the chicken-and-egg problem that already exists; my recommendation already addresses the positive incentives for getting people to follow through on commitments. | |
| Jan 28, 2011 at 19:33 | comment | added | Charles Stewart | Once committed, why shouldn't a user be able to ask and answer questions immediately? - Because there's a coordination problem here: few people will put effort into asking questions and answering them before it looks like the proposal has serious momentum. I think the current private beta system is a good solution to that problem. | |
| Jan 28, 2011 at 16:48 | history | answered | jalf | CC BY-SA 2.5 |