For consistency, there should be a 'Visit meta' link at the top left on SO. Every other sites' meta link is up there, SO shouldn't be left out!
-
All the other sites have it b/c they're in beta. SO is definitely not in beta.– C. RossCommented Jul 23, 2010 at 11:54
-
3A community needs a meta site to strive, not just in beta.– Brian R. BondyCommented Jul 23, 2010 at 11:56
-
4@C.Ross Server Fault and Super User aren't in Beta, either.– Grace Note StaffModCommented Jul 23, 2010 at 11:58
-
Disregard my flag, sorry.– badpCommented Jul 23, 2010 at 12:09
-
For even more consistency, SO should have it's own meta, see here.– Tobias KienzlerCommented Jul 23, 2010 at 13:26
-
Looks like this is a non-issue now. A link to stackexchange.com has been added to/replaced whatever was in the upper-left.– Billy JoCommented Aug 4, 2010 at 13:44
-
@Bill - there's still no link to SO's meta so this is still an issue.– Mark ElliotCommented Aug 12, 2010 at 18:03
-
@Mark Actually, as I pointed out in my answer below, the "feedback always welcome" in the footer of every page takes you to the relevant meta for the site you're on. My statement of non-issue is still correct since all sites are now consistent with what is shown in the upper-left.– Billy JoCommented Aug 22, 2010 at 3:57
Add a comment
|
3 Answers
I can think of one reason not to, in this post Jeff explains that meta.stackoverflow.com is an exception to other meta sites and so it will have its own reputation system. I.e. it doesn't really hold a parent/child relationship like the other sites.
Who is the parent to meta.stackoverflow.com? More than just stackoverflow.com QA site is discussed here, including the chat feature in general, area51, stackexchange, the company itself and much else.
That being said I'm not against having a link.
answered Jul 23, 2010 at 11:51
-
That's a terrific argument for having no "parent" link back to stackoverflow.com, but a terrible argument to having no "meta" link from stackoverflow.com to meta.stackoverflow.com Commented Aug 12, 2010 at 18:03
A meta site has been created for SU and SF, which so far have been discussed in meta. I think it would be only consequent to use meta.stackoverflow.com for SO. But I agree that then meta would have to be moved, because there has to be a place to discuss both the SE software as a whole as the special sites like Area51 and Careers.
I would argue whether StackApps could be treated like any other SE site with its own meta. There eventually will be tons of apps being discussed, such that it would allow for its own venue.
Now, the natural place to move meta to would be meta.stackexchange.com. But this is taken by all existing old SE sites as their meta. And them having their own implementation/branch of SE it would not be easy to change that, I guess.
As I like things in order, I would make these sites:
- meta.stackoverflow.com for SO
- meta.stackapps.com
- www.metaoverflow.com to discuss SE software incl. chat, area51, careers
or wait until meta.stackexchange.com is cleared and reuse it.
The "feedback always welcome" link in the footer of SO pages links to meta. There are also several other sites where the same is observed: Stack Apps, Area 51, and Careers. Since Meta SO is used to discuss so many different sites, not placing the link in the upper-left may be a tactic to help keep noise down.
