All StackExchange sites have the reputation linked between the actual site, and the meta. Will this be rolled out for meta.so?

Also, now that every StackExchange site has a meta, will ServerFault and SuperUser finally get their own meta sites?


3 Answers 3


That will definitely be the model for all future Stack Exchange 2.0 sites.

We're not sure if it will backport to Stack Overflow -- SO is large enough that it can support the "Washington, D.C. capital" of meta sites.

However, I have considered it for Server Fault and Super User...

  • Are there any advantages to treating the trilogy differently to SE2? Also, there will hopefully come an SE2 site that becomes bigger than SO - will it be treated differently too? Commented Jul 10, 2010 at 14:02

I still think we need a place to discuss the engine rather than the sites themselves.

Bugs and (by and large) feature requests will be common across all sites and I can see a need for a place to discuss cross site issues such as migrations.

If this site were renamed meta.stackexchange.com (for example, but it's unlikely as that already exists) then this would break the idea of this being Stack Overflow's meta perhaps.

I also think that there's less need for the existing, established sites to have their own meta's as the kinds of questions and discussions that are happening on the new sites aren't necessary here to the same extent - colour schemes, site name are fixed, 404 and captcha images are unlikely to change, FAQ changes and moderator nominations/elections happen infrequently.


... reputations linked ... Will this be rolled out for meta.so?

Bad, bad idea. I would be very much against this.

Meta.stackoverflow is a special situation. The "stackoverflow" portion of meta.stackoverflow refers to Stack Overflow Inc. The decision was made that meta.SO would become the corporate-wide Stack Overflow Inc Q&A site — Q&A about the products, the engine, the activities, and the philosophy of Stack Overflow Inc. Only a very small portion of meta.SO traffic is about the support of the site, stackoverflow.com.

Jeff said (talking about meta.WebApps):

The more you participate on webapps, the more "stake" you should have in how the site is governed and run here on meta.

The "stake" the members have here are largely in other Stack Overflow Inc. products. Users can have a really big stake in what happens with other Stack Overflow Inc. products with literally NO presence at all on stackoverflow.com.

You don't have the same overlap of audience and purpose between meta.SO and SO.com that you have with, say, meta.Webapps and Webapps.com.

Linking the reputations of the two would be a really bad idea.

Side note: The trilogy sites will likely want to start establishing their own identities. With the immense scope of meta.SO, it is starting to harm the individual communities which don't have a place for focused meta of their own.

It's odd that ALL Stack Exchange sites will have their own meta... except our largest, flagship sites. It's just a matter of pragmatism that we have to consider if it is just too hairy an issue to tackle right now.

  • 1
    But what if meta.so started only being used for SO, and meta.se was used for SE2 and other Stack Overflow Inc. products? Global totalled reputation could be used on this site, like area51. Commented Jul 11, 2010 at 9:31

You must log in to answer this question.

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