I have seen several proposals on Area 51 now for sites whose functionality is essentially a subset of existing functionality in Stack Overflow.


  • IDEs
  • CMS Development
  • jQuery Answers
  • Drupal Answers

Is it really the intention to break up the programming functionality of Stack Overflow into several specialized sites? I thought that's what tags were for.

Am I really going to consult a JavaScript site, a jQuery site, a Telerik site, a C# site, an MVC site, an IIS site, and an SQL Server site to maintain my ASP.NET MVC application?

  • According to the community coordinator, overlapping is not an issue
    – Gnoupi
    Commented Jun 3, 2010 at 16:54
  • @Gnoupi: I see the reference there, but look at the discussion in the comments below it.
    – user102937
    Commented Jun 3, 2010 at 16:57
  • I'm inclined to the view that web CMS systems fit within a coherent 'web development' community that is well served by Stackoverflow. Other areas outside core topics that the main community identifies with might not be so well served and better farmed off into separate areas. Commented Jul 2, 2010 at 10:25
  • I prefer just using tags, too. Commented Jun 23, 2011 at 15:29

8 Answers 8


This early in the beta, I'm not being too heavy-handed with the moderator buttons... precisely to see how the community/software handles these situations. Don't worry. Misguided proposals will not get out the door. We'll work our way through how to handle these situations.

One of the features we are looking at right now is having a really short discussion period for new proposals where people can talk about the wording and details before submitting questions. During this time, everyone can decide if a proposal has to be broadened, narrowed, removed, or merged with another proposal.

  • 13
    I like the pre-discussion idea.
    – user102937
    Commented Jun 3, 2010 at 16:50
  • 4
    Interesting idea, but I think we need a pre-discussion discussion to set up some ground rules for the pre-discussion. And perhaps a committee. Yeah... Someone should start a discussion to membership for the pre-discussion discussion committee...
    – Shog9
    Commented Jun 3, 2010 at 17:16
  • @Shog9 - You joke but its already been suggested that all edits to a proposal be listed for voting, each entry with associated comments and an attached meta discussion to discuss why each proposal was edited that way... with voting on those comments. Commented Jun 3, 2010 at 17:30
  • "No time to discuss this as a committee!"
    – squillman
    Commented Jun 3, 2010 at 17:43
  • 1
    @Robert: Refer them to the Simple Sabotage Field Manual...
    – Shog9
    Commented Jun 3, 2010 at 17:46
  • 1
    I'm of the "let's see if there's a problem" school. When one of these proposals gets close to commitment, I'll worry. In the meantime, I don't vote or submit sample questions to them. Commented Jul 2, 2010 at 14:18

I too have some issue with all these sites that seem like subsets of the larger stackoverflow. I think that if there is a way to link these sites such that it is easy to aggregate their content into a single location then it might not be as big an issue - to me at least - to create these separate more specific sites.

This is out there, but maybe questions on these sites tagged with "stackoverflow" can show up on the stackoverflow site. Of course this breaking down of boundaries would bring with it a host of issues like how to calculate reps, authentication into the sites, etc... but it is one possible idea.

  • +1 - I think some sort of managed M:M relationship between sites and questions would be a good idea, at least in principle. However, I'm not entirely sure how it might work, beyond perhaps moderators being able to poach questions between sites. I dare say that the core SE engine may need to be modified somewhat to do this well. Commented Jul 2, 2010 at 18:28

I think consideration has to be taken of subset vs overlap.

I see a few types of proposals:

Subset of the Trilogy
No single Trilogy site completely encompasses the proposal but together they do.

ex: Unix & Linux
I can see the reasoning behind proposing this because right now you have to decide between posting on SF or SU depending on if it is a sysadmin or enthusiast question. This one to me is debatable. I'm sure the community would do better under a single site, but I don't see getting away from division. If this site were active, then what do you do with a linux sysadmin question.

These types I'm not sure are worth the trouble.

Subset of a Single Trilogy site
The proposal could be completely sustained as a tag on one trilogy site.

ex: jQuery Answers
I understand he wants a more focused community. Still, there wouldn't be any question to be asked here that wouldn't fit on SO.

If there is enough demand for this type, then I would support the idea of "portals". Have something like jquery.stackoverflow.com. You only see items holding a jquery tag (the other tags on the question become the tags you browse) and only see users/information related to that tag. I wouldn't say make every tag able to work this way, but either a manual review or community voting process to identify them.

I think that would give the desired appearance to the ones that want to be [tag X] only, but keep all of that data in the main system for us all to benefit from.

Overlaps with the Trilogy
Yes, there will be some programming, sysadmin, advanced user questions but also a good amount of questions that would get thrown out of the trilogy for being non-programming, sysadmin, advanced user related.

ex: Game Development
I think this one is a great example of this. Yes, you will have people posting programming questions here and they will be on-topic for both the proposal and for SO. Many of those programming questions would benefit SO in general as most probably wouldn't have to be related only to game development. Still, game development couldn't fully live in SO as there will be game theory questions (ex: save techniques, any time, checkpoints, etc), game engine features, controller schemes, etc.

Initially I think these will be what we see the most come out of Area51 as the users of SO/SF/SU who already know how things work will want to use it for questions they previously couldn't post.

Nothing to do with the Trilogy
I think the heading is pretty clear on this one.

ex: Home Improvement
Again, pretty self explanatory. I think it is a very good proposal and look forward to participating in it.

These will be the gems of Area 51 but depending on the topic will take longer to come out until more people outside of the Trilogy cross-over get introduced to the system. Luckily, the user base is already big so our "other interests" should be diverse enough to seed these but will need to be proactive about sharing to our non coder/sysadmin/enthusiast friends and family.

  • It follows from this that the "linux" and "unix" tags on SO, SF, and SU should now be removed / deprecated. Otherwise rather than consolidating "Linux & Unix" on one site, we now spread it across four. Is this your intention? Commented Aug 18, 2010 at 2:55
  • I agree, as a game developer, I do not like existence of Game Development SE site at all. Using "game development" tag on SO seems enough to me. While GD has some specifics, most of it is a general software engineering anyway.
    – Suma
    Commented Aug 18, 2010 at 8:29

I have to agree, which is why I've taken pains to make my own Q/A proposals not overlap with SO.

Hopefully things like this will be community policed and they'll never get the requisite number of followers to make it to an actual SE2.0 site.

Edit: Drupal came out of nowhere and suddenly has a dozen followers. But if Wordpress and Google get sites, I suppose Drupal should get one, too.

  • 2
    The proposer of the jQuery site said he hopes to attract gurus who wouldn't otherwise go to StackOverflow. Maybe he's right; I don't know. That approach seems to work for other high-end sites like MathOverflow.
    – user102937
    Commented Jun 3, 2010 at 16:51
  • 11
    @Robert does StackOverflow lack jQuery gurus? The jQuery questions get high quality answers in a timely manner. Commented Jun 3, 2010 at 17:11
  • I'm following the Drupal proposal and there are issues that would be outside of SO. Definitely some overlap, though.
    – squillman
    Commented Jun 3, 2010 at 17:44
  • 1
    @Tadeusz: It doesn't. But it's a question of focus. MathOverflow is the gold standard for the good things that can happen when you insist on a tightly-defined scope and audience. MathOverflow only accepts research-grade questions, so it attracts a highly-elite group of mathematicians that wouldn't be there if it were just a run-of-the-mill mathematics site.
    – user102937
    Commented Jun 3, 2010 at 18:43
  • 2
    @Robert: Maths is a special case because there are millions of kids who are forced to learn maths, even though they couldn't care less about it. Commented Jun 4, 2010 at 12:18
  • 2
    @Tadeusz: I don't understand why that is relevant.
    – user102937
    Commented Jun 4, 2010 at 14:37
  • 1
    @Robert: "Research-level math" is still an incredibly broad topic just like "programming" is broad for SO. It doesn't seem that tightly-defined, though it is tighter than SO. By comparison to MathOverflow, "all math" is perhaps too broad for the good things you mention to spontaneously appear.
    – Gnome
    Commented Jun 21, 2010 at 0:19

On Stack Exchange site Epistemology

I'm going to make an argument that the current Stack Exchange sites are (a) too broad and (b) aligned in ways that may alienate significant communities of potential users. One can observe situations where Stack Overflow does a poor job of getting answers to long-tail questions, probably due to their being lost in the noise. I can also see at least one significant and fairly coherent field where I directly work. Subject material pertinent to that field covers multiple sites and has a significant body of related knowledge where none of the sites appear to be a good fit.

This piece discusses the issue and an example of a field with a brief explanation of the reasoning as to why Stack Exchange sites aren't a particularly good fit for the domain.

Falling in the cracks

I have seen one or two examples of (nominally) development related topics that tend to get poor response off Stack Overflow, which I'll discuss below. Conversely, I can think of topics (one specifically) that sort of fall in the cracks between the sites and even other proposed sites.

On a couple of occasions before, I've suggested that a M:M relationship between sites and questions might not be a bad thing, although it might be a bit of a performance to implement. In this case, moderators or users with appropriate levels of reputation points could poach questions from one board and reflect it on another.

There is also enough overlap between people's perceptions of the boundaries that some questions could sensibly live on different boards - and different moderators may well have different opinions about what belongs where.

Without attempting to plug the proposal, I suggested a site on Area 51 that would have significant overlap with Stack Overflow, Server Fault and Super User, plus some overlap with other proposals on the Area 51 site. In my opinion (which is why I proposed it) the epistemology of the proposal would suit a coherent (and potentially quite large) body of users with a range of questions that might have significant overlap with several other sites.

One could argue that the large user base on Stack Overflow is a bit of a double edged sword. Obscure or highly specialised long tail questions do actually tend to get lost in the noise. While there are people who may well know the answer, the volume of .NET questions tends to drown other things out.

However, I don't see that splitting Stack Overflow into .NET and 'everything else' would work as people aren't going to go to a 'Stack Overflow for non-mainstream stuff that nobody's interested in' board. Splitting or specialising this type of question could only really be done on the basis of topic areas that people can actually relate to. People would actually have to have boards with topic areas that they identify with.

From a 'market segment' or sociological point of view, Stack Overflow style boards would work best if the split went with a topic area that people can relate to. Currently we have 'Programmers', 'System admins', and 'computers for everyone else'. I think any other sites really need to be for things that people could identify themselves with, so they feel some affinity to the site and a reason to 'hang out' there.

Case study (warning: implicit plug for proposal on Area 51)

I put up a proposal for a 'Business Intelligence' forum on Area 51 (not telling you anything you can't see by stalking my account there). There was some specific reasoning behind this, although the site isn't all that good at providing space for supporting blurbs to explain this sort of thing. The main reasons I set up this proposal were:

  • Business Intelligence is a fairly multi-disciplinary activity. Questions in this field could easily fall into Stack Overflow, Server Fault or Super Users's catchment.

  • Quite a lot of practitioners in this field don't view themselves as programmers - often people working in this space are power users or semi-technical 'IT-finance' types who wouldn't intuitively identify with a programming forum.

  • This field actually employs more staff than software development does. If you look at statistics on job boards, far more jobs are tagged with 'SQL' than even major programming languages like Java, C or C#. Most of these positions are actually analyst roles where 'database skills' are required for reporting.

Again, people in these roles are probably not going to identify with a programming forum. I'll argue that this is potentially quite a large pool of punters for a Q&A site that would fall in the cracks between current Stack Exchange offerings. Note, however, that 'getting the word out' to this group of people might be somewhat slower than (say) to an audience of Internet-centric software developers.

  • It's not simply an Excel 'power user' forum, as many such people are actually using specialised Business Intelligence tooling (one of the main SQL Server Analysis Tutorials on the web is actually written by an accountant), and a lot of 'tools guys' in the industry are actually self-taught people from the 'business side'.

In most cases (I build data warehouse systems for a living) these people are actually some of the primary customers of the systems I build. Quite often they find themselves building ad-hoc systems - I've seen plenty of instances of multinational companies where the finance department maintained their own data warehouse system, essentially built by 'amateur' developers from within the business.

This field covers quite a wide range of people, levels of technical skill, and tooling ranging from Excel to Business Intelligence tools to bespoke software. Quite a lot of people active in this field would not see themselves as developers, and might well relate more to a 'Business Intelligence' forum than a scattering of Stack Exchange sites.

Enough of the plug, what's the point?

I think this is an example of a field where the current boundaries of the Stack Exchange sites are not really a good fit, but it does have significant overlaps with the existing sites (other examples might be 'ERP Systems' or SEO). I also find that Stack Overflow is farily ineffective at getting answers to deep questions about Business Intelligence tools - for example, try asking technical questions on SQL Server Analysis Services, Cognos or MicroStrategy there.

I also would suspect that quite a few questions the 'power users' end find themselves getting pushed off to Super User, which is also not terribly good at answering 'power user' questions. Around 1.1% of the questions on Super User are tagged 'excel' and 'access' and 'ms-access' make about 0.25% of the questions. Questions about VBA sometimes get referred to Stack Overflow. This suggests that the epistemological boundaries of the sites are a poor fit for this type of user.

Get to the point

From this we can see an example of a field which one might intuitively think is an appropriate fit for Stack Overflow, but in fact is poorly served by the existing arrangement of the sites. There are probably other potential areas of interest to significant bodies of people where the sites in their current form look like they might serve but probably don't in practice.

On this basis, you might well get better results by farming off bits of subject material to more specialised sites. While people with the knowledge to answer to the question might frequent Stack Overflow, my experience is that specialised long-tail questions are quite likely to get lost in the noise.

When Stack Overflow was younger - in its public beta phase - the volume was much smaller, and individual questions were quite likely to get more attention. This suggests that there is actually an optimum community size for this type of forum. Loosely, you could view the probability of getting an answer to a long-tail question as a function that is:

  • Proportional to the number of users on the site who know about the topic.

  • Inversely proportional to the number of unrelated questions pushing the question down the 'new' or 'hot rankings, which is proportional to the number of users asking questions on popular topics and the number of people answering questions on popular topics. You can see a network effect here that will strongly favour questions on mainstream topics.

  • Probably also adversely affected by the likelihood that people who know about your topic aren't interested in the mainstream topics and get turned off by the fact that they never see any questions on topics that they are interested in.

Thus, there is probably an optimal community size and level of coherence for a site that will produce the best results for long tail questions on a given topic. If the sites were something that a coherent body of people could relate to then smaller sites with a more focussed community might actually do a better job of providing answers than an all-encompassing Stack Overflow.


I'll argue here that the current epistemology of the sites is too general, and this arrangement is not doing a good job of answering questions in some long tail fields that are nominally supposed to be covered by the existing sites. To do a really good job of long-tail questions, sites need to be optimised for:

  • A community that people can identify with, so that punters would see something that they intuitively view as being of interest to them. It would also have to be something that would attract a core of expert users, so it can't be dumbed down too far.

  • A level of speciality and focus on a coherent subject area, so that you don't see too much of the 'poor cousin' effect observed on more esoteric topics on Stack Overflow.

  • The right size community to keep the average likelihood of meeting eyeballs at a level where there enough users but not such a large volume of questions that stuff gets missed.

Thus one could argue for a set of more specialised boards with distinct communities, even within topics that are currently nominally covered by other sites. Specifically, topics that are not particularly well served by incumbent sites due to the 'poor cousin' effect are likely to be better candidates.

The epistemological breakdown should not be too granular. SAP R/3 (or any specific product) is too granular. 'ERP & CRM Systems' might be a better fit. I think the optimal breakdown for the purposes of forming a community would probably follow distinct groups of people who would view themselves as being in a professional field (hence 'Business Intelligence' as an example above).

Some thoughts on what might or might not make good communities:

  • Databases: Maybe, but Stack Overlow and Server Fault do a passably good job of this now so I don't think there's a practical deficiency in the cover being provided already. However, other boards like SQL Server Central cover programming and admin questions. A database specific board (that is, split Server into server/infrastructure and database boards and aggregate database content from Stack Overflow) might work a bit better. However, the existing service provided by Stack Overflow and Server Fault isn't significantly lacking, so this is probably best viewed as a case of 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'

  • Business Intelligence: already discussed at length above.

  • Content Management systems: Although not explicitly in the brief of Stack Overflow, this is for all intents and purposes a core topic in the Stack Overflow community. Probably counterproductive unless there are a lot of long-tail questions getting missed that I didn't notice.

  • Kernel hacking: probably too specialised and it tends to be fairly served by existing forums like the LKML.

  • U.I. design and HCI: not particularly well served by Stack Overflow and the field includes graphic designers, systems analysts, QA and interaction people who might not necessarily relate to a programming community. Maybe a candidate for another board.

  • Excel/Access power users: Somewhat product specific, but falls in the gap between Stack Overflow and Super User and (in practice) not particularly well served by either. Large numbers of potential users (assuming that they can be made aware of such a board), so it may be viable on this basis alone. There are certainly quite a few incumbent sites on this subject, so there's evidence of demand, if not necessarily an open niche. May be worth doing if the Stack Exchange people decide that they want to be expansionistic.

  • Other specialised development areas such as game development: If there is evidence of a sufficient body of people who might identify with the subject area and a tendency for long tail questions to get drowned out then fields within programming might be a candidate for their own site. If a specialised board would do a better job of addressing the long tail stuff and it can get a large enough user base you might make a case for segmenting it off Stack Overflow.

  • Great discussion. +1000 (I'd vote it up but can't yet. If only I had my reputation from other sites available here.) Except I disagree when you start saying what you think is too narrow. SAP R/3 would be appropriate if there are enough people who want it. Same with all the other things you state are too specialized. If there are enough people to support having "their own room" then let them. Given the Area51 process, it should be a moot point. Commented Aug 18, 2010 at 4:50
  • I'm not sure that 'enough people who want it' constitutes all the necessary criteria. This could lead to local maxima that are not necessarily optimal. For example, you could end up with a SAP R/3 site and users of other ERP systems getting left out in the cold with none of the other ERP systems getting a critical mass. Commented Aug 18, 2010 at 15:11

I imagine this really depends on how much the subject is contained within Stack Overflow. For example, consider SharePoint Overflow. A lot of SharePoint can be discussed on Stack Overflow when you are dealing with the object model. But UI and design questions certainly wouldn't fit in Stack Overflow. In an old meta question, it was recommended that if a question can fit on both sites, then post it at both sites and get answers at both.

It is a bit iffy to fully divide a new site if its content is completely a subset of Stack Overflow and there are no questions which couldn't be asked there. But if it's only a partial overlap, I don't see any problem with letting it continue.

  • Agreed. (Even though I detest it) SharePoint should get it's own site if enough people will support it. Commented Aug 18, 2010 at 4:56

I just found this discussion, and I was the one who suggested jQuery Answers. It hasn't resonated yet (which is okay, that's part of the process) but I think that it may in time as the StackExchange process gets to be know my more people.

@ManiacZX - your idea of subset portals makes some sense. Having a way to carve off only those things about jQuery would be helpful and to be able to have a list of reputation only for jQuery would be good to.

But there is a downside. I've seen people who are generalists who try to answer question that their generalist knowledge makes them less capable of answering, and then because of being lost in the noise nobody follows up to vote those answers down.

Anyway, I left a long comment over on @Robert's blog post on Ubuntu about why an attempt to guard against "splintering" is ultimately a lost cause.


developer testing is the one that's currently about a week-ish from going to beta.

You must log in to answer this question.