5

Chat link from StackExchange (menu) bar or from bottom panel is not showing rooms for Area51:

enter image description here

enter image description here

Even show frozen/deleted room doesn't show any rooms.

I found that rooms can be visible if I change link from

  • I think a51 should draw more attention from the SE (company), particularly if we compare the growth stats of the site networks. – peterh Apr 8 '17 at 20:19
  • @peterh That doesn't have anything to do with this question; post a new question if you'd like to discuss that. Keep in mind, though, that the SE devs are very busy, and Area 51 has a very old code base, so it's unlikely they have time to do very much with it. – NobodyNada Apr 10 '17 at 2:33
  • @NobodyNada It is about the most essential point of the question. I am considering to open also a new post from it, as you said. Your comment has also an important logical flaw: you say, the a51 may be not maintained/improved with the required priority because it "has a very old code base", I think the direction of causality is its exact opposite. I didn't say here anything about the SE developers (whose work I find pretty good), I can only hope that you didn't understand anything into this comment what I didn't say. – peterh Apr 10 '17 at 2:57
  • @peterh This question is about a link that is pointing to the wrong place; it is not about whether Stack Exchange should invest more effort into Area 51. About the "logical flaw," see this post. Area 51 is "so far out of date and so far removed from the rest of our infrastructure that changes are hard (and some are impossible)." The old codebase doesn't directly make Area 51 a low priority, but it's so hard to work with that they don't have the time to do much with it. – NobodyNada Apr 10 '17 at 3:11
  • @peterh While Area 51 is not ideal, the team has a lot of higher-priority work to do. As explained some in the post I linked, the SE team has considered building a replacement, but the current system works and they have more important things to work on. Do you have a compelling reason to invest much more dev time on Area 51? – NobodyNada Apr 10 '17 at 3:13
  • @NobodyNada The related post contains the same logical flaw as your comment. The internals of the software is not known for you, and also not for me, thus, my comment was only about the priorities what seem - for me - rational. I've provided a compelling reason for it already in the first comment, here, may I ask from you a little bit more constructive attitude? – peterh Apr 10 '17 at 3:18
  • @peterh We do not know everything about the internals of the software, but we do know what the devs have told us. They have made this exact decision before, and they decided not to prioritize Area 51. About your statistic: I'm not entirely sure I understand the point you're making, but my understanding is that the rest of the SE sites should be growing as fast as SO is. I'd disagree with that -- SO is hugely successful, so 1) it is SE's main priority, and 2) it naturally grows faster than smaller sites. If I am being unconstructive, I apologize, but I don't think I am. – NobodyNada Apr 10 '17 at 3:33
  • @NobodyNada The growth of the SO is linear, i.e. its growth diagram is static since around 2014-2015. While in the case of the SE, also the growth diagram (i.e. the time derivate of the posts) is growing linearly, what means the SE is growing quadratically. Its probable reason is that around in 2014-2015 reached the SO its possible highest size (around at that time started to use it nearly all competent programmer on the world). In the case of the SE, the same phenomenon obviously didn't happen until now. It probably requires community catalyzation to create new SE sites. (Ok, no prob.) – peterh Apr 10 '17 at 3:44
  • @NobodyNada Note, a "breakthrough"-type success means an exponential growth, this was on the SO until around 2014-15. The SE wasn't ever in such a phase, but it could be. The linearity of the SE growth means, there is a fixed-size mechanism, a "gate", which is limiting its growth. This limit is - in my opinion - probably the current software and rule structure of the a51, and maybe the whole SE. Now the problem is - as your references say, imho perfectly correctly - that the system is complex, and making radical changes in it is hard and risky. Probably this is why it doesn't happen. – peterh Apr 10 '17 at 3:50
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – NobodyNada Apr 10 '17 at 4:01
  • It's even stranger when you consider that Area 51 Discussions now uses area51.meta, but the proper chat link still uses discuss.area51. – Sir Cumference May 3 '17 at 17:01

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .