With the announcement of Facebook.StackOverflow, what are the critera/how does one go about getting a new mini-site created?

Assuming that it is not possible today, are there plans to make it so in the future?

  • 1
    Do you have a need to do this?
    – going
    Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 4:07
  • I read the facebook thing but didn't see much detail on whether there's any formal mechanism here. I run a small commmunity and will be using the stackunderflow "reflector" on my site, but I would prefer something like a mini-site.
    – Eric Bloch
    Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 5:13

3 Answers 3


Facebook Stack Overflow is our first experiment with mini-sites, so we're still figuring these things out.

I hope our formal partnership with Facebook will give us enough runway to work out all the little kinks that might kill less "sure thing" sites (for the record, this idea has been kicked around since long before any partnership was in the works; though the pilot tag set was never set).

We don't intend to launch any other mini-sites until we're confident that Facebook Stack Overflow is working, and not obviously a fluke.

Once/If that's the case, we'll work out the exact method for deciding if a mini-site is merited. Ideas that have been floated include: proposals closed on Area 51 as duplicates of Stack Overflow, new (explicitly mini-site) proposals, internal curation, and dowsing.

We know that we don't want to encourage factionalism, so the community overlap with Stack Overflow needs to be total. Likewise, trivial mini-sites of one tag (, , and so on) are obvious non-starters. A lot of other stuff needs to be figured out, and we're only going to really get answers by watching and tweaking Facebook Stack Overflow.

One thing that will never be sufficient is cutting a check*. We tried that with SE 1.0, and it doesn't work. Facebook could have driven a dump truck of money to 55 Broadway, and without the already extant Facebook community on Stack Overflow all that would have gotten them was an opportunity to taunt the brokers.

If you're looking to get a personal Stack Overflow mini-site, that is unlikely to ever happen. The same is true for any company that isn't a "major software development player," and even those would already have to have an independent Stack Overflow presence.

Of final note, we don't foresee any Stack Exchange site other than Stack Overflow having sub-sites. The kind of traffic and size of community that we strongly suspect are needed to support them are a (good kind of) "big city problem", that only Stack Overflow has at the moment.

*I eagerly await the snarky "we know they gave you $$$ to sell-out" comments.

  • 25
    we know they gave you $$$ to sell-out Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 6:14
  • 2
    How do the mini sites solve the big city problem? All of the content is still dumped (err, available on) the main site. And how in the world would a .NET or Java mini-site be "trivial"? Those ecosystems are at least as large and diverse as Facebook. Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 6:18
  • 1
    @Cody - you're completely missing the point. Stack Overflow has a "big city problem" of tons of traffic, which makes mini-sites possible; other SE's aren't there yet. .net and java are trivial, because they already exist... as the .net and java tags! Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 6:20
  • 2
    I see, okay. Yeah, I do feel like I'm missing the point. I thought there were tags for Facebook, too. Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 6:34
  • @cody see facebook.stackoverflow.com/faq#tagsshown Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 6:49
  • 2
    I can think of probably 30 .net related tags off the top of my head though. And I'm sure Microsoft would be willing to drive a truck load of money over (they are already sponsoring tags).
    – bkaid
    Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 14:34
  • 1
    Any results of this experiment? 7 months has passed - was it success or failure? Will there be more mini-sites or not? If not, what is proposed instead?
    – StasM
    Commented Mar 20, 2012 at 20:52
  • @StasM - at the moment we're not planning to create any more sub-sites. Commented Mar 20, 2012 at 20:57
  • @KevinMontrose Thanks for the quick answer! I think a blog post explaining why, and what people that had expectations for similar sites are to expect now, etc. would be helpful. There was a number of announcements about this function, and some people had their hopes up. If it's not happening, fair enough, but maybe you could tell people that once you know it so the expectations may be adjusted. Thanks again for the quick answer.
    – StasM
    Commented Mar 20, 2012 at 21:35
  • @StasM - seconded. The ability to create our own mini-sites would be incredibly useful for small OSS project owners everywhere. Preferably iframed! Commented Jul 4, 2012 at 13:53
  • I don' really see how these sites can encourage factionalism, when the questions are contributed to SO as a large. More explanation please! Commented Jul 4, 2012 at 13:55

See Stack Exchange Podcast #7 --

We’re starting to build a feature we call emacs.stackexchange.com, which essentially gives users a filtered view of Stack Overflow to specific topic groups, as represented by a set of tags. We have historically shut down Area 51 proposals that would factionalize Stack Overflow, and although we feel this is the correct decision, we are sympathetic to the underlying concern. Stack Exchange sites are intended to be groups of topics, identified by tags, that are of broad interest to people who all love a topic — like, say, programming. This is fine when you follow a large tag like [java] or [c#], but what about when you follow 20 small tags? Yes, you can set up a tag filter, but it might be nice to have some default groupings for certain popular sub-areas — thus, emacs.stackexchange.com instead of the Area 51 site proposal for emacs.

Related: Why is the Compiler Design proposal on hold?

I highly recommend skipping to that section of the podcast to hear my explanation. Starts at around 13:45.

  • So does this mean we could see a Compiler Design mini-site? That would be awesome. Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 6:18

Contact Stack Overflow to partner with them (read: give them a lot of money).

  • 9
    [citation needed] Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 4:32
  • @George: Stack Exchange doesn't want a lot of money? Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 4:45
  • 2
    @Andrew: Apparently not. Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 4:50
  • 1
    @George, on the contrary, I interpret that as meaning they only want lots of money :)
    – Benjol
    Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 5:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .