As an avid user of a site in a similar situation that is not seven years old, I'm very pleased to see this. I do not share the worries expressed in other answers here that similar but younger sites may find this bad in some ways.
I too think that the 10 QPD criterion isn't a good one. Retrocomputing is exceeding all other current criteria, sometimes by a ...
It's a bit odd to see the Windows Phone site graduating. Microsoft discontinued Windows Mobile in 2017 and official support is ending in four months (December 2019).
Is the future for Windows Phone guaranteed? Why graduate a site for a discontinued product?
When will the reputation criteria for privileges on these sites be updated?
For example, I can still vote to close questions on the no-longer-beta Writing, despite the fact that I don't have the amount of reputation there that would normally be required on a graduated site (3,000).
Is this something that will catch up to the status change—and, if so, when?
That's great! It didn't make sense to have well-established sites with stable policies, an established community and sustained activity carry the label “beta”. You haven't found the perfect formula to decide when a site comes out of beta, ok, but that doesn't mean you should do nothing: an imperfect approximation is a lot better than doing nothing.
I figure I might as well ask about the elephant in the room:
Is 7 years the magic number for Beta removal?
Politics.SE, for instance, is 6 years, 8 months old and still Beta. Is graduation now automatic at 7 (which we hit in 4 months), or is this just a one-off "Let's do something about Beta!" event that might happen again in 6-8 weeks?
We need a better idea of how many avid users a site has.
Right now Bob who answered one question 5 years ago that hit the Hot Questions list and got 200 reputation from it before disappearing off the face of the earth is counted as an avid user.
Users who show up and write one awesome answer and then leave are great but they really aren't ...
No impact at all. There is still a so-called graduation process in place (even if that process is way broken and changes are in progress).
This was a simple quick-fix for sites that were so obviously NOT "in beta testing", we could do something RIGHT NOW with little risk of waiting to solve all the problems with that process.
The overwrought graduation ...
These 29 sites are no longer labelled as Beta sites due to having completed 7 years, without meeting the current graduation criteria, and presumably without being required to meet any future graduation criteria.
This is great for those sites, and I congratulate them on their many years of striving towards the goal of graduating! However, some of the ...
This question is basically asking something much more abstract: what's the purpose of beta? That is, why do we need this beta state to live between Area 51 idea and a "non-beta" site?
This question matters even more now, since the "beta" designation is now decoupled from most of the things we presently recognize as being consequences of being in beta: ...
A while ago graduation was based on a fairly thorough manual review. Back then I once checked a bunch of graduated sites, compared them to older sites that appeared to be stuck in beta and tried to figure some patterns that could make reviewers feel that particular site is good enough to graduate.
The only thing I saw in common in these manually approved ...
Even though I'm happy for those sites, I have a mixed feelings on this.
SE had metrics for beta sites to graduate.
This sites have been doing their best to fit them.
And now you just said: "Forget it, it doesn't matter. Just 7 years...".
I'm sure you had a lot discussion with team... For me it looks like you don’t know what to do with beta sites, they ...
How long on average does it take for a post to go through the review queues?
The faster rude/spam/low quality posts get deleted the better.
Closing posts before they get answers helps everyone while reopening them quickly encourages fixing them.
Quick turnaround on suggested edits encourages the editors.
Helping new users by reviewing and ...
Looking at the objective of Stack Exchange, we are different from other forums and QA sites in the case that a community is focused on particular topic and provides quality and reliable information about that topic.
Stack Exchange is a network of 174 communities that are created and run by experts and enthusiasts like you who are passionate about a ...
In broad terms, I believe the question of when a site comes out of beta should be looked at from a holistic perspective. I don't think it should have to be entirely successful in every category, or meet every specific criteria as has been the case historically, but that it should, synergistically, accomplish an overall goal. Some sites may be stronger in ...
Space Exploration isn't consistently having 10+ questions per day, not even if you include closed & deleted questions:
(that's questions per week, to account for the weekends being slower)
Otherwise, the Community Team is still discussing about the graduation process, as @Catija mentioned here:
As @MonicaCellio says, we're in the process of re-...
The arguments are:
The sites didn't met the required conditions for departure from beta.
The sites were existing for 7 years which is a long time.
Best case scenario:
An extra rule is added. Future sites will depart from beta if they are available for minimum 7 years.
Worst case scenario:
An exception is made. Now the previous rules do apply or not? It ...
It could be basic metrics, like, total questions/answers, just to see grow.
For example, for SOru, in its early stage, we can see grow of q/a in total:
все сообщения => all posts.
вопросы => questions.
ответы => answers.
This metrics are not enough to say about meeting graduation criteria. But it could be used with other metrics.
My starting point would be to have a small number of clear numerical indicators.
Ideally, those indicators should be stable in time so that the values do not jump all too much between adjacent days.
With a sufficiently small number of indicators there is less need to calculate averages.
I would like to see something like this:
There are three numerical ...
Apart from a well defined scope I would define health as:
People come and ask questions and get their questions answered. This is the number of questions per day, the number of unique people asking a question, the rate of visitors that ask a question, the rate of questions that get positively scored or accepted answers.
People come and write answers. This ...
There are cryptic references to "future rule changes" here, but it seems to me the SE "voting model" depends critically on having a site with a sufficiently large community that there are knowledgeable members who are not "committed to keeping the site in existence" and as such are happy to downvote poor content wherever it comes from.
As such, this sounds ...